Thursday: Hillary’s Loyalty to what is left

waiting to vote in Zimbabwe

Evidence, both demonstrable and circumstantial, continues to show that Barack Obama “wins” by suppressing votes for his opponents.  For him, it is not sufficient to count the votes and determine the winner.  The votes for his rivals must be intimidated from being cast in the first place, as we have seen in the caucuses.  Or they must be discouraged from showing up in the voting booth as a result of relentless perception management broadcasts that his rival is finished cannot win anyway due to “the math”.  Or the votes need to be stolen in the form of unearned and reassigned delegates.  Or they have to be swindled as in the case of delegates who are misled on the rules of the convention and do not know they have the right to challenge state tallies in what we can predict will be a carefully planned dance that will keep the delegates guessing the state tallies until the very last minute. From Heidi Li’s Potpourri:

A single delegate can contest state’s roll call result: On a roll call vote by states, the vote cast on behalf of a delegation may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of that state’s delegation within ten (10) minutes after the Convention Secretary’s announcement of the state’s vote. The votes of that delegation shall then be recorded as polled without regard to any state law, party rule, resolution or instruction binding the delegation or any member thereof to vote for or against any candidate or proposition. The Convention Chair may send a parliamentarian to the delegation to conduct the poll. At the discretion of the Convention Chair, the roll call may continue instead of waiting for the result of the polling.On a roll call vote conducted by telephone or other electronic voting mechanism, the vote of a delegation as shown on the video projection system may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of the delegation within ten (10) minutes after the delegation’s vote is shown on the screen.

We have heard over and over throughout the past two months that Hillary is bound by her loyalty from rocking the boat. It has been said that loyalty has blunted her personal ambition. It is loyalty that stays her hand from seizing the reins of power from a party that is rapidly transforming itself into a copy of its conservative counterpart.

Loyalty.

Why does this scenario sound so familiar? Ahh, yes, it is very much like the “unity” theme that the Obama camp has been clubbing us over the head with since they got away with murdering Hillary voters at the RBC hearing. It’s another form of emotional blackmail. It keeps Hillary in line by calling on some personal principle. But who is demanding loyalty but people who have none, either to the party or to voters? What kind of people would go this far to suppress the will of more than 18 million voters? What kind of people would subvert their own processes in order to prevent anything other than their predetermined outcome?

We have evidence that Hillary is not the kind of person to hit below the belt. It surfaced last week in the Atlantic piece on the 200 emails from her campaign. Throughout the campaign, we saw her “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative”. We have seen her demonstrate her loyalty when she graciously left the stage in June so that Obama could attempt to unify the party. But there are limits to loyalty. When an entity seeks to destroy the party and the voters that gave it their trust, then loyalty must be set aside even at the risk of seeming to be personally ambitious.

For eight years, half of the country has been held hostage to the Republicans who came to power and held it by suppressing voters, first in Florida and then in Ohio in 2004. Bush and his party has looted the treasury and deliberately undermined the efficacy of government. They have been successful beyond their wildest imaginations. And they got away with it because they called on the civility and integrity of others to stay their hands. Al Gore graciously stepped aside in 2000. Kerry did not challenge the results even though thousands of African-Americans were left out in the cold on election day. Pelosi did not pursue impeachment for fear of losing the collegiality of the Congress.

At what point does a politician go from being a target of emotional blackmail to being complicit in her own destruction? And what if that politician stands to lose not only her own power but diminishes the power of all of her supporters? Is the threatened media firestorm of accusations and lies more damaging to the process than the loyalty that holds her in check? The process itself is in danger of becoming nothing more than a sham seen in countries at risk in their downward spiral towards suppression, corruption and economic insecurity.

So, what is the cost of loyalty? And can a politician remain true to herself and her country by freeing herself from the faithfulness to her tribe? Only a leader knows the answer to that question.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence