THESE ARE NEW YORK'S "SUPERDELEGATES?"

To Howard Dean and Members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC);

We will be officially denouncing the practices and policies of the Democratic Party, effective the first week of June, 2008.

Our reasons are numerous; beginning with the fact that it is readily apparent the Democratic Party leaders have their own agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda will cost the Democratic Party the White House in November. The Party no longer represents what is best for the people of the United States- as it clearly plans to disenfranchise more than 2.5 million voters of Florida and Michigan. we cannot and will not subscribe to a party who patronizes us by stating delegates �will be sat as long as it doesn't alter the outcome�.

In addition, we are deeply concerned about the DNC's obvious endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. This premature, albeit unofficial, endorsement has done a disservice to all Democratic Presidential candidates and has played a major role in sweeping an unqualified, unchallenged, and unseasoned candidate to the forefront of a presidential race he cannot win. Sen. Obama lacks the experience, fortitude, and stamina to withstand what will face the Democratic nominee in the General Election. His severe lack of judgment in his personal and business relations have contributed damaging fodder for not only the media and opposing Democrats, but for Republicans, and we have only scratched the surface. The DNC must recognize that the media's on-going love affair with Sen. Obama will end the moment he has the nomination as they are almost all right-wing outlets.

Election and polling records provide proof positive that Sen. Obama cannot win states that are crucial for a Democratic victory. Contrary to David Axelrod's assertion that the Party does not need Senator Clinton's solid base to win the General, the Party does need that base and the stats confirm it. Sen. Obama has also alienated an abundance of Sen. Clinton supporters who have stated they won't, and will not support him in the General Election; that number exceeds 38%. That is a huge gamble for the DNC and we assure you, Sen. Clinton's supporters will follow through. We will not unite behind Sen. Obama.

Despite all of his assertions that he is a great unifier, Sen. Obama has done the exact opposite in these past months. He has succeeded in dividing not only the Democratic Party, but to pit race against race, young against old, and men against women. we will not support Sen. Obama as a presidential candidate and we will not be "coming home," regardless of who assumes the Democratic nomination.

Should Sen. Clinton succeed in obtaining the nomination, she will have our full support. However, any financial contributions will be made directly to her campaign and not to the DNC. She is the only Democratic candidate that has the ability, experience and fortitude to beat Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. The GOP has voiced this concern repeatedly, recognizing that it can soundly beat Sen. Obama but beating Sen. Clinton would prove virtually impossible.

We would hope that at this crucial juncture the DNC will do the right thing by seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, by giving voice to the voters of those two states. The DNC must ensure that it puts forth the Democratic candidate who is most prepared, most qualified, most vetted, and most able to beat Sen. John McCain in the General Election, she who exercises the best judgment and exhibits the most concern for the future of this great country!

A prudent strategy for the Democratic party to consider is to nominate the candidate that stands to receive the most electoral votes as can be seen by the 2000 election. After investigating the rules which were established in 2006 my brother and I found the following:

"11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule."

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd, New Hampshire held their primaries on January 8th, Michigan held their primaries on January 15th, Nevada held their caucuses on January 19th, South Carolina held their primaries on January 26th, and Florida held their primaries on January 29th. The rule as stated above was violated by Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, therefore these states should receive the same penalty as Michigan and Florida.

"C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state�s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state�s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number. b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state�s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section."

Page 20

According to Rule A the penalty is loss of half the delegates not all the delegates.Rule B specifically states if candidates campaign in a state where the party was in violation. In Florida no candidates campaigned and the names of all the candidates appeared on the ballot. In Michigan the Senator Obama campaign instructed his supporters to vote undecided which is illegal.

"6. Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules, where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: reduction of the state�s delegation; pursuant to Rule 21.C., recommending the establishment of a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state�s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances; reducing, in part or in whole, the number of the state�s temporary and permanent members to the Standing Committees; reducing, in part or in whole, the number of guests, VIP and other passes/tickets to the National Convention and related functions; assignment of location of the state�s delegates and alternates in the Convention hall; and assignment of the state�s housing and other convention related facilities."

Page 21

As specified above the DNC committee can apply what they deem as appropriate if the state party is not subject to subsections 1,2,or 3 of section C. The violation applies to subsection 1, therefore the committee did not comply by applying what they thought was appropriate.

The committee created its own problems by allowing certain states to vote before the first Tuesday in February. This allowance sets a precidence for other states. They added to the problem by not sanctioning the other states in violation. Furthermore, they did not adhere to the rules when considering the penalty. If all states are to be treated equal then all those in violation must receive the same penalty. In Florida no candidates campaigned and the names of all the candidates appeared on the ballot. In Michigan the Senator Obama campaign instructed his supporters to vote undecided which is illegal. In the best interest of the party, the voters, and the November election the vote should stay as it is. The Republican party has united their endorsement for one candidate. Based on the 2000 election (the electoral vote supercedes the popular vote), a prudent strategy for the Democratic party to consider is to nominate the candidate that stands to receive the most electoral votes.

Regards;
Phil & Paul Babish

I think Phil and Paul are two of the least intelligent human beings I have had the opportunity to encounter. For example, peruse this madness:

To Whom It May Concern;

This is the time to get excited about showing the world that true democracy can and will prevail. As a nation we must preserve the foundation established by our forefathers along with our military. A world leader for freedom must and will unite in order to demonstrate that the voice of the people shall never be compromised under any circumstances. Nominating a candidate that best reflects these ideals would be prudent. The person who fulfills these qualifications and has a well established constituency is Senator Clinton. With her approval the people must unite proudly and successfully in order to complete the task of having her name placed on the general election ballot representing "The Populace Party". In order to accomplish this leaders and supporters of the Clinton campaign(delegates, super delegates, campaign managers,etc.) must work as one to ensure that all the required procedures are implemented qualifying the party for entry on the ballot. Selecting an effective running mate is also imperative. Governors are more successful because they bring their experience with them.

If the party can do these things, it will succeed. This victory will be one for all people. It represents a commitment to ensure that the fundamentals set forth by our forefathers will remain in tact. It is also a message to our military brethren that their services and sacrifices (wounded, died, etc.) will never be forgotten by making every effort to seek peaceful solutions between entities before subjecting anyone to harmful circumstances.

Regards;
Phil & Paul Babish

I especially enjoy the part where they argue we must nominate Hillary Clinton so the voice of the people is never silenced. It makes perfect sense that their solution is to take the nomination from the candidate who did get the most votes. Their argument (or Clinton's) about Obama not being able to win big states is especially interesting given the recent developments on PA. Keep up the good work Phil and Paul, the world needs wackos like you.