Hillary Clinton's Monstrously Blind Demolition
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Unless Hillary Clinton has secretly contrived some sort of doomsday deliverance of not merely breathtaking but literally unimaginable genius, then today's primaries and beyond are not an exercise in democracy, but demolition.
Her party's structural stress is showing, and nearing the breaking point. Laughing in the face of deadly mathematical odds may lend Hillary the appearance of that old Clintonian determination, but it amuses and benefits only the opposition and journalists who love horse races.
But Hillary's party is no longer laughing. And it most definitely is not amused.
Of no surprise, of course, is that in making the Sunday talk-show rounds Barack Obama's more prominent supporters called for -- begged for -- Hillary's withdrawal at the crack of sunlight, March 5. Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Senator John Kerry said "Hillary Clinton has to win a big victory in both Ohio and Texas ... not just winning a little bit ... she’s got to win a very significant victory." Senator Dick Durbin, on Fox, was a bit more specific, defining Hillary's challenge as the need to score "extraordinary percentages" in all the remaining primaries just to catch up. And by "extraordinary" he meant insurmountable, even fantastical.
Then, revealing his and others' extraordinary frustration, Durbin said, simply, "I hope after Tuesday her decision is made on the basis of the unity of the party."
Adding that "I just think that D-Day is Tuesday," unaligned Gov. Bill Richardson said on "Face the Nation": "The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those two very fine senators is going on too long." So much for his non-alignment.
But, Hillary's supporters say: Of course those guys would spew such unenlightened garbage, given that they're on the wrong side of "What-if?" history. What these Clintonites intentionally ignore, however, is that even their own guys have been out there, conceding the same. From chief Clinton supporter Bill, to past Clinton mouthpiece James Carville, to current co-chief Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, and most recently, the chiefest strategist of them all, Mark Penn, who now barely recalls having even visited the Clinton headquarters -- all have effectively bailed, pre-March 4. It seems they can add.
In rebuffing the Sunday choir of reason, Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson did his duty on "This Week," "offer[ing] no hint ... that Mrs. Clinton was considering whether to drop out of the race if she did not win on Tuesday." Good boy. You snatched at least one more paycheck.
With no personal financial interest in extending the agony, however, was Hillary the next day, which would be yesterday. Speaking in Houston, she let loose a few words that surely horrified the true party faithful: "I think we’re going to do well tomorrow," she said. Well, that wasn't so bad. Whew. But then it came, the denial, the fantasy, the laughing against deadly mathematical odds: "Then it’s on to Pennsylvania and the states still ahead. I’m just getting warmed up."
One could almost hear Democratic hearts thudding on floors all across the land. She's kidding, right? Tell us she's kidding. Please.
And who knows? Maybe she was. There's no sense in demotivating supporters on primary eve, even when those primaries are essentially meaningless. What we do know, however, is that the GOP is praying harder than anyone that she was not, in fact, kidding.
Hardcore Republicans are now her biggest supporters, her most devoted boosters. Echoing the likes of predatory opportunists such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove also spoke Sunday on Fox for the right-wing "You-go-girl" crowd: "I think it's a mistake for [Obama's] campaign to be calling for her to drop out," he said, with laughably feigned indifference. "It’s up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses." Them, and snickering GOP strategists, I guess.
Naturally the GOP understands as well as objective Democratic strategists that Hillary's odds of success now stand at near absolute zero. Numbers are numbers, and they're furiously stubborn. You can move them around, shift them sideways and yank them up and down, but they'll still total what they total. God didn't play dice with universal mathematics, and He hasn't exempted Hillary's crunchers.
She's lost. And today is but a manic exercise in party demolition. Mrs. Clinton may indeed still score some victories, but if so they'll remain far short of the needed "extraordinary percentages" to shift the balance of overwhelming power and momentum that is Obama's. It was over yesterday, is over this morning, and will be just as over on the morning of March 5.
All Mrs. Clinton can accomplish now is the brutal strafing of party resources and desperately needed unity. That, and the provisioning of John McCain with the best of both worlds: providing him the resources he otherwise lacks to effectively diminish in the electorate's mind the Democratic Party's all-but-officially nominated nominee.
Some might say, Well, that's a Democrat for you, always self-serving. But in this case, there's no longer any self or cause to realistically serve. It's just monstrously blind demolition. True, the theatre of it all may be enjoyable, but its ultimate consequence might not be.
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at
fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com
Technorati Tags: - Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004
truthisall.net
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=120&topic_id=3846&mesg_id=3846
Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004.
Bush's vote share exceeded his "pristine" exit poll share by 5% (from 46% to 51%).
Hillary's vote share also exceeded the exit poll by 5% (from 51% to 56%).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Tommy Heinrich was a NY Yankee baseball player. His nickname was "Old Reliable".
Know this: Ohio will be "Old Reliable" for John McCain.
It's not who votes.
It's who counts.
Let's calculate the probability of a 5% Hillary-shift from exit poll to vote share.
Using the Excel normal distribution function:
Assuming a 2% margin of error, it's 1 in 2 million (.000048%).
0.000048% = normdist (0.51, 0.56, .02/1.96, true)
Assuming a 3% margin of error, it's 1 in 1800.
Take your pick.
MoE Probability 1 in
2.0% 4.8E-07 2,083,900
2.2% 4.2E-06 237,687
2.4% 2.2E-05 45,027
2.6% 8.2E-05 12,210
2.8% 2.3E-04 4,298
3.0% 5.4E-04 1,838
OHIO EXIT POLL -9PM
Gender
Clinton Obama
Male.........41% 47% 52%
Female.......59% 54% 45%
51.1% 47.9%
Hillary as spoiler
My paranoia gland started throbbing the other day when I stumbled on the idea that maybe Hillary Clinton and the right-wing Democratic National Committee crowd would be willing to destroy Senator Obama's chances of winning the primary or the general election in order to keep control of the party away from the progressive wing and set the stage for another Clinton run in four years.
I would appreciate it if someone could say something about how I'm way off base on this one.
No Matter When The Losing Candidate Concedes The Nomination
"Why is that?"
"Whoever has grassroots support wins in November."
"And all the negativity about this or that candidate?"
"What with all the play that this negativity is getting in both MSM and the alternate media, by November the public will be immunized and therefore protected against it.
"And after we win in November, what sord of world?
"That'll be up to us."
What do you mean, hatred? Why ..... that's preposterous!
A few of the Clinton-haters who post regularly have suggested that their comments about Hillary Clinton are just legitimate criticisms, not really an expression of extreme animus or hatred of the Clintons. To be sure, there are many people who just disagree with Hillary Clinton (or agree more with Obama) on the issues and post comments critical of her. No problem. But let's look at just the comments in this one article below - without even delving into the numerous articles/postings of the last few months - to see if these comments are hatred or not:
Hillary Clinton is a "femme Bushivek in Liebermann's clothing."
She is "Rove on steroids".
"My unalterable motto is: NEVER REWARD THE CLINTONS!"
"I've been a Democrat all my life ( 60 years ) and would die before I vote for a Republican, and that's what HRC is to me now, a right-winger. As far as I'm concerned the 'R' in her name stands for Rove."
"She's learned to be everything she said she hated. In all fairness, she's actually better at it than Bush. I'm quite astounded at the breadth of lies that come out of her with such ease."
(followed by an example of a "lie" which was not, in fact, a lie.
"Sen. Clinton reminds me of A pit bull. Once she slashes on, Obama. she won't let go. He has the (votes) meat and she is determined to get it. At any cost to the party."
(followed by) Please stop maligning pit bulls.
"This is the game of the con artist. If they are truly supporting Hillary, they have chosen the candidate most like themselves."
"Florida and Michigan delegates have been excluded from consideration by agreement of ALL candidates, even Mrs. Duplicity 2008. How about this? We count as delegates every one of the dead Americans in Iraq who died there in part because of Billary's war vote."
"At this point, I wouldn't vote to put this person in charge of an animal shelter. I love animals too much to trust their welfare to her."
"Don't You Mean Cry Baby Hilliary?"
"If the commentators were truly honest, they would recognize that those people now so adoring of her candidacy are motivated by one thing - her gender."
"She has to remain satisfied with her boosters from the likes of the old folks feminist home who have become rather crotchety in their senescence."
HC is a "malicious creature masquerading as that woman."
"Earn it? You mean by first marrying a future president and then living out a Jerry Springer soap opera?"
"AH! HERE are the Hillaryites who will Destroy the Democratic Party just to keep The Black Guy out!"
As I indicated above, these are just a compilation of postings from this one article. There are far more (and far more offensive) comments about Hillary Clinton that have littered BF over the past few weeks. Several of these critics have adopted the language of the far-right ("Billary," "Clintonistas, KKK acronyms, etc.) and have used Matt Drudge as a source to attack Hillary Clinton.
Now, some of those same Clinton-haters claim there's no Clinton hatred exhibited here. Rather, it's just "fantasy in the minds of those so smitten with the Clintons that any criticism, or alternative view is immediately translated into "hatred.""
What!?! You think these comments are motivated by hatred? Why ...... That's ridiculous! Anyone can see that these comments are just simple criticisms, differences of opinion, or alternative points of view!
Please note, this is a site for progressive democrats
You may not like it, Yman, but this is a progressive web site. And many progressives are very angry over:
- Democrats voting with Repugnican war mongers in order to appear "strong on defense;"
- Democrats who voted with Repugnicans to authorize an illegal war against a country that posed no threat to us, while letting our real terrorist enemies in Afghanistan to escape;
- Democrats who voted with Repugnicans to allow the U.S. to continue dropping thousands of toy-like cluster bomblets on civilian populations -- despite the pleas of human rights organizations around the world. (According to the U.N., 40 percent of victims killed or maimed by cluster bombs are children.) To convince voters that she would be a tough Commander in Chief, Clinton voted to allow the U.S. to continue dropping these terrible weapons on civilian populations.);
- A Democrat who keeps resorting to subtle but not that subtle racist slurs against her African-American opponent. (She's now running TV ads in which Sen. Obama's face has been darkened to make him look more African than American.)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
Do some progressives despise Clinton for those awful acts? Yes.
Are they justified in feeling so strongly?
Ask the parents of children maimed or killed by U.S. cluster bombs.
Are you having a little trouble ...
saying the word? Come on, Askolnick, you can do it ... you're right there ... it's one syllable ...... I'll give you a clue ... it rhymes with "date" or "fate". No? "Despise" is pretty darn close, but it lacks full commitment. "Feeling strongly?" Oh come on ..... now you're just getting colder.
My point was that the Clinton-haters deny their hatred and say it's all imagined. It's really legitimate criticism, a different point of view, a differing opinion on policy matters, etc. They deny their hatred of all things Clinton in an attempt to make their criticisms appear more legitimate. The problem is, once they get going, it's just too hard for them to resist, and their hatred is all too apparent. Although your position seems to be that the hatred is not just a fantasy (as your buddy Commonsense argues), but rather that it is justified. I disagree, but it's good to know where you stand. :)
BTW - In your response you indicate Hillary Clinton is a race-baiter who voted to permit the maiming and killing of innocent children. Yet in post below you say "If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, I probably would reluctantly head over to my polling place, step into the booth, hold my nose with one hand, and vote for her with the other." Wow - I'm a progressive, and I would never even CONSIDER voting for someone I believed was a racist, child killer. The question is - Why would you?
Kitchen sinks belong in kitchens
Great article PM. Some of the comments submitted are entertaining, some informative, and some simply mad!
Note to Hillary, her staff, and certain of her supporters: Machiavelli died over 400 years ago. Let's not resurrect his ghost in the Democratic Party. Karl Rove has been channelling him for over 10 years now, and even ghosts need rest!
I agree about a possible non vote for Hillary in the general
As an independent voter, I want the most progressive candidate to win in November. As an early supporter of John Edwards, I was sorry to see him drop out of the race. I felt he had the determination and ability to create the change which is needed. I switched to Barack Obama because I feel he is independent enough to also make the changes which are needed. If Hillary's negative attacks are successful in bringing the nomination to her campaign, I probably won't vote for her. I will probably pick a third party (Green) candidate over McCain.
Hillary needs to understand that Obama has brought many new voters to the party and election process. Many are independent voters who probably won't vote for Hillary. They are looking for a positive message and will turn away from the negative attacks coming from the Clinton people. Hillary has too many markers out and will need to pay back for their support.
I would love to have a woman as president but Hillary is not that woman. I don't care if she drops out of the race tomorrow as long as she quits the negative attacks. Staying in the race and being positive could help the party.
And That's What the Hillaryites Fail to Understand
By attacking Obama and all who support him (even who, like me, support him mainly b/c He's Not DLC "Centrist" B.S. as Usual!), THEY are the ones ripping the Democratic Party apart - not those of us who will vote for an "uplifting speech by a Black guy" rather than a femme Bushivek in Liebermann's clothing.
The cynicism
It's so difficult to know what to do, if I have to make that awful choice. The Clintons' behavior has been so shameful, it's more than just holding my nose. It's an assault to my soul.
The worse blow is that the Clintons are sure that we'll have no choice but to vote for her in November. It doesn't matter what lies she told, the distortions, the attacks that make her Rove on steroids. Doesn't matter because we'll fall in line anyway.
It's that cynicism that makes her totally disgusting in my eyes.
There Is a Choice
My unalterable motto is: NEVER REWARD THE CLINTONS! There may be a price to be paid for adhering to this rule, but the alternative is to permit even worse damage to the republic. Obama presents a real opportunity for voters to take back their government and their lives. That IS the opportunity. If they blow it, they can do so without our help.
Don't lose sight of the prize!
Let's frame things a little differently. The prize is the presidency right? The purpose is to put a Democrat in right? All this primary bickering should be viewed as healthy. The fact that there are two Democratic contenders that can beat McCain should be something to be proud of. Hillary fans and Obama fans alike have proven themselves to be fervant and loyal to the point of hysterical but let us not lose sight of the prize.
If you are an Obama supporter or a Hillary supporter by all means cheer on your candidate, vote appropriatly but please NEVER consider voting against the winning Democrat. That is about as foolish as some of the back-and-forth among the two candidates. If we hand the Republicans the Presidency by not participating or not rallying behind the eventual victor, we don't deserve democracy.
If Obama survives the Clinton "machine" he should wear it as a badge of honor and evidence that he can defeat the GOP "machine" and her supporters would be FOOLISH to not rally behind him. If Clinton defeats Obama she should take comfort that his supporters are willing to rally behind her and defeat McCain. Anything else is FOOLISH.
Why do I have a bad feeling about this whole election season? Oh yeah the same reason Bush won in 00 and 04. Democrats seem to have a hard time winning an election that should be a gimme.
WELL PUT
the GOP and the conservative media is only SOOOO happy that the attention is off of....
1) the worst president in modern (last 6000 years) history
2) the second best vice president in history (there is a 99999 way tie for first place)
3) a foreign policy that humiliates every sane person in the USA
4) a financial policy that has us in a RECESSION no matter what they call it
5) outsourced jobs
6) a No Child Left Behind policy that simply renames the kids left behind so the stats look better.. and the stats still suck
7) 6 years of a do-nothing republican congress
8) a republican administration who is proud because the last sex scandle involved at least one person of each gender
9) an ECOLOGICAL policy equal to... don't worry, be happy
10) a war which has cost more lives and souls, more money, and more divisivness that America deserves to see
11) illegal activities from bribes to wiretapping, outing agents to funding bogus projects
12) the empowerment of the corporation and the wealthy over the common man
and much much more
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TAKE THE WHITEHOUSE, AND HAVE ENOUGH IN CONGRESS TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA.... WE WILL HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CLEANING UP TO DO...
but the GOP media would rather bask in this, their last and finest moment
Very good points
Popozuda, very good points. If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, I probably would reluctantly head over to my polling place, step into the booth, hold my nose with one hand, and vote for her with the other.
I won't feel good about it one bit. Frankly, I'd view it as a Sophie's choice.
And when I get home, I'd thoroughly wash my voting hand.
Hold your nose, chant "Supreme Court"...
...and vote Dem this November. John Roberts is 53 years old. Alito is nearing 58.
John Paul Stevens is nearing 88.
Think about it.
Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?
Apphouse50
Yeah, but...
...it was Democrats who allowed the Roberts and Alito nominations to move forward. They could have stood on principal, but they didn't have the BALLS.
Are we to expect that the same Democrats who voted for Roberts and Alito will nominate somebody better when it's their turn? Who you think? Lawrence Lessig? I doubt it.
No voting in '08
I am a registered Independent. I switched from Dem to Ind over 15 yrs ago. Believed the Dems took the Black vote for granted. Did vote for both Clintons 2 times. Rather than vote for HRC I will protest by not voting at all. It will hurt me to not vote in the Presidential election since I have voted in everyone for the last 30 yrs. I will not go against what I believe and support a candidate I do believe is about the Democratic party but about personal gain.
OneLove
I must agree
I've been a Democrat all my life ( 60 years ) and would die before I vote for a Republican, and that's what HRC is to me now, a right-winger. As far as I'm concerned the 'R' in her name stands for Rove. She is trying to tear our party apart, because she can't have it. If by some miracle she succeeds in winning the nomination, it will spell the end of political involvement for me; the supporting, voting, and funding. We've gone through some crazy bad times in the last 35 years, with only a few positive chances to stem the neo-con tide. This truly is a campaign about hope versus hopelessness, at least for me. And ironically, when this campaign began almost a year ago, I liked her; was rooting for her. Whew!
Get she to a nunnery
The only thing worse than seeing Dems wring their hands over what increasingly seems like a primary season debacle courtesy of the senator from New York is the surprise being feigned by a lot of people who have watched the Clintons and ought to know better.
Even if some voters have just emerged from a cave this year (to borrow a phrase from William F. Buckley regarding John Lindsay) and know nothing about Clinton comportment over the past many years, isn't her implication that McCain's experience is preferable to Obama's reason enough for every Democrat to throw her over the side today? Isn't her tired old red phone schtick, borrowing a page from the fearmongering pack o' thugs we're trying to send packing, enough to make us send her back to Arkansas?
Do these people have no shame at all?
Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?
Apphouse50
All signs
All signs are that the fearmongering worked. I'm so disgusted I could cry. It stopped Obama's momentum, and people actually fell for that crap. Again. After 8 disastrous years. They are falling for it again.
I am unsure how going to cocktail parties as First Lady makes you more competent to be Commander-in-Chief. But the seed is sown, the press is cowed, and here we go again.
I look back on those years when I loved and defended the Clintons. And they have counted on our protection (particularly us women) to ignore and explain away all their personal dramas that have distracted the country. And we've done it.
In 2000 when she ran for the Senate as the carpetbagger in New York, I said to myself, "this is not patriotic". I didn't say it to many people because I would have been pilloried. But I thought the Clintons owed it to Al Gore to do whatever they could to undo the damage they had done to his presidential bid. I know he pulled away from Clinton, but they should have been willing to do anything it took to help him get elected. They owed it to him. They owed it to us. But now we're supposed to owe the presidency to her, because she looked her husband in the eye and he told her none of the lies were true, and she believed him? That makes her strong? After a lifetime of it? That makes her delusional. And I am unsure why we owe the CLintons the presidency -- AGAIN.
She hasn't developed wisdom from her trials. She's learned to be everything she said she hated. In all fairness, she's actually better at it than Bush. I'm quite astounded at the breadth of lies that come out of her with such ease. Big ones, little ones. Last night on The Daily Show, she said so easily, "After all, my husband didn't sew up the nomination until June." Of course primaries weren't front loaded in 1992, and California wasn't until June! But it goes unquestioned, accepted, and she does it with such slippery ease.
But she is not Bill. She is not charming, she is not inspirational. She's a hard worker entitled to be "hired" for the job as president. How small.
Well, it looks like the March 4 electorate has fallen for it. We will get the nominee we deserve. Again. It sickens me.
Unless the good people of Texas, OHio, Rhode Island and Vermont have any good sense and judgment.
I know It's Corny Fdcgjc But Like The Old Song Goes:
Walk with hope in your heart, "and you'll never walk alone." Yes, people have been duped again but the game is not over even if it continues on its depressing way. Your statement is one of the finest I have read and there are millions feeling the same way. Every bully, liar and cheat in the country will feel vindication over a Billary victory. The world is watching and the collective American decision will either point the way to a brighter future or back to the gloomy past. We can only hold our breath and pray.
Hillaries last stand
Sen. Clinton reminds me of A pit bull. Once she slashes on,Obama. she won't let go. He has the (votes) meat and she is determined to get it. At any cost to the party.
In defense of this poor maligned breed
Please stop maligning pit bulls. Provided a caring home and upbringing, pit bulls from good breeders make fine dogs.
Hilliary, on the other hand, should be made to wear a "Beware of" sign.
the hatred of hillary clinton is amazing
and just think it's not coming from the right,it's coming from the extreme left wing of her own party,now you know why the right wing was able. to hold impeachment hearings on WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON , you people let them.if the great obama does not clean sweep the 4 primaries today.it shows a lot of dems see a problem with a person who can't even take a stand on porn and sexaul abuse of childern,he voted present rather than take a stand,the independents that are voting for hillary will not vote for obama,they'll vote mccain and that puts mccain in the whitehouse,IF OBAMA MAKES A CLEAN SWEEP TODAY it will change my mind,BUT NO PROBLEM HE WON'T,HE'LL WIN 1 THE GREAT STATE OF VERMONT
Yes, we know why Clinton was impeached...
Yes, we know why Clinton was impeached. First he degraded the White House of the office of Presidency with his sexcapades with a blabber-mouth intern, and then lied about it under oath. He knew the Repugnican thugs had put a price on his head, yet gave them the rope with which they tried to hang him.
If Clinton hadn't degraded the Office of the Presidency and perjured himself, he would not have been impeached -- and we would now have Al Gore in the White House instead of the devil's twin spawn, Bush and Cheney.
Another thing we know is how absurd your claim is that Sen. Obama needs to win every remaining primary to be a viable Democratic nominee, but for Clinton to be the nominee, she just has to barely win even one.
Leeswinton, you have about as much credibility here as would Karl Rove, who also has a penchant for delusional statements (such as blaming Democrats for pushing a reluctant Bush to go to war against Iraq!).
Hilliary Clinton is the one who has to win most if not all of the primaries today to stay in the race. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, she's out. Even if she wins both by a small margin, she will face overwhelming pressure from the Democratic party leadership to concede rather than tonot destroy the party and throw the election to the Repugnicans.
asTROLLnick - troll, troll, troll, troll
1) Clinton was not impeached; it was tossed by the Senate, and never went through.
2) He did not lie under oath; he was asked a misdirecting question while testifying on a completely different subject. Ask an attorney; can't be done. That's why no formal charges of perjury were ever sought by any court, and only some politically-motivated thrust for impeachment was tried, instead. After the impeachment was tossed out of the senate, some Republican senators then attempted the charge of perjury, but that was tossed out by an even bigger margin than the impeachment.
You have no credibility, skolnick. Your statements are always full of falsities; someone then challenges your statements; you hurl juvenile insults in response; another person provides proof of the falsities in your statements....and then you move on to another subject, never to answer to your false claims.
Like you'll do right now, because you know you can't refute my corrections to your statements.
Groce dishonesty and defamation
"1) Clinton was not impeached; it was tossed by the Senate, and never went through."
Groce, I don't know if you're a bigger ignoramus than you are a liar. Likely you're a bit of both, which may be why your deceit is so blatant:
"President of the United States Bill Clinton WAS IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998." (He was acquitted by the Senate two months later.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
"2) He did not lie under oath; he was asked a misdirecting question while testifying on a completely different subject. ...That's why no formal charges of perjury were ever sought by any court,..."
Oh, yeah? Let's see what Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright said in her civil contempt of court ruling, in which she fined Clinton $90,000 for his untruthful testimony:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false"."
And that's not all the punishment Clinton received for the perjury. Says Wikipedia:
"In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
3) "You have no credibility, skolnick. Your statements are always full of falsities; someone then challenges your statements; you hurl juvenile insults in response; another person provides proof of the falsities in your statements....and then you move on to another subject, never to answer to your false claims."
"Like you'll do right now, because you know you can't refute my corrections to your statements."
Three strikes and you should be thrown out.
Not only have I refuted your lies and defamatory attack, I'm asking the editor to post a warning against such disruptive trolling.
If you trolls intend to attack the integrity of other posters, you better do so honestly. Demonstrably false statements that impugn another person is libel.
asTROLLnick at it again
1) An impeachment requires a shared verdict by BOTH HOUSES of Congress. The verdict of one house does not automatically apply, especially when the other house refuses the claim. Thus, no matter what purpose the contributor to your wikipedia source may have in posting that personal opinion (the main reason why so few educated persons rely on Wikipedia as an actual and final source), no official impeachment was ever instituted.
Go back to school, if you are even eligible, and learn what an impeachment actually is. Incidentally, private commentary amongst some buzzflash users who have given up the site thanks to its allowance of an idiot like you to contribute idiotic information, claim that you once were a regular contributor to wikipedia; if so, then using yourself as some verifiable source to your claims on this page completely NEGATES your entries. "Sure it's true! Look here - I can provide a source where I've made the same claims before! It MUST be true!" ...
2) You are referring to an incorrect case. There were THREE cases of Jones v Clinton and viceversa. The case you are referring to was the last of the three, and not the one that brought up the initial claims of perjury from which this topic arose. Moreover, the charge and fine issued in that case were successfully appealed, which you also conveniently forget.
Clinton's resignation was part of an agreement to end that entire third case, a settlement in which no claims of wrongdoing were pursued or acknowledged, as ALL settlements constitute.
You are also overlooking that Webber Wright was the judge selected by Kenneth Starr to introduce his plot for charges pertaining to Whitewater, and that this judge aided Starr in his fruitless pursuits. Thus, it stands out with no questionability that Webber Wright was simply another repug aiding the repug agenda.
3) This is your umpteenth strike, you idiot. And you're costing buzzflash in the process.
As for your request to the editor: I will only check this site occasionally to see what type of reply that gets - let's see how much longer he plays sucker to you, A.
More defamation from the Groce troll
Look troll, if you can cite any credible authority that claims Clinton was NOT impeached, I'll leave and not contribute anymore to BuzzFlash.
Unlike you, I cite sources to back up my statements. You just pound your chest and repeat your nonsense.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your trolling, except for this absurdity:
"you once were a regular contributor to wikipedia; if so, then using yourself as some verifiable source to your claims on this page completely NEGATES your entries. "Sure it's true! Look here - I can provide a source where I've made the same claims before! It MUST be true!"
While I contributed to several Wikipedia articles, I did not contribute to any article on Bill Clinton (or on any other article about politics). I've also contributed to Collier's Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and many other reference works. According to your ridiculous claim, I therefor should not be allowed to ever cite ANY article in any of these reference works.
Troll, get a life. Preferably one where you're not trying to feel important by your ability to irritate and disrupt others.
Goodbye, Buzzflash
Mark, if you take support from and tolerate the idiocies of people like skolnick, not to mention continuously defeat the purpose of buzzflash by relying on things like the Drudge Report in support of your claims, I'm not going to tolerate it any further.
I could care less who you vote for or who you support, but I will not tolerate the cheap and unfounded tactics you use, nor will I tolerate your reliance on idiots like askolnick for your support. Instead of providing an alternate route to legitimate media, you've become the exact type that buzzflash users have sought to avoid.
When my wife cancelled her bf daily emails, she was surprised to see the questionaire that followed, asking her for the reason of her cancellation. And because, frankly, she didn't think you could give a rat's ass anymore.
I don't claim to be a very important viewer to your site; I may have spent only about $500 tops at bf over the past four years, and only with a small additional contribution to the orders in support of buzzflash. But I think that all viewers, regardless of their contributions/purchases of any size, deserve at least common respect. Which you're not giving, not to mention your allowance of assholes to litter your site and attack your supporters.
You can't make the statement that people are no longer supporting bf because of your support for Obama. That's becuase the sole reason for this discontinuance in support is your use of e-tabloid style methods, using crappy and easily refutable "news". It's not the candidate you support, but it's your method of support that is chasing folks away.
One day, and probably pretty soon, Mark, will you recognize how much you screwed the whole buzzflash concept. And when you do, don't bother to contact me.
I know he won't accept this reference either
Because I once contributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica, I know Troll der Groce will not accept this reference either.
But then, it's doubtful that he'd be willing to accept any credible reference.
In 1998, Clinton became "only the second president in history to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives."
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-92533/UNITED-STATES
No Coincidence - He's Groce
Groce postings are simply part of the fun. Every circus needs clowns. By their works they shall be known. Askolnick you do a fine job exposing these jokers, but the moment you say anything to them they will simply take a part of what you have said and twist it beyond recognition. This is the game of the con artist. If they are truly supporting Hillary, they have chosen the candidate most like themselves. If they are not supporting her, they are simply people who enjoy pulling the wings off the political butterfly.
commentaries such as these
from askolnick and commonsense are driving away regular buzzflash readers, participants and contributors.
Their behavior is juvenile. Their commentary reeks. Their accusations are idiotic.
And these two trolls are costing buzzflash a whole lot of support.
Don't believe it, Mark? Just go back through all the interactions there were on the Clinton articles and see for yourself. Juvenile, childish, Rovian....
Driving Away or Crawling Away?
This must be your new tactic - whining about the fact that not everyone agrees with you on the Buzzflash blogs, that you can't post your drivel in peace. It obviously is not very effective, its repetitive, in fact, it's downright BO-ring. So let's talk about me instead. Where should I begin? Just kidding.
ACUALLY CLINTONS IN THE LEAD FOR DELEGATES
if the delegates from florida or michigan were added clinton would be ahead,but their not,and there might be something else the obamites might want to look at is the little trial going on in chicago,remember who is the pros. fritzy,what if he waits, till you people get your man as the dems man,and then comes an indictment,the repuks are known for that kind of surprise,just ask the former gov. of alabama,remember fritz was appointed by bushie
AH! HERE are the Hillaryites who will Destroy the Democratic
Party just to keep The Black Guy out!
Glad to see ya, Lee - now don't let the doorknob hit ya on the ass when you leave.
Actually She's Not - Duh!
Only in Clinton's Rovian mind will she received any the delegates she "won" in Florida and Michigan non-primaries.
And if you're waiting for a corruption trial for dirt to throw at a candidate, there may be a half dozen or more corrupt contributors to the Clintons either awaiting trial or already in the hoosegow to dig through.
And do you really think McCain wants to go there with his long record of associating with lobbyists and crooks going back to Keating? Every time his surrogates try to sleaze Obama, there'll be loud howls about the favors he's provided his very generous lobbyists and other corporate friends.
only in your mind askolnick
your problem is,you only want your side of everthing no matter what, but the true facts show a different picture,one minute your against mining the supper delegets when your afraid hillary might do it,but once obama starts taking them from clinton your great with it.hillary should not drop out intill obama has the intire 2100+ delegates he needs,ain't over till it's over BABE always said
Popping the Troll's Bubble
"ain't over till it's over BABE"
Hate to pop your bubble leeswinton, but by ten o'clock tonight, if Clinton doesn't win both Texas and Ohio by large margins, it will be over.
More Troll Facts
"True Facts" LeeSwinton? I don't think so. Two elements of that phrase which get under your skin: truth and facts. I wouldn't mess with either of them, if I were you. You'll break into a rash. Florida and Michigan delegates have been excluded from consideration by agreement of ALL candidates, even Mrs. Duplicity 2008. How about this? We count as delegates every one of the dead Americans in Iraq who died there in part because of Billary's war vote. What would she be nominated for then?
Good idea
But I think we should only give the vote to dead war victims from Chicago -- where the dead are famous for their habit of voting in elections. :-)
I'd like to also give a vote to the thousands of children killed and maimed by the toy-like cluster bomblets that Hilliary voted to allow to be used on civilian populations - in spite of wide spread condemnation of these terrible weapons from human rights and children organizations throughout the world.
It takes a village, indeed -- to raise a cluster-bombed child and make her whole again.
Why did this self-styled advocate for children's welfare join the Repugnican war mongers to allow the rain of death and disability on children to continue? Just so she could look like a tough "Commander in Chief" when she poses with that phone in her hand at 3 AM?
At this point, I wouldn't vote to put this person in charge of an animal shelter. I love animals too much to trust their welfare to her.
Hard to keep your story straight ...
huh, Askolnick? You need to check you prior posts to keep from confusing yourself. Just a few hours ago, you said that "If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, I probably would reluctantly head over to my polling place, step into the booth, hold my nose with one hand, and vote for her with the other." Now you "wouldn't vote to put this person in charge of an animal shelter." So the question is:
Did you change your mind 180 degrees in the course of a couple of hours, or are you having trouble keeping your stories straight? :)
Try to follow
I changed nothing about "my story." I wouldn't vote to put Clinton in charge of an animal shelter because sheltered animals are utterly helpless. They don't have the power to impeach or even protest their mistreatment. Humans do.
Given a choice of Bush-lite I or Bush-lite II, I'd hold my nose and vote for Clinton -- and then join other progressives in fighting to mitigate the harm she may cause.
Animals don't have this option.
Sorry ... but you have to admit ...
... ANYone would have trouble following all of these contortions. So ......... You wouldn't allow Hillary Clinton to run an animal shelter, but you WOULD vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of our country? With the power to affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, rather than a few (dozen?) animals? With the authority to appoint judges whose impact will be felt for decades, if not longer? With control over the world's most powerful military forces? With control of a nuclear arsenal? The same Hillary Clinton who you claim is a race-baiter who has already demonstrated her willingness to use her authority to kill innocent children?
You're right ............... that makes perfect sense.
Idiot, what's the alternative?
What's the alternative? McCain who, despite having been tortured as a war prisoner, now backs Bush's authority to torture prisoners? McCain, who has supported Bush and Cheney in virtually every effort to tear up the Constitution? Who has shamelessly embraced a right-wing fundamentalist crackpot who rants against Roman Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, and is campaigning for Armageddon to bring about the return of Jesus?
In other words Yman, you're idiot.
Now, now Askolnick ....
I would think the alternative would be obvious, even for you. If I really believed someone was a racist child-killer, I'd NEVER vote for them. I'd either vote for a third candidate (you DO know there's more than two, right?) or I wouldn't vote. Then again, I don't believe either candidate is a racist child-killer, so I'll be voting for whichever one wins the nomination.
As for the name calling ............ What, you're not going to going to ask "the editor to post a warning against such disruptive trolling"? As a matter of fact, you should file a formal request! And then, you should tell the teacher ............ and my mommy, too! :)
responding to commonsense
lets count those heros who died in IRaq,your only problem is they'ld vote for mccain because most that died believed in the war,so very few votes for obama or hillary,I've been against the war from the start,even in it's planning I'm just not willing to throw the baby out with bath water and thats what most people are willing to do
In this Case, Let's Throw Out Baby Hillary
and keep the bathwater. Oh yes, heroes? They are heroic in my mind because they believed so strongly but what they believed in were lies fed to them by a duplicitous President and a complicit Congress. Now that their eyes have been opened by eternity, they are ignorant no longer. What tyrants always count on is that the dead stay dead, otherwise they might be called to account for their crimes.
commonsense's true beliefs
when you down grade the troops and military the way you are and then call yourself an american,your a REAL slime BALL,am responding on buzz flash for last time or buying anything off buzzflash,between you and askolnick,this site will be bankedrupt real shortly
Sympathy for the Blog-Challenged
First it was "true facts." Now it's "true beliefs." I can only hope that my beliefs are true but they are really are my beliefs and I've never said otherwise. As far as my attitude toward our Armed Forces, your characterization of that is pitiful. There can be no greater honor paid to our troops than preventing them from fighting phony wars. Hope you are blogging from Iraq or are you one of those chicken-hawks? How's this: don't bother to show us the virtual scars and I won't plug my own service record. It's a blog and any of us can say anything. You are certainly proof of that.