What will we do when Hillary steals the primary?

[I work for workers]

Anyone who has been paying attention during the last eight years has to see the writing on the wall. Regardless of who wins the Democratic primary, I suspect Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. Consider these startling facts:

-In 2000 Al Gore's campaign is derailed by unusual election circumstances in strongly Democratic and Clinton sympathetic Florida counties. A Gore victory would have set up Joe Lieberman for the 2008 nominee. Lieberman is not Hillary Clinton.

-In 2004 John Kerry's campaign is derailed by unusually percentages of Democratic votes in heavily Democratic districts. In some places these contradict exit poll results. A Kerry victory would set up John Kerry for the 2008 nominee and John Edwards for the 2012 nominee. Neither John Kerry or John Edwards are Hillary Clinton.

-In 2016, Rush Limbaugh has assured us Hillary Clinton will be too old and unattractive to run for office. She must win now, or never be president.

Who was the one person who was most served by Gore and Kerry's suspicious defeats? The one person who would gain the most power and prestiege? Yes, that is right, it was Hillary Clinton. She, alone out of all members of US politics, had a vested interest in Democratic defeats in the past two presidential elections. The evidence all points to a vast left wing conspiracy to destroy the only people in her way; Al Gore, John Kerry, and now Barack Obama.

Impossible you say? Surely there is some other explaination? If only that was possible. Consider this:

-As Barack Obama, who is not Hillary Clinton, nears victory, his campaign is surrounded by real estate scandal due to his ties to "slum lord" Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko is a known associate of Hillary Clinton, who is a known expert on real estate scandal.

O8)

[JVS]

1. Since when is Rush Limbaugh some kind of expert on being unattractive?

Oh wait! Nevermind.

[terrya]

2. Every single word of your post is offensive.

[havocmom]

5. Perhaps to some. But definitely not to all

:shrug:

[JVS]

8. Leaving a decision about if Hillary will look good enough to run in 2016 to limbaugh is pretty bad.

[DJ13]

3. While I agree with much of your post (too many coincidences)

Part of me thinks that much of Obama's support from the MSM is a result of that same MSM knowing what the Clinton's are capable of and they are ready to expose any attempted high jacking should the Clinton's try it this time.

[Buck Laser]

Might be better to wait until after Tuesday to talk about stealing primaries...

I'm pretty sure Obama wil take TX, and my OH friends tell me he's moving ahead there, too.

[pocoloco]

4. Scandals?? You want scandals??

http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton/clinatoz.html

[panader0]

6. Reaching..........

[sniffa]

7. "Who was the one person who was most served by Gore and Kerry's suspicious defeats?"

It was Hillary, in the billiards room, with the candle stick.

[billybob537]

9. What's that smell

Desperation!

[okasha]

10. You win the silly prize.

"Who was the one person who was most served by Gore and Kerry's suspicious defeats? The one person who would gain the most power and prestiege? Yes, that is right, it was Hillary Clinton. She, alone out of all members of US politics, had a vested interest in Democratic defeats in the past two presidential elections."

Ever hear of one George W. Bush?

"Tony Rezko is a known associate of Hillary Clinton,"

Substantiate. And no, one Polaroid picture taken at a fundraiser doesn't count.

[I work for workers]

12. GWB isn't running in 2008. He had nothing to gain.

[okasha]

22. You win a second silly prize.

Gore ran against George W. Bush in 2000. SCOTUS installed Bush. Hillary Clinton did not run against Gore.

Kerry ran against George W. Bush in 2004. There is good reason to believe that election was also stolen--again, benefitting none other than George W. Bush.

Hillary did not run against either Gore or Kerry and received no benefit from their defeat.

Is this clear to you now, or do you need to repeat junior high history?

[I work for workers]

26. I suggest you reread my damning report on recent election history.

I can't blame you for being skeptical. Like a freshly opened puzzle spilled across the table, the picture is hidden at first. Begin to put together the pieces however, and you will begin to see what truly lies before you. Read my exhaustingly prepared report again. You will surely find that only Hillary Clinton stood to gain by Bush's victories.

[cd3dem]

28. the Rezco photo is doctored and a fake... meant to distract the guy from Obama

don't be fooled.. if you look at it close up it is obvious... coloring... and the fact Rezco is behind both Bill and Hillary... generally people step in and step out and the next person comes along... also Resco has his jacket spread showing his arms are hugging the person in the photo... not the match to the stand of Bill and Hillary... it is a fake... maybe sent to NBC by Obama and friends... and the media has been in bed with Obama all along...

[yewberry]

11. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this is crap.

Another example of the ridiculous demonization of "the other side," whichever side you're on.

Right. Clinton is going to steal the election. :eyes: What next, she kicked sand in your eyes? Curdled your milk?

Focus. We need to defeat the r e p u b l i c a n s not ourselves.

Sheesh.

[I work for workers]

15. I agree. I'm just making fun of some of the nonsense I see posted

on this sub-board.

[yewberry]

23. I think my sarcasm meter must be broken.

(And I'm probably not the only one!)

[Sparkly]

27. You really need to use the sarcasm tag....

It looks like this: :sarcasm:

I wasn't sure whether you were serious or not.

[I work for workers]

30. I purposely didn't.

I only started this because I wanted to see how many people would take my nonsense seriously. I knew the mudslinging had gotten pretty bad here, but I wanted to test just how bad it was.

[Nine]

34. Well it is pretty sad...

...that this thread is nearly indistinguishable from some of the "sincere" candidate-bashing threads. However, I don't think many people on here will appreciate this sort of game-playing, including me. Sorry, I share your view about the mudslinging around here but I think this thread was a mistake.

ETA - Wait a minute, was your post satire or not? I really can't figure out whether you're serious or not - you're going back and forth from post to post. Oh well, I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness anyway.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Rush Limbaugh has assured us Hillary Clinton will be too old and unattractive to run for office.

So sayth the RE :puke: OP.

[Guava Jelly]

14. geeze

Can we stop this yet?

[I work for workers]

16. LMAO @ this post getting recommended for the greatest page. nt

[greguganus]

35. Only 1 rec. Hopefully it won't get any more! n/t

Go Bama!

[LaurenG]

17. I think this is a disgusting thing to say and a really rude thing to post.

Why is it necessary to talk like and quote a republican?

You are offending me, as a female and as an Obama supporter.

[I work for workers]

21. It's all in good fun.

At least I'm joking. That so few people realize that says something about the level of discussion that has haunted the primaries board.

[Nine]

18. "Who was the one person who was most served by Gore and Kerry's suspicious defeats?"

Gee, I don't know. Could that possibly be George W. Bush? Nawwww, too obvious.

Assuming you're not being satirical, I can't believe you're actually trying to pin the stolen elections of 200 and 2004 on Hillary Clinton. It just demonstrates your astounding ignorance of recent history.

ETA - Oops, okasha, you beat me to it. "I work for workers" what does Bush not running in 2008 have to do with 2000 and 2004? You make no sense.

[I work for workers]

19. It seems unlikely that Bush could have stolen Democratic counties.

That would require someone who has shown the ability to put vast and dramatic plans into action, regardless of the will of the people. Besides, what would Bush gain by Hillary running in 2008?

[Nine]

24. You can't be serious. You just can't.

I don't have time to teach Stolen Elections 101 to you. Why don't you try doing a little research on your own? You can start with DU's own archives.

[I work for workers]

29. I'm not serious at all. But the fact remains that the evidence clearly shows

that Hillary Clinton is the most likely suspect behind all the recent questionable election activity. Who else but her had something to gain from Republican victories in 2000 and 2008? I literally can't think of anyone else, and I'm pretty smart.

[NastyRiffraff]

33. You forgot the "sarcasm" smiley?

You aren't serious, but you say:

Who else but her had something to gain from Republican victories in 2000 and 2008?

Er...maybe the Republicans?

If you "literally can't think of anyone else," you ain't that smart.

[I work for workers]

36. Who else but Hillary?

If there was someone else, I'm sure we would have thought of it. Some guy, for example, with something to gain should Gore and Kerry both lose their election bids. If there was even one other person who had anything to gain, I'm sure they would be famous and noteworthy enough that I would realize.

Like I said down thread, I purposely left off the sarcasm smiley to see if people would take this idiocy seriously. Apparently they did, and are not as amused as I had hoped.

[NastyRiffraff]

20. Okay, let me get this straight

It wasn't Republican vote-tampering, the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, AND the media who were responsible for what happened in 2000. It was Hillary!

It wasn't the media, GOP vote-tampering in Ohio, the swiftboaters, who were responsible for 2004. It was Hillary!

And of course, it isn't Barack Obama who is a "known associate" of Rony Rezko. It's Hillary!

Oooookaaaay.

Hey, GOP, you're off the hook!

Silliest. Post. Ever.

[elfin]

25. It is a possibility as of today -- IF that happens

I would vote for her, but would not support her monetarily or by working as a volunteer.

PS - I do not hink your post is offensive, but is thought provoking, though a bit too reliant on such sources as the despicable Limpballs and strange reasoning to "explain" the last two "elecions."

Nevertheless, it is possible for her to become the nominee by non-"democratic" ways.

[NMMNG]

31. Yah

[Lucinda]

32. OMG

:rofl:
Thanks for the laugh!

[NMMNG]

37. Those cats are the best

:P

[bigtree]

38. you wake up

you're obviously dreaming

[tandem5]

39. well this poster, who is not Hillary Clinton, found your post entertaining! nt

[Beregond2]

40. Please

There is medication for paranoia, you know..