Freepology Today: Will Hillary's Racist Election Fraud Save Obama from Being Whacked?

[theredpen]

Last night was a bad night for Freepers. They were excited to see Senator Clinton lose again to Senator Obama and that didn't happen. Instead, Hillary achieved a "stunning victory" (reality check: the two Senators effectively tied for first place).

Freepers also desperately love Fred Thompson. Sadly for them, Thompson's showing was pathetic. Ron Paul effectively tied for fourth place with Rudy Giuliani each of which got nearly an order of magnitude more votes than Thompson. That's gotta hurt because both Paul and Giuliani are fiercely despised by most Freepers.

According to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950821/posts">The Daily FRead, a daily Free Republic posting of Fred Thompson campaign news, "They were voting in New Hampshire, but Fred Thompson was stumping in South Carolina." This is taken from what is supposed to be a pro-Fred posting, but it makes the guy sounds like a senile old man who doesn't know where he's supposed to campaign. I had to reread the sentence because I thought "stumping" was "stumbling" the first time through. In the unlikely event that he wins the nomination, should we look for Thompson to take his campaign on the road in Canada?

The hottest topic, of course, is Hillary Clinton's surprise first-place finish in the primary. That's a hot topic here, too, but the discussions here are reality-based. It's sorta like how New York City is a much different place in the Spider Man or Men In Black movies than it is to people who experience it in our world.

First of all, you have to understand that in the Freeper Universe, Bill and Hillary Clinton are the rulers of an all-powerful "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=shadowparty">Shadow Party." This evil consortium is funded by George Soros and provides the secret marching orders that really determine what happens in the Democratic Party. The ultimate goal of this secret cabal is to raise taxes (just to punish the rich) and force everyone into gay marriages. As one Freeper helpfully http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950450/posts?page=47#47">points out:

The HUGE underlying current here that EVERYONE seems to be missing is that the GAY LEFT now sees Hillary as thier ONLY hope for the “Gay Civil Rights” agenda (whatever that is)...

They make up a HUGE part of the Shadow Party itself...

Obama is seen as HOMOPHOBIC, and for the Establishment Dems, that cannot be toerated...

47 posted on 01/08/2008 2:07:49 PM PST by tcrlaf (VOTE DEMOCRAT-You'll look great in a Burka!)

As you can see, this is one of the geniuses who believes that there is a credible danger that America may fall under the control of the control of a radical Islamic element that could barely control Afghanistan — and that was with support from Pakistan.

The point is that the Freepers believe that Hillary Clinton is secretly in control of the whole process and is going to win the nomination regardless of what happens. As Freeper Resolute Conservative http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1950830/posts?page=2#2">explains, Hillary had this all planned out, including the media coverage which she controls through the "Shadow Party":

I have my suspicions that all the negative press, like the Post story about her starting to panic were plants by her to give her momentum coming out of NH where she knew she’d win. The tide had changed overnight and if so was a brilliant move.

Never, never underestimate the lengths they will go to to win especially know that Serpenthead and Forehead are back from the pit.

2 posted on 01/09/2008 7:56:00 AM PST by Resolute Conservative

"Serpenthead" and "Forehead" are references to James Carvill and Paul Begala, respectively.

By far the most popular theory as to how Hillary beat expectations is through voter fraud. There are a lot of fairly obvious speculations, including that she bussed in people from New York state, but by far the most intriguing comes from IrishMike who appears to claim that crying is voter fraud:

She won the same way John Kerry won, with a little voter fraud for insurance.

Remember this........

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry burst into tears while campaigning in New Hampshire in 2004 when an unemployed mother spoke about how hard it is educating her kids. Mr. Kerry choked up and had to wipe tears from his eyes. He won the New Hampshire primary and the Democratic nomination.

6 posted on 01/09/2008 8:17:43 AM PST by IrishMike (Liberalism is Jihad from within)

As far as the title of this post goes, there are a lot of posts that claim Obama to be a "token black" candidate; these posters speculate openly that if expectations for Obama get too high, there may be race riots when he inevitably loses the nomination to Hillary. Threads discussing Obama are rife with claims that Democrats are terrible racists. Freeper Edward Watson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950655/posts?page=26#26">points out, "How many times have we heard Democrats condemn Republicans and conservatives of being racist while they live in black-free neighborhoods?" That's an actual Freeper argument. (Interestingly, Edward Watson's tagline is "Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas" which I assume is his explanation of why Freepers beat "liberals.")

In the context of Obama's predicted victory, some alternately wondered if Hillary would accept Obama's VP spot with the intention of killing him after the election and assuming the Presidency. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950778/posts?page=57#57">This post nicely combines these elements:

Chris Rock has a monologue which serves as a reminder for why Obama will not be the VP nominee. He boldly proclaims he’d shoot the President if it would make a black man president (at the time, he seemed to be talking about Powell). He figured he’s spend life in jail, but would be a rule the prison as a hero.

He was joking, but some might take the point he made seriously.

Oh yeah... that and the fact that the Democratic Party would never let one of their slaves actually run the plantation.

57 posted on 01/09/2008 7:21:26 AM PST by dangus

[Didereaux]

1. and yet there are those who do not understand just how badly the Repugs want Obama on the ticket

[BOSSHOG]

2. Who says there is a writer's strike ??

Dem candidates become emotional and cry on occasion during a campaign. george bush started an evil whispering campaign that John McCain fathered a black baby effectively stimulating his ignorant racist base. Gosh who would I think is more admirable.

[OHdem10]

3. Now you see why the Gop lost the 206 election. They have

thrown so much slime at Hilary it does not work anymore.

Independents recoiled at their Cultural Agenda with Terry Schiavo
Case. They for the first time realized these right-wingers really
believe this stuff, --OMG we had better run as fast as we can.

[DissentIsPatriotic]

4. You are one amazing person...

to sift through all this crap...sometimes I try to do it, but it gets sickening after only three seconds. Thanks for doing the hard work!

[dmallind]

5. Mostly concur but out of curiosity

what is the number in between 2.75% and 8% where it stops being a "tie for first place"? I never heard that about Iowa so it must be between those numbers.

[theredpen]

6. Tie for first place is how I'm calling it...

...mainly due to the fact that both Senators won 9 "pledged" delegates. Actually, if you add in the superdelegates, Obama has 13 to Clinton's 12; thus, in a way, Clinton actually lost New Hampshire to Obama.

[dmallind]

10. Delgate count is close sure. Good point.

Was in IA too of course.

[theredpen]

11. I think the delegate count angle is "bad spin"

The headlines reported:
Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

This was called a "historic win" for Obama and a "trouncing" of Clinton. What if they'd reported this?
Obama 16 delegates
Clinton 15 delegates
Edwards 14 delegates

That's closer to a 3-way tie. It certainly isn't a "trouncing of Clinton"; she got more delegates — according to the rules — than "2nd-place" Edwards. When you add in superdelegates, Clinton and Edwards both nabbed 17 and Obama got 18. Obama won the most delegates and the most votes and his win certainly was a historic event. Still, it didn't give him any more than momentum.

The Freepers are big on pointing out the superdelegates because they've given Clinton an enormous early lead. She could still lose the nomination to Obama if his momentum keeps up.

Why aren't we hearing the candidates spin the delegate count? I think because they don't want to lose the spin benefits of cosmetic vote-percentage wins. They probably also don't want to bring widespread attention to the essentially anti-democratic superdelegate system.

[dmallind]

13. Exactly

Delegate count is the thing that matters in the end, and it's actually a pretty close three way race on that basis, albeit very early in that race.

Unfortunately we don't get that kind of depth in our news (on any topic - I'm not making some MSM conspiracy point - just what sells) so the easily digestible and dramatic is what we get.

[Hoof Hearted]

7. you must have the patience and determination of a saint.

I've tried to sift through that incredibly boring, primitive site. I have to bail after just a few minutes every time. It's just not a good place for the sane.

[theredpen]

8. Patience? Determination?

It's just not a good place for the sane.

:crazy: I think you have the real answer... :P

[Hoof Hearted]

9. Hey, I wasn't gonna go there . . . . . .

but since you did. . . :rofl:

[BadgerLaw2010]

12. So if Freepers like to smear Clinton as cheating, why should we tolerate those posts here?

Just asking.