Hillary Clinton: The Luckiest Woman in the World

[BradBlog]

Hillary Clinton: The Luckiest Woman in the World

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is the luckiest woman in the world. Just when it looks like she'll have no chance to become the party's nominee, extraordinary good news comes her way, just at the last minute. Again.

Take, for example, yesterday's Pennsylvania Primary. For weeks we heard endlessly how she would need a double-digit victory margin in the Keystone State to offer a legitimate reason for her to stay in the race. And, as the gods would have it, she achieved the ability to trumpet that double-digit margin by a single tenth of a percent.

Of course, you conspiracy theorists out there are likely to spin this tale of remarkable providence, into a shadowy tale of skullduggery by supporters of a Clinton nomination, be they Democrats or Republicans, who'd rather see her, instead of Obama, go up against John McCain in the fall.

But you'd have not an iota of actual proof to support your paranoid suspicions...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5924

[jgraz]

1. Kick. Great post, Brad.

[BradBlog]

29. Thanks, jgraz...and (most of) the others! (n/t)

(Sorry, I was given a DU error message when I posted this the first time)

[BradBlog]

30. Thanks, jgraz...and (most of) the others! (n/t)

[Kurovski]

2. K&R. No way to prove anything. Not one way or the other.

You'd think more people would have an unsettling feeling about it. But you'd be wrong.

No way to prove one damn thing, just exactly the way the system was designed.

[Kurovski]

3. Kick. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

4. K&R with some questions:

Aren't there uncounted votes still outstanding? Why haven't they been counted?

[EFerrari]

5. There's nothing extraordinary about Clinton winning Pennsylvania.

No, no one can verify the outcome but it's not unexpected in the least.

You really shouldn't conflate these two issues. It detracts from the credibility of the election reform movement and, you know that.

[BradBlog]

28. Um...I'll take you at your word that you're serious...

...In which case, you think it's just fine that we should be forced to merely accept anything that we're told, despite a completely inability for even a single vote to be demonstrated as having been recorded accurately??

You really think that's good for democracy?

And with Exit Polls showing her with a 4 point lead, reportedly, close enough that the nets couldn't call a winner at all based on them -- despite an eventual "10 point" (actually 9 point) win -- you are going to suggest to me that there's nothing of concern, and nothing "unexpected in the least"?

And you are further going to use that unsupported logic to play the "detracts from the credibility of the election reform movement" garbage? I'd expect that bullshit from Daily Kos. It's ashame to find it here.

Why? Because your merely doing so -- with no substantive logic to back up your assertion -- detracts from the credibility of the election reform movement and, you know that.

[EFerrari]

39. I don't think you're replying to my post. That must be some other post

by someone who is credulous that you are replying to, Brad.

[BradBlog]

40. Yes, I was replying to you, and your unfortunate smear...

...which suggested that by pointing out there is no way to know anything about the results of the PA Primary, it is "bad for the election integrity movement".

That's the same dangerous garbage I read at Daily Kos. And the inference does as much damage here as it does over there.

[FedoraLV]

6. k&r /nt

[nichomachus]

7. She gets more like Bush every day

No provable conspiracies -- just an unimaginable string of coincidences. Scores of seemingly random events lining up to benefit her.

Bush has been living on this phenomenon for eight years.

[helderheid]

8. K&R and Digged

So the computers reported that she won --- whether dramatically or not --- beyond a shadow of a doubt in both states!

Well...beyond a shadow of a doubt may be an overstatement, since in Pennsylvania it's not as if the officials there could actually prove that any vote cast yesterday for a candidate on the ballot on any of the 85% of the state's votes recorded on electronic machines, was actually cast or recorded as any voter intended. But still...even with a 100% dearth of actual evidence to prove that Clinton won, much less by a comfortable, well, a one-tenth of a percent margin large enough to quality as "double-digit" for most of the media...well, you must admit that she's a very very lucky woman, and you can't prove otherwise either!

Your fertile imagination is a threat to our democracy, and thus to the very foundation of our nation!

[EFerrari]

9. You guys are confusing an unverifiable result with something else

and with book sales.

Where is the data? Where is anything but innuendo? Maybe Brad can get his buddy Bev Harris to tell us a story?

There is no way to verify the PA primary. That is true. Election reform activists are all over that.

It's something completely different to assign blame. Something self-serving and not cool.

[helderheid]

10. The exit polls matched the results where paper ballots were used but not where they weren't. I'm not

accusing the Clinton camp of ANYTHING. If election fraud is to blame, I'm sure it isn't her camp involved but the Republicans.

[EFerrari]

11. We have no reason to have any confidence in the PA results.

I'm so with you there.

But, there is no evidence that Clinton had anything to do with it, which is the hook of Brad's post.

[BradBlog]

32. We have no reason to have confidence in you as an Election Integrity advocate.

"there is no evidence that Clinton had anything to do with it, which is the hook of Brad's post."

And where did I say that? In fact, if you read the actual article, it indicates otherwise.

[EFerrari]

37. Brad, if you would address the issues instead of trying to smear me

you'd be much more credible. :)

[BradBlog]

42. Thanks for your bad advice. But attempt to smear me and you'll be smeared right back.

Your bullshit about pushing some "book" (which I don't have), and "taking advice from your friend Bev Harris" or whatever bullshit you were pushing, was the smear in the first place.

Playing innocent, while throwing shit bombs from behind your anonymous wall, you are hardly the one to tell *me* about "credibility", particularly when you show up to pull the same anti-Election Integrity shit over and over and over again here at DU.

I have addressed the issues presented by your substantless initial smear.

If you wish to pull a Rove/Limbaugh and accuse others of doing what you yourself have done, I suspect most folks at DU can see through that bullshit by now. It remains exhausting nonetheless, and a pity that folks like you are allowed to pull the same crap over and over and over again here without being tomb stoned for it.

[EFerrari]

45. Brad, I haven't been anonymous here at DU for years.

Maybe you weren't paying attention. Maybe you've been busy.

What I said was, there is nothing remarkable (or lucky) about Clinton winning a state where the demos favor her and where we knew there are touch screens. That was my "initial smear" and you seem to have no trouble over reacting to it.

That statement hurts The Movement? Since when was the election reform movement beyond question? I ask a reasonable question and you ask if I'm serious? You want me to be tomb stoned for being thoughtful? :wtf:

Nothing in this piece is new and you have not made a case. It's a good piece of style but it's not news, nothing that hasn't been posted to this very forum since even before Tuesday, and even posted by me and here.

Myself, I see that Clinton had the party machinery behind her and that they did have the opportunity to rig. But I have no evidence so, I can't make that claim. I don't see how The Movement gains in credibility by making claims it can't substantiate -- even via innuendo.

And, I will continue to "pull the same crap" when it comes to raising reasonable questions about election fraud and reform. We used to call that "thinking".

[BradBlog]

48. I have no idea who you are, but you are clearly disingenuous

You said:

What I said was, there is nothing remarkable (or lucky) about Clinton winning a state where the demos favor her and where we knew there are touch screens. That was my "initial smear" and you seem to have no trouble over reacting to it.

Bullshit.

You're "initial smear" was (as clearly visible upthread):

You guys are confusing an unverifiable result with something else

and with book sales.

Where is the data? Where is anything but innuendo? Maybe Brad can get his buddy Bev Harris to tell us a story?

...and then...

You really shouldn't conflate these two issues. It detracts from the credibility of the election reform movement and, you know that.

As I pointed I previously: I have no book, so I have no "book sales". Your position on Bev Harris is well known, so your slur (yes, innuendo) concerning "his buddy Bev Harris to tell us a story" is more, unadulterated obnoxious smear.

Finally, suggesting that point out that votes in PA can, in no way, be verified, and so any questions about results, as are bound to happen (and have happened, and yes, they are in conflict with the exit polls) means that such question will continue to occur in American democracy, which continues to be a great threat to same.

You, or anyone else, are welcome to raise any "reasonable questions about election fraud and reform" that you wish.

You are not, however, welcome to piss down my back and tell me it's raining. That bullshit may work with others, but not me. Yes, you should be tomb stoned, as you have proven time and again -- for years -- to be anything but a positive supporter of Election Reform and Integrity. And, as your post above shows, along with the evidence to counter it from your hand above it (along with many years of similar garbage), you are also exceedingly dishonest.

[rodeodance]

15. Repugs have been messing with our primary. --I wish they would

get caught red-handed doing something illegal.

[PetraPooh]

17. She's done everything else in such a republican way, why would you completely

doubt that she did that here as well?

[EFerrari]

18. Because innuendo isn't evidence?

:shrug:

[PetraPooh]

22. I'm just surprised you completely throw the possibility out, not suggesting you should embrace the

theory.

[EFerrari]

35. I didn't throw anything out. But making exaggerated claims

doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

[BradBlog]

33. Right. So where's your evidence that she won Tuesday, champ?

[EFerrari]

34. False dilemma, "champ".

[BradBlog]

43. "False dilemma"? Bring knives to gunfights very often?

You ask for "evidence" in a thread discussing an article pointing out that no such evidence exists, and that that's the problem.

You declare that discussing that issue somehow discredits the Election Integrity movement, and ask for evidence that there is a problem here. Yet act as if you haven't a clue that that's the problem itself.

So I ask you again: Where is you proof that Hillary Clinton won the election, by any margin, much less "10 points"?

As you have none, it seems to me that you must be one of those conspiracy theorists who buys into any nonsense you read on the Internet about Hillary Clinton having won the PA Primary.

You discredit the chance of restoring democracy in America when you do so. You disgrace the pages of DU with your continuing smoke and mirrors.

[EFerrari]

46. You tied Hillary Clinton to the outcome of the election

in your headline and in your punchline.

And, you provided nothing to substantiate it, did you?

What I seem to you is beside the point, isn't it?

Isn't it enough to say that we have no way of knowing the outcome of an occluded vote without implying a blame you can't prove?

Your personal attacks on me don't make your case, either. Nobody is going to think, Beth is a bad person, Hillary stole the election.

[BradBlog]

49. Are you unable to read? Or just that dishonest?

And, you provided nothing to substantiate it, did you?

Yes. I did. The very post itself, substantiates itself, by making the point that there is NOTHING to substantiate the claim that Clinton won in PA. Did she? Who knows. Feel free to share any proof, as I mention in the article, and I'll be happy to retract everything I've said about you, which I currently stand behind 100%.

What I seem to you is beside the point, isn't it?

No. Not if what you seem to me is a menace to the good of our nation.

Isn't it enough to say that we have no way of knowing the outcome of an occluded vote without implying a blame you can't prove?

Which blame? What can't I prove?

I'll repeat my subject line here: Are you unable to read? Or just that dishonest?

[truedelphi]

23. Why are you sure that it is the Republicans?

Again, nothing can be verified.

But the results for Dean vs. Kerry back in Spring 2004 were suspicious - Dean won everywhere there was paper and Kerry won everywhere there was electronics.

Is it the Repugs or the DLC??

[BradBlog]

31. And you are confusing reality with your imagination...

What "book sales"? I don't have one.

Do you have something you wish to dispute in the article? Please name it.

Until then, you are doing nothing but attempting to discredit the Election Integrity movement. Again.

So, thank you advance for your substantive complaints. If you are able to cobble any actual ones together.

[EFerrari]

36. Why not start with your headline, which is in itself dishonest?

Take it to someone you can impress, Brad.

[BradBlog]

44. More smears. Keep up the bad, dishonest work, sexy...

...It's only your democracy at stake. But I wouldn't expect you to give a shit by now, given your disgraceful history here.

[Kurovski]

47. Please Brad, I respect you, and I respect sfexpat2000.

The name-calling is beneath you. In addition it will gain you very little as Beth is a better known, and well-respected person here at DU for more reasons than Election Reform. Any negative innuendo about her motivations here at DU will likely bring you an outright dismissal from many DUers. That is just a fact.

There is a very personal rift here, and I understand both points of view, and understand also that Beth was hurt deeply--personally--by Ms. Harris. many were. I frankly don't know how to rectify these matters.

I know that on a personal level, they can't be. I know that we can see the divisiveness Ms. harris inspires.

I also know that I cannot personally reject your input based on your association with another individual, but that is my decision based on what you bring to the table and your past conduct as I've observed it.

Beth and you both make good points in this thread ( when not clawing at each other) but there is a great deal of emotion that has escalated far beyond the OP at hand. I hope that you can both step back and realize--suspicions, animosity, hurt, slights and all put aside--that you are both working toward the same goal of transparent and verifiable elections. Or at best, have your say(s) and step back from the personal fighting that can interfere with the flow of information.

I can only offer trust to an individual based on my observations of their personal behavior and writings, not on who they may speak or work with. At anytime in the future that people in the reform movement who associate with bev begin to themselves display contemptible behavior--such as that which she has shown in the past--then I will reconsider my view.

I have my own sense of what Ms. Harris may be about, and this kind of rift here between two good people, two activists, is what I sometimes believe is her actual goal. I may be wrong, but as long as good information and research continues to come of any association with her, I see no reason to stop-up the process, or deny that information, or get side-tracked with what are for some, deeply painful emotions.

I can't throw people under the bus who for years I saw as good activists and hard workers because they have associated with a contemptible person who nevertheless produces. I may be displaying my weak sense of morality here, but I've had to work with actual sociopathic personalities in the past. Maybe I'm just jaded.

So, I respect you both, and I have love in my heart for Beth, having had a friendship here on DU for what? Thirty years now? If the best you both can do is step back and let each other continue to do their work, I will be a happy man.

But oy! go ahead, make an old fagola miserable, the world should care for some reason maybe?

[BradBlog]

50. Thanks for your thoughts, Kurovski...

They are much appreciated. Nonetheless, Bev Harris had absolutely nothing to do with my original post, and neither did selling books (I don't have one) or making accusations (I made none).

If your friend Beth has a problem with Bev Harris, she can take it to Bev Harris. I will hold Bev or Beth (whoever she is) or anybody else to task when they behave inappropriately, as Beth has done so here, and as Bev has at times in the past.

I will not tolerate smears to my character or my motivations. There are enough "bad guys" who work hard to try do that in the rest of the world every day, and enough working to do same -- dangerously -- at places like dKos, where I do not write.

When I see that crap here, please expect me to speak out about it. In no uncertain terms. SFExPat has a history of doing that on these topics. For years. It is inappropriate, obnoxious, unsubstantiated and worse: dangerous.

If I offended you, of course, I apologize, as that certainly wasn't my interest.

[dailykoff]

51. Don't go changin Brad.

Just thought I'd throw that in because it really bothers me that whenever this subject gets a little desperately needed attention somebody waves the Bev Harris flag to shut it down. It's insanely counterproductive and smells a lot like COINTELPRO and it happens all the time.

[PetraPooh]

13. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and so true.

[rodeodance]

12. Hillary worked hard for her victory. it was not luck that did it.

[PetraPooh]

14. did you even read the article? Victory, schmictory. pfft.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Thanks Brad.... 85% were not verifiable in any way

That worried me then and those machines worry me in the general election.

[helderheid]

19. And they should EVERYONE.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

24. Combined with M$M instilling the notion that nothing is wrong w/ calling an election

With only 8% of the vote already in - Those two things are a verifiable recipe for DISASTER

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. cool how they only gave Philly precincts 2 machines, some not working

turn away hundreds of voters.

Gee how did that happen?????

[truedelphi]

25. You tell me.

We are willing to commit our troops and money to ensuring "democracy" in Iraq, but no
sensible requirements for democracy at home.

[SoCalDem]

38. Fast Eddie and Sestak were BEAMING, as they told the newsette the day after

that they had "successfully held down the vote" in Philly..

translation..made it difficult or impossible for many poor people to vote :puke:

[Laurab]

21. K&R n/t

[Gore1FL]

26. Yep, next to Lou Gehrig...

[quakerboy]

27. pretty much.

I was planning to stop by and see your site. thanks for bringing it here and making it easy.

[dailykoff]

41. Question: would the Clintons lie or cheat, given the opportunity?

Answer: EVERY FRICKIN' TIME! :mad: