Bill Clinton is to Blame!!!

   Nothing like a little sour grapes to pour gas on a fire that was on it's way out. Hopefully I'm not the only one disgusted by the PUMA idiots who are increasing the humiliation of Elizabeth Edwards by keeping the news of tbe affair of her husband on the talk shows and the front pages for their own selfish, ass covering reasons.

   There's nothing like a good game of COVER YOUR ASS!! I don't think Wolfson is playing that (if this were Penn or Solis Doyle saying what he did, then I'd agree), but I think all the Clinton hero-worshippers; i.e. Alegre and her ilk and the other PUMA mental midgets are doing exactly that.

   Howard Wolfson is wrong. There is no doubt about that and anyone who has the intelligence God gave to a 5 year old knows that.

   I'm going to use Howard's logic to make an obvious point. If Edwards is to blame for Clinton's loss, then surely Bill Clinton must shoulder the blame for EVERY SOLDIER AND CIVILIAN KILLED IN IRAQ.

   Why on Earth should he do that? Well let's look at it through the logic of the PUMA morons. If Bill Clinton had kept his pecker in his pants....then Al Gore would be President today. Hardly anyone, from bartenders, to school teachers to political pundits, to Republican officeholders such as Orrin Hatch, dispute this (other than Bush and Rove who truly believe that Bush is Christ come down off the Cross).

   So if Bill had kept his pecker isolated, Al Gore wouuld be President. If Al  Gore was President today, there would be NO IRAQ WAR!! And if there is no Iraq War, all those soldiers, all those contract workers and all those innocent Iraqi civilians WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY!!! So Bill Clinton, and his little buddy, are the cause for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the world over the past 6 years....thanks a lot Bill.

   Now seriously, how ridiculous does that sound? Once again, if you have the intelligence God gave to a 5 year old (or indeed an oyster on a dinner plate) then this would sound pretty ridiculous to you. As well it should.

   The claims by Wolfson, and Alegre (if ignorance was a crime, Alegre would be on death row) and others are just beyond the pale stupid. I understand sour grapes, I understand it's natural to find excuses for why you lost.

  But John Edwards cheating on his wife in 2006 had ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic nomination in 2008. Hillary had 2 major candidates SPLITTING the anti-Hillary vote...and still couldn't win. Hillary had an enormous financial advantage in 2007, and pissed it all away. Hillary had a huge advantage in endorsements right before IA, and blew it.  

  The fact that Hillary blew all these advantages and more is a testament to the shocking incompetence of herself as a candidate and her staff as political operators. It cannot be explained away or dismissed. It was political malpractice. It did not happen b/c John Edwards cheated on his wife.

   I'm all for party unity. I'm all for moving forward. I'm all for Hillary doing whatever she can do at the convention. But I'm not for brainless idiocy, I'm not for outright stupid and I'm certainly not for blaming all the problems of the world and of politics, on the penis' of John Edwards or any other male (including Hillary's own cheating husband). Surely, we can do better!!



Display:


TO YOU AND THE OTHERS: (none / 0)

THE PRIMARY IS OVER.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:57:42 PM EST

Re: TO YOU AND THE OTHERS: (2.00 / 1)


   Yep. And I'm going to vote for Obama and they aren't. So what's the harm in pointing out this nonsense? None!!
by southernman on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (2.00 / 1)

Lovely diary.

I'll come back in couple of hours to scoop out the ashes.

Have fun!


by snark adam excuse on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (2.00 / 1)

Don't you mean bacon strips and lemon drops?


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (none / 0)

bacon strips and lemon drops

venician  -  Have you every tried this on pizza?  

I can't recommend it.  It doesn't quite work the same way that pineapple and ham does...


by snark adam excuse on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (none / 0)

And the smell!


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (none / 0)

You make no sense.  What does Bill Clinton have to do with Howard Wolfson?

Gore?  Edwards?  Who cares.

How long has it been since Wolfson has been on Hillary's payroll?   Even this had been said when he still was, again, what does Bill Clinton have to do with Howard Wolfson?


by RichardFlatts on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST

Much like a trainwreck... (2.00 / 1)

this diary is a painful display, and it's hard to turn away.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST

Idiocy. (none / 0)

Fools.  


by easyE on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:57:52 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton is to Blame!!! (2.00 / 2)

But John Edwards cheating on his wife in 2006 had ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic nomination in 2008. Hillary had 2 major candidates SPLITTING the anti-Hillary vote...and still couldn't win. Hillary had an enormous financial advantage in 2007, and pissed it all away. Hillary had a huge advantage in endorsements right before IA, and blew it.
This is all water under the bridge now, but the fact of the matter is the political landscape would have been different had John and Elizabeth Edwards "come clean" when he was first asked about the affair rumors, back when the primary was just starting. The fact of the matter is, it's no one's busy whether or not John had an affair. However, it is relevant that he lied. As far as I'm concerned, he and Elizabeth duped millions of supporters of their time, energy, and money.
by zenful6219 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:15:38 PM EST

Wow!!!! (none / 0)

The PUMA's have enough power to dictate what is printed on the front pages and decide what the topic is on talk shows? I thought there were only 10 of them.


by georgiapeach on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.