Ronald Maxwell has some thoughts on the Democrat nominating process:

Hundreds of thousands of voters from Florida and Michigan had their votes canceled out, divided up, and reapportioned. Why should it matter what conflicting Democratic committees said at the time or what any of the candidates said at the time? The irrefutable fact of the matter is that neither election was canceled. Both elections were held and the citizens of both states went to the polls in an open, fair, and democratic election fully believing they were casting votes to decide who the Democratic nominee for president would be. These voters, and by extension the entire American electorate, were deceived, betrayed, and disenfranchised.

MSNBC may disagree, but this is no insignificant matter. It is not, as they would have us believe, a trivial matter of arcane rules and regulations. It is a direct assault on our liberty.

We’ve seen and heard it all before — the commissars in the Soviet Union interpreting election results. “Well,” they say, “there was bad weather in the Ukraine and the miners couldn’t get to the polls that day. Should we penalize the miners? Of course not. The miners, had they shown up, would have voted for Vladimir. Everyone knows that. To say otherwise is to be against the miners. It is to be against the true Will of the People, which only we can devine. So, we’ll assign their votes to Vladimir.”

How many times on Saturday did we hear the phrase that should make every free citizen shiver, “The true Will of the People.” “We know what the voters of Michigan or Florida intended to do, because we have the exit polls, or we have the MSNBC poll, or we have the anecdotal evidence.” Instead of simply counting votes, which is the only fair thing to do with votes in any election anywhere — the members of the Democratic-party rules Committee deem it in their purview to decipher votes, interpret votes, translate votes — anything but count them! Then, to add fantasy to falsehood they insisted on conjuring votes that were never even cast. After all, so goes their illogic, if voters didn’t show up who otherwise would have, its up to the Committee members to discern how they would have voted if they did.

As he points out, there is no nominee until votes are cast at the convention, and Obama still doesn’t have a majority of the pledged delegates. The Central Committee Memberssuperdelegates are flocking to him now (like lemmings?), but they aren’t committed to vote for him, and can change their minds at any time up until August. As has been pointed out before, Ted Kennedy went into the 1980 convention with a much smaller proportion of delegates than Hillary! has, fighting all the way until his concession speech.

Of course, given the results then, it’s understandable that the politburo wants to resolve this now. But that doesn’t make it right. Or…democratic. But I hope they get their way–Obama is by far the weaker candidate, though both are unelectable.

Some useful thoughts from Jonah Goldberg on the “social gospel.”

[Update a few minutes later]

His last point is an important one, I think (and why Obama may actually have a prayer of being elected, sadly):

Anyway, I guess the point is that the politicized Christian rhetoric, or Christianized political rhetoric isn’t unique to this obscure black church in Chicago or even to the work of black theologians generally. Rather, it is much more central to the progressive tradition generally. As Joe Knippenberg and other’s have argued Obama’s Christianity is the Christianity of Jim Wallis and others who think God is a welfare state liberal. And while I can understand why many on the right would want to paint Obama as “out there,” I’m not as convinced that that’s the case. Indeed, I think the more lasting and serious threat comes from an impulse that’s much closer to home, as it were.

Still, I think that his war views will sink him, if his social, soft fascist views don’t.

[Update Monday evening]

Some observations about Obama’s “sacrifice.” But hey, isn’t sacrifice what messiahs do?

“Cassandra” has some very pungent commentary on Senator Obama and his church of twenty years:

What Barack Obama appears not to have noticed (at least judging by his public statements) is that if a preacher makes political statements in church about race that, had they been made by a white person about a black person, would be considered by any reasonably objective person to be racist, you have a veritable trifecta of newsworthiness. Where he repeatedly keeps missing the clue bus is here: American society has changed to the point where pretty much every white person I know would not feel comfortable staying in the room, were a white preacher to make comparable statements about blacks. People would deal with it in their own way.

There might be complaints. There might be calls for his resignation. Some might just leave the church quietly after the service. What I cannot under any circumstances imagine is a white audience hooting and hollering in open approval of such “destructive and divisive” rhetoric because it was rooted in the “white church” tradition. I cannot imagine the media giving a white politician a pass if he either defended or refused to denounce such words.

I cannot imagine the media maintaining that it was acceptable to passively listen to such rhetoric without objecting because it “did not reflect his beliefs”

I think that this comment (early on, so you won’t have to scroll far if the comments build) is important as well, and one that Americans of African descent should (or at least should have–it’s probably too late now, at least in terms of the nomination) carefully consider:

Given Obama’s damnfool fiscal policies, it is a good bet that he will take this country into the toilet, both domestically and on the foreign front, and go down in history as a worse president than Jimmy Carter.

How that will set back the cause of blacks as PotUs cannot be underestimated. If he does as crappy a job as I’m certain he will, then anytime anyone seriously suggests another black man — no matter how talented or able — for the PotUS, the response will be “look what happened with Obama!”.

And no matter how stupid and racist that idea is, it will have just enough appeal that it will be an albatross few blacks will be able to overcome. And so it will be literally several decades until another black man has a serious chance to become president.

So even if you strongly support the idea of a black as president — even if you want one a lot — you should have brains enough to realize that
a) Obama is not the right man for the job in the first place
b) it would be a bad thing for race relations to place so woefully ineffective a man into such a position.

Unfortunately, I think that’s right (though I hope it’s wrong). Which is another reason to not want Obama to be president.

On the other hand, regardless of what Hillary! says tomorrow night, I won’t believe that Obama is the nominee until the end of the convention.

…for telling Stormfront to pound sand. That will help, at least a little, to dewackify the Libertarian Party (or at least this candidate).