Superdelegates

[RationalThought110]

I don't know whether all the superdelegates will use their delegate vote or whether a lot of the uncommitted ones will not vote and rather let it go to the convention.


If we can somehow contact a superdelegate, one of them that would be good to get is Heath Schuler.  He is a former NFL football player--he played in the league for several years.  The liberal media wouldn't label him a racist if he were to choose Hillary over Obama. 

 
Schuler is a conservative Democrat, from North Carolina.  I don't think he'll endorse anyone before the NC primary.  He'll only be finishing his first term as a rep in the House.
However, he is a superdelegate and will probably have to give his vote in June. 


 He's more conservative on some issues than lots of Republicans are such as McCain. 


I don't think Schuler would want to give his delegate vote to someone who has surrounded himself with radical extremists for over 20 years. 


Keep the folliowing in mind:  Regardless of what Obama has stated publicly about Farrakhan recently, he still has radicals as advisers. 


Schuler is sort of an independent Democrat.  So I don't think he would give his delegate vote to Obama just because the DNC would want him to do so. 

I think he would be open to the facts and wouldn't want to give his delegate to someone who has constantly lied throughout the campaign--there's a list of at least 50 lies made by Obama, who radical extremists as adivisers, who supports partial-birth abortion, who is soft on crime, who supports giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, etc.   


So I think Schuler and some of the other conservative Democrats could be convinced to vote for Hillary over Obama.   Is there something we could do to influence their decision?

[RationalThought110]

Any ideas?

[Ari]

This is a good plan, RT.  We should write to Shuler.

[RationalThought110]

I've made an outline:


   
    Look at an outline I made that shows Obama is unqualified.


Obama's campaign is based on two arguments:

           1.  His claim to have good judgement

           2:  His claim to be a "uniter"


         Let's analyze both of these arguments which are false.


       1. Obama's false claim that he has good judgement.

                A.   He was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for over 20 years and has exposed his children to Wright's anti-American and Black ethno-centrist views.   Someone who claims to be a "uniter" has been exposing his children to a racist and allowing his children to learn racism.  So of course he's not a "uniter."    Obama's association with Wright also shows his bad judgement.

   
               B.     He's associated with William Ayers, who was a radical liberal extremist who attacked the pentagon and did other acts of terrorism.  When Obama ran for the state senate in Illinois, Ayers hosted a campaign organization meeting for the campaign as well as a fund-raiser.
.

            C.   Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko, who is under indictment.


      His association with Ayers shows his bad judgement.  And associating himself with an anti-American, radical, extremist, does not resemble anything close to a uniter.


           Obama has radical extremists as advisers.    *Someone make a list of all the anti-semites who he has as advisers.


   2.  Obama's false claim that he is a unifier. See the above  examples about his relationships with anti-American, radical, extremists.  And he has no record of being bi-partisan.  Rather, he seems to expect everyone to support his radical extreme positions.

                   He wrote in his first book about "Dreams from my Father" about how he's always had a distaste for those who aren't black.

         

     

  3.  And to show Obama's own ultra-liberal extremist views, he supports partial-birth abortion.  And Obama was very weak against fighting crime in Illinois.  He voted against legislation to make tougher laws against crime.  Also, he supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens.


   
      What happened was when he started his campaign, he called himself a unifier.  The media fell for it and kept repeating it.  Most people knew nothing about it; and since people wanted to believe it, lots of people started believing that he's a "unifier."


        But it's now clear that his lying rhetoric is different from the actual facts--reality. 



       It also must be made clear that at least 80% of the primary voting occurred before people knew about Obama's church and his other relationships with Ayers and Rezko, as well as his extremist positions on issues. 

       If the voters knew the truth about him, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would have finished ahead of him in the Iowa Caucuses. 

[Ari]

That is an excellent outline, RT.

[RationalThought110]

That is an excellent outline, RT.

   
       Do we need to transform it into a more brief and concise letter?  If so, others will need to help.  Don't expect me to figure it all out alone.

[Ari]

I really think it's well written.   

[RationalThought110]

And how if he is unable to understand the philosophy of that church after 20 or more years, how could he be trusted to meet with the president of Iran (like Obama wants to do) and make conclusions about the intentions of Iran's president.