In comments at Firedoglake, DW Bartoo asks:

Hmmm.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying, DDay.

All these people, and no one knows how many, suffered the catastrophe of losing their homes to massive criminal bank fraud, which Barack Obama has defended as not illegal, even as he has surrounded himself with some of the principle “players”, executives of those very banks, as his advisers, friends, and money-laden allies.

Would that be correct?

And while this was going on … and afterwards, these people, who might have voted for Barack Obama were simply abandoned BY Barack Obama. He did not, in the political vernacular, “Have their backs”.

Would that be correct?

Now, today, Barack Obama decides that HE has need of these people, not to help THEM, but so that they might help HIM … win an election.

Would that be correct?

So, doing what would have been the right thing to do, the just, the humane, AND the proper thing to do … Barack Obama did not or would not do … instead, HE is desirous that those whom HE has treated very poorly, by any rational or reasonable measure, should have HIS back?

Would that be correct?

Once again, it would seem that everything is about Obama, his needs, his priorities, his election.

Would that be correct?

If all of these things are correct, then what is the “problem” here?

And whose problem is it?

Who “owns” this “problem” … the dispossessed or the man who has nothing but praise for the criminals responsible for the destruction, even as he protects those criminals, as does his party, from criminal AND civil sanction?

What is the very worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama?

What is the very worst thing that can happen to those who are in pain and suffering great loss, now, as they have been for years, and will continue to be in pain and suffering, for years to come, even by the most optimistic of estimates?

Is there a massive disconnect here, both in understanding and consequence?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it certainly appears to me that such is the case.

Why, in the warmest place of human imagination, would or should these people, who have been grievously harmed, come to the aid of a man who has had a central role in their pain and loss?

How would aiding and supporting Barack Obama be, by the wildest stretch of that imagination I just mentioned, of ANY worth or value to those who have been harmed?

Would it not be utter madness, complete insanity, for those many to support either Democrat Barack Obama OR his Republican opponent?

Kansas ain’t the only place, Dorothy, where people are asked and expected to vote against their own best interests.

DW

I have been asking myself the very same questions.