Conspiracy Theory, Why Hillary Clinton works best as Secretary of State for Barack Obama, but not necessarily for Hillary Clinton.

What if over the next three years the Republicans come to appreciate Hillary Clinton in Congress, A LOT. What if over the next three years, Hillary Clinton, as a congress person, is able to co-mingle both Democratic and Republican interests to balance out bills that otherwise would have an entirely democratic point of view?

What if Hillary Clinton's new found popularity is able to withstand MSNBC's inevitable attacks against her by full on support by Fox Television, Republicans, and Hillary Clinton supporters?

Is Barack Obama just trying to avoid a possible resurgence by Hillary Clinton three years from now in which Hillary Clinton Supporters and the Republicans join forces in the next presidential campaign? Since Republicans appear to have barely enough of a coalition to perhaps stop a democratic legislative steam rollering in congress for the next two years, and since both Clintons are very capable with dealing with both sides of the political landscape, could Barack Obama simply be preventing a strange coalition from forming over the next three years?

I'm not convinced that the top top layers of the Barack Obama regime are actually talented and ethical enough to win on a level playing field, a move like offering Hillary Clinton the secretary of state position could just be a way to keep their main competition out of the way.

---------------------------------

Can Bill Clinton serve in place of Hillary Clinton in congress while Hillary serves as Secretary of State? Then if Hillary Clinton doesn't work out as secretary of state, Bill could step aside and Hillary could be voted in?

I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter, and I APPROVED this Message.

This YouTube video explains why one Hillary Clinton Voter is voting for John McCain.

Muzzling Keith Olbermann, Somebody had to do it, Is Hillary Clinton Forum.net (and yours truly) responsible?

On October 8th, 2008, I posted a Topic complaining about MSNBC on HILLARYCLINTONFORUM.net, the topic was called, "MSNBC needs to be reported to the FCC, you can do your part".

Basically, my point was MSNBC has been committing ongoing political news fraud by reporting their own opinion, as fact. Twelve days later and suddenly Keith Olbermann has a big old CAMPAIGN COMMENT in the lower left (figures) hand corner of the screen.

FINALLY! This is a MAJOR, MAJOR DEAL. Superimposing the word opinion, or commentary, on the television screen mutes the impact of the words being spoken. People generally assume Newscasters are always dealing with facts. It is imperative that the viewer be reminded when the newscaster is speaking an opinion and not a fact. This is a major big deal and one that MSNBC will never cop to. MSNBC, BUSTED.

If you continue to see OBVIOUS OPINION, OR CONJECTURE, being reported as fact or inevitability by MSNBC, REPORT THEM TO THE FCC. LINK TO FCC TO REPORT CABLE NEWS ABUSE.

Just follow the directions. Lets be better than others and not waste the FCC's time the way ACORN wastes government resources. ACORN claims it is harmless to tie up government time and resources on ACORN generated voter fraud, so lets just stick with valid complaints, and that is quite easy to do when it comes to MSNBC.

An example of an FCC violation would be MSNBC reporting that it is becoming impossible for John McCain to win in a state. Just 2 minutes ago MSNBC said that Barack Obama was "gonna win" in a certain state. Sorry guys, that is OPINION, and unless there is a caption within the image being broadcast that states the comment IS OPINION, or COMMENTARY, MSNBC is quite possibly committing FRAUD. (Do you see how I added "quite possibly" to my statement. I did that because I may be right, or the FCC may disagree, but it is a VALID CONCERN that needs to be brought up.)

For additional specific examples of possible FCC abuses by MSNBC, click on this link that goes to my Fair Reflection blog and the article, Is MSNBC Opinion Generated News, News you can Trust?

If you want to see the original complaint topic that was started on Hillary Clinton Forum.net, Click on the image below to make it bigger, or click on the link below the image to go directly to the topic, then scroll up to the beginning of the topic.

"MSNBC needs to be reported to the FCC, you can do your part".

ACORN to be Barack Obama's Waterloo? It certainly helps explain how Barack Obama won so easily in the Caucus Contests Against Hillary Clinton.

Yes, math can be used to verify caucus fraud by Barack Obama's side. Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages against Hillary Clinton were ALL from caucus contests.

Primary Contests allow the voter a 12 hour time span to vote, the voter votes in the privacy of a voting booth, and there are a lot more voting places than caucues. Most voters travel much shorter distances to vote in a primary, and this is also the way it is done when people vote in November for our president.

Caucus votes are usually (but not always) started around 7PM. People first declare their vote publicly, then have to discuss their vote, then they vote again, many times using notebook paper to cast their "ballot". Caucus locations are much, much further spread out than when there are primaries. Caucuses can take from 2-4 hours to complete, all that time just to cast a vote.

Barack Obama won approximately 15 caucus state contests and 16-18 primaries, yet his top 11 highest winning percentages were ALL from his caucus victories, NONE were from his primaries. The odds of Barack Obama having his top 11 winning percentages all coming from caucus contests and none from his primary wins is well over 10,000 to one. It's just virtually impossible, unless some type of manipulation occurred, for Barack Obama to have his 11 highest winning percentages all coming from his caucus contest wins and none coming from his primary wins.

Caucus Contests use 88% less total voters to determine the same amount of delegates as states that hold primary contests. 88% less total voters in the caucus contests makes it a lot easier to manipulate results by having people show up who aren't even from that district.

Many caucus contests were held at night in early February in the great plains states which have very tough winters, once again favoring the youth attending and the elderly not attending. Other problems with caucus voting include older people not traveling at night in the winter whereas the younger kids embraced these events as a social gathering.

Even when ID was checked and people were from that voting district, it was very easy to double and triple vote since many times there were no official ballots, just notebook paper to vote on!

Many voters in the caucus contests that would favor Hillary Clinton were simply not able to travel within the very limited time frame and far far distances one would have to travel to vote in a caucus contest.

There are several examples where Hillary Clinton was leading or at the very least tied with Barack Obama in caucus state contest polling done just before the day of the vote, yet Barack Obama would still win the Caucus Contests by a 2-1 margin! Minnesota had Hillary Clinton leading by 7 points margin yet she lost the delgate count by a 2-1 margin!

Four states that held both primaries and caucuses each showed Hillary Clinton gaining massively on Barack in the primary vote as compared to the caucus vote. Nebraska, Washington State and Idaho all showed huge shifts towards Hillary Clinton when they held their primary vote after having a caucus vote. In Texas, Hillary Clinton actually won the primary vote and once again, lost the caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.

As additional proof, Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama did from all the non caucus contests, also known as primary contests. Even when Florida and Michigan are not counted Hillary Clinton still won more delegates than Barack Obama did in all of the remaining primary contests!

Hillary Clinton won more delegates than Barack Obama did when over 30 million people voted (again not even counting Michigan and Florida, states that Hillary Clinton was easily ahead of Barack Obama).

Only approximately 1.1 million people combined voted in all of the caucus contests, and that is where Barack Obama got his delegate margin of victory. Yes, the will of over 30 million democratic voters was overruled by the will of 1.1 million voters in caucus contests that do not follow the voting rules that are in place when we vote for a president in November.

Barack Obama's entire lead in the 2008 democratic nomination race came from the caucus contests. Barack's years as "community activist" where he recruited people to register anything that moved came in handy. Billionaire George Soros (who was recently spoofed on a Saturday Night live CSPAN segment) helped fund Barack Obama in a variety of ways. There was most likely massive mail in voting that Barack Obama benefited from. North Carolina is one state where Barack Obama had a hundred thousand vote mail in lead over Hillary Clinton even before the official day to vote had arrived.

That was the same day when Indiana mysteriously had late votes coming in and Hillary Clinton's 6-8 point lead turned into only a one point victory.

Yes, Barack Obama most probably did cheat, and his handlers absolutely make sure he is never asked any questions about his questionable wins in the caucus contests. What is saddest of all is that Barack Obama and his followers are the worst violators of the concept of "fair reflection". Robert Wexler of Florida did not even know what Fair Reflection meant during the Florida meeting to determine how to not count their votes.

Fair Reflection is a key component of what the democratic party is supposed to believe in, yet Barack Obama threw it under the bus this year because it was the only way he could win.

For additional suspicious activities by Pelosi and Clyburn that felled Hillary Clinton and could be related to ACORN, Clinton delegates bought by Pelosi and Clyburn

Don't Forget, Don't Surrender Your Vote, the 2008 Caucus Contests Corrupted the concept of Fair Reflection in the Democratic Party.

It is possible that the democratic higher ups were trying to create a level playing field for the 2008 democratic race. It is also possible that the D.N.C. did not realize that the age difference between Barack Obama supporters and the Hillary Clinton supporters would rear its ugly head in the caucus contests.

Once the inaccurate results started flowing in from the caucus contests, no effort was made by the D.N.C. or the media to acknowledge that fair reflection DID NOT happen in the caucus contests. The lack of Fair Reflection in the Caucus contests was ultimately the PIVOTAL reason Barack Obama won the nomination.

The spin being put out by the media was that Hillary Clinton did not put up a fight in the caucus contests. Hmm, let me get this straight, lets have a competition between the under 35 crowd with the over 45 crowd. The competitors on one side will use modern day technological devices that run the full gamut from IPods and Black Berrys to text messaging, along with raging hormones that will make the caucus the ultimate in social flirting. Let's pit this young group against older people that have already studied and researched their decision, basing it on 30 years of political history and knowledge, and who just want a full day to pick the time when they can go into voting booth and vote in private.

The democratic caucus contests destroyed Fair Reflection in 2008. The abomination of fair reflection in the caucus contests needs to be used as a political billy club to dethrone Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama AND HIS TEAM from the democratic party.

When the wildly inaccurate caucus results came in, the media began hyping Barack Obama's "winning streak". No accompanying announcement that well under a million voters spread throughout 6 caucus states had helped create a Barack Obama "winning streak" of 10 or 11 victories. The media focused completely on the winning streak and ignored the tens of millions of PRIMARY VOTERS who had already demonstrated the race was too close to call.

Nor did any of the media or the D.N.C. mention that polls taken just before the caucus contests were revealing that Hillary Clinton was either tied, or leading Barack Obama by as much as 7 points in MANY of the caucus contests that Hillary Clinton would lose by a 2-1 margin.

However, both the media and the D.N.C. were quick to remind us all that all the candidates had agreed that Florida and Michigan DID NOT COUNT. Funny how that works, wildly inaccurate caucus results DO COUNT, but Florida and Michigan DO NOT COUNT. The contests that favored Barack Obama counted, the ones that favored Hillary Clinton, did not.

Right on the heels of the caucus contest debacle, the media stepped in and stepped on the 2008 democratic race and began calling for Hillary Clinton to resign. The Barack Obama caucus contest victory turds were being polished over and over by the media and Barack Obama's team so that they would look like a pearl on Barack Obama's neck, and an albatross around Hillary Clinton's.

The damage was done, and what was once a 100 super delegate lead for Hillary Clinton was also stomped on by the media. Dan Abrams of MSNBC, and Donna Brazille demanded that the super delegates should not change the will of the pledged delegates, but which pledged delegates? Should the pledged delegates from the caucus contests that clearly destroyed the tenet of Fair Reflection matter more than the super delegates whose job it was to ensure a logical and responsible outcome to a close race? The answer from the media and the D.N.C. was a resounding yes, and that was the moment the D.N.C. lost me.

The idea that cheating, double voting, notebook paper ballots were supposed to matter more than carefully screened super delegates was a slap in the face to the entire democratic process.

Of course, once those super delegates switched to Barack Obama (and many were PAID $10.000 dollars TWICE to do so), suddenly the Barack Obama side had no problems with super delegates and how they voted.

Did anyone stop to consider that Hillary Clinton WON the pledged delegate race from ALL the primaries, even when Florida and Michigan were not counted! The media did not question why it was acceptable for more and more super delegates to flock to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama was losing the popular vote and the pledge delegate vote results over the final 10 weeks of the campaign! In fact, the media and the D.N.C. elite DEMANDED these super delegates flock to Barack Obama.

Even though Howard Dean actually stated that whichever candidate did better over the final 10 weeks would be the nominee, once again we saw how little words mattered from the D.N.C. whenever those words would favor Hillary Clinton.

So now we have entered a new phase, one in which many, and I mean many liberal pundits sound dumber and denser to me then at anytime that I can ever recall. Every spineless knee jerk attack against Sarah Palin just reminds me that these liberal "pundits" have a minimal conscience at best.

Michael Moore asks to have his name kept out of the Republican convention, yet it was Mr. Moore who butted into the middle of the 2008 democratic race with some rather idiotic and misinformed comments that made me wonder if someone had offered Michael Moore an "incentive" to stick his nose where it did not belong, the middle of a very close democratic race.

The list of liberal pundits who were bought off or simply could not shut up and be neutral while the people voted is shockingly long.

Even after the Denver convention, a new wave of dumb liberal talk has emerged with Alan Colmes perhaps having made the daffiest of all comments when Mr. Colmes basically stated that Sarah Palin caused her own down syndrome baby. But then when Colmes quickly took the column off of the internet, he blamed it on the "disgusting comments" that republicans were making in response to his idiotic column. Pinhead liberal pundits and politicians that were not man enough to admit they were bought is how I will remember the 2008 democratic race.

As a lifelong democrat, I never thought I would have to borrow clothing from my Republican brothers and sisters, until now. If I take the Republican label off in the future, it will only be because those that ran the D.N.C. amok in 2008 by blindly supporting Barack Obama, have been swept up and away by the force and sheer volume of their own hot air, perhaps also know as the real cause of global warming.

I found this link AFTER I had written my column above, see the unity of protest among totally different writers, one on the west coast, the other on the east coast.

How David Axelrod Corrupted Barack Obama.

One of the bulls eye moments in this years campaign was John McCain mentioning that Barack Obama had only been to Iraq once, whereas every other major presidential candidate had been there at least three times or more. From the moment this point was made a couple of months ago, it was pretty evident that Barack Obama would need to go visit the troops at least one more time this year.

I also think it's fair to say that if the "Barack in Iraq" topic hadn't been brought up by McCain, Barack might not not have made it a priority, unless there was some strategic advantage to be gained by going to Iraq.

Yesterday on MSNBC, the "Barack in Iraq" situation was discussed with David Axelrod on MSNBC. Mr. Axelrod looked right into the camera and without so much as a finger wag nor a flinch, said that Barack going to Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with John McCain bringing up the topic.

It saddened me to see the absolutely unflinching, completely sociopathic look on Mr. Axelrod's face as he attempted to look into the camera and try and be believeable as he downplayed McCain's role in Barack going to Iraq.

Rather than for once, just once, giving McCain a minor bit of credit for a shot across the bow that actually made a slight dent in the Barack Obama facade, and THEN downplaying it as not being that big of a deal, Axelrod was in full denial mode as he stated that Barack Obama had planned all along to go to Iraq.

It reminded me of the Pee Wee Herman movie when he goes over the handlebars of his own bicycle and makes a spectacular summersault and crash, and then looks up at a group of kids and says, "I meant to do that".

It saddened me because as I watched Axelrod lose all credibility right in front of my eyes, I realized that it is his sociopathic mindset that has contaminated whatever purity Barack Obama may have still had before his campaign began.

Deny everything, never admit any weakness, just power through on down the road. You know, the way the Bush administration does it.

Change, what change?

MSNBC and Huffington Post Lay it on Thick as Hillary Clinton is Forced to Suspend her Campaign.

The false platitudes pour in from both Huffington Post and MSNBC over Hillary Clinton's forced suspension speech. Forcing a suspension speech from Hillary Clinton so early after the end of democratic nomination race, when Hillary Clinton had had as many popular votes if not more than the presumptive nominee (Barack Obama), is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Fox News seems to support the presumptive Republican candidate, but did Fox News actually demand that John McCain be the nominee? Doubtful.

It appears that Fox did not have anywhere near as much of a hand in selecting the actual Republican candidate as MSNBC and Huffington Post have had in pushing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In the past, billionaire tycoons may have backed one political party over another, but this year a billionaire has actually controlled the american news media and internet news into favoring a specific candidate (Barack Obama) over the more popular candidate (Hillary Clinton), when both were with the same political party. This apparently takes the practice of "billionaire butting in" to a whole new, corrupt level.

From my point of view, disassembling the democratic party and reassembling it with higher ups that don't take their walking orders from George Soros and Arianna Huffington is the best way to save the democratic party in the long run. While Barack Obama talks a good game about change, if he is successful in his run for the presidency he will actually set back the democratic party a decade or more as future candidates will have to be approved by George Soros and Arianna Huffington.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama won because of the constant media attack against Hillary Clinton. The media attack was pinioned on the result of the fraudulent over votes in the caucus state contests. MSNBC and all news media refused to address the lack of Fair Reflection in the Great Plains Caucus contests. Barack Obama won by wildly inaccurate amounts in the caucus state votes, and all the media will say about this is that Barack Obama had better ground forces in those states.

Nobody dares to bring up the concept of "Fair Reflection", except for the coolest head on the block, Harold Ickes.

MSNBC Fans the Flames of Hate, Obamabots Scream out insults at Hillary Clinton.

You can read for yourself how MSNBC is probably endangering the life of Hillary Clinton with their inflammatory, non-stop harrassing of Hillary Clinton. Enraged Obamabots, possibly fueled by the constant MSNBC content clamoring for Hillary to quit, pose as Hillary Clinton supporters to get as close to her as possible before revealing their barely contained hate and anger. These are not my democrats, are they yours?

Hillary Clinton accosted by Confused, Lunatic Obamabots

Andrea Mitchell this morning continues to fuel anger against Hillary Clinton with continued prodding of "Friends of Hillary" as to why Hillary won't quit yet.