HILLARY LIES AGAIN! Ohio Is NOT A Must To Win Presidency!
Ivan Hubichakakoff
her husband Bill as to which of them can spin the most lies and HALF-
TRUTHS on the campaign trail and elsewhere.
Well, Hil one-upped Bill, who you'll recall DISHONORED both his office
and his country while president.
Before and after the Ohio primary, which she won vs. Barack Obama
Tuesday, Hillary emphatically stated that no president ever won the
office without winning Ohio.
WRONG!
Intentoinally wrong?
Hey, go figure. It's Hillary Clinton! According to her, she also has
solid foreign policy experience!
Believe that, and, well, we have that bridge that's still for sale.
----------------------------
"The Fact Checker"
By Michael Dobbs
The Washington Post
Candidate Watch
"Clinton stumbles on Ohio history"
(Celebrating victory in Columbus, Ohio, March 5, 2008 )
"No person has ever won the White House without winning the Ohio
primary, in either party...Somehow the people of Ohio end up picking
the winners."
--Hillary Clinton, interview with Columbus, Ohio, TV station, March 4,
2008.
It has become part of political mythology that you cannot win the
presidency without carrying Ohio. (Actually John Kennedy pulled off
this feat in 1960, winning the general election even though he lost
Ohio by 273,000 votes.) But can you win the presidency without winning
your party's Ohio primary? History suggests that Hillary Clinton is
wrong on this point.
The New York senator made the "No person has ever won the White House"
claim in an interview with an Ohio TV station while waiting for the
results to arrive. She qualified the claim later in the evening, in
her victory speech, when she added the words "in recent history."
Let's take a quick look at the history of the Ohio primary.
The Facts
Ohio held its first primary in 1912. On the Democratic side, Ohio
governor Judson Harmon beat out New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson.
But Wilson went on to win the presidency that year, disproving the
Hillary Clinton theory of Ohio politics a century before she came up
with it.
Flash forward to May 1932. Favorite son George White wins the
Democratic Ohio primary with the expectation that he would support
former Secretary of War Newton Baker, but Franklin D. Roosevelt goes
on to become president.
Ohio historian (and Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist) Thomas Suddes
also pointed me to the May 1952 Ohio primary when the GOP at-large
delegates were all pledged to Ohio Senator Robert Taft. Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who eventually won the presidency, was not on the ballot.
In 1960, the Ohio Democratic primary was won by favorite son Gov.
Michael DiSalle, who eventually pledged his delegates to John Kennedy
after a good deal of arm-twisting from the Kennedy brothers. Favorite
sons also won the 1964 and 1968 primary elections in Ohio, on both
sides of the political divide.
In 1968, for example, Governor James A. Rhodes controlled all 58
delegates to the GOP convention, withholding his votes until it became
apparent that Richard Nixon would win the nomination. Rhodes later
achieved a notoriety of sorts by ordering state troopers to suppress
anti-war protests at Kent State in 1970.
More recently, Ohio primary voters have gone with the eventual winner
of the presidential race. But according to Andrew Cayton, a professor
of history at Miami University in Oxford, Oh., this factoid is fairly
meaningless. In recent years, Ohio has typically held its primaries
late in the election season, by which time a winner has already
emerged.
Clinton "has taken a little bit of a liberty here," agreed Herb Asher,
a professor of political science at Ohio State University. "Maybe what
she meant to say was as far back as she can remember."
The Pinocchio Test
I will give Hillary Clinton a point for qualifying her claim later in
the evening (although she never acknowledged the original mistake.)
While she is right about the last few elections, that is a fairly
meaningless statement, as Professor Cayton points out. As to whether
the qualified claim is technically correct, it all depends on how you
define "recent history."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/clinton_stumbles_on_ohio_histo,html
Ivan Hubichakakoff
WRONG!
Intentoinally wrong?
----------------------------
"The Fact Checker"
Candidate Watch
The Facts
The Pinocchio Test
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/clinton_stumbles_on_ohio_histo.html
Sid9
"Ivan Hubichakakoff" <kin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fde9fb2-633b-4d6a...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
In November two of the
three below will be on
the ballot.
Who will you vote for:
A Magna Cum Laude?
An honors graduate?
Or someone who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class?
Lamont Cranston
> Hillary Clinton it seems has been in a 20-something-year battle with
> her husband Bill as to which of them can spin the most lies and HALF-
> TRUTHS on the campaign trail and elsewhere.
>
> Well, Hil one-upped Bill, who you'll recall DISHONORED both his office
> and his country while president.
How so? By running a budget surplus for 4 years? By creating 22 million jobs? By
stopping the genocide in Kosovo?
>
> Before and after the Ohio primary, which she won vs. Barack Obama
> Tuesday, Hillary emphatically stated that no president ever won the
> office without winning Ohio.
>
> WRONG!
>
> Intentoinally wrong?
>
> Hey, go figure. It's Hillary Clinton! According to her, she also has
> solid foreign policy experience!
>
> Believe that, and, well, we have that bridge that's still for sale.
So, you have no proof that she lied, do you, dipshit? She make a mistake. Get over it and get on with your miserable life.
"But, Clinton...but, Clinton..."
rotfl
Big Al
A. Someone who looks to unite and lift up the country
B. A war hero that has some personal integrity and is not a partisan
hack
C. A lying sack of shit from a family of corrrupt lying sacks of shit
that will say and do anything to steal an election .
Big Al
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx?p=1
>"But, Clinton...but, Clinton..."
>
>rotfl
Space Kid
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
>
>
>
> >Ivan Hubichakakoff wrote:
> >>HillaryClintonit seems has been in a 20-something-year battle with
> >> her husband Bill as to which of them can spin the most lies and HALF-
> >> TRUTHS on the campaign trail and elsewhere.
>
> >> Well, Hil one-upped Bill, who you'll recall DISHONORED both his office
> >> and his country while president.
>
> >How so? By running a budget surplus for 4 years? By creating 22 million jobs? By
> >stopping the genocide in Kosovo?
>
> >> Before and after the Ohio primary, which she won vs. Barack Obama
> >> office without winning Ohio.
>
> >> WRONG!
>
> >> Intentoinally wrong?
>
> >> solid foreign policy experience!
>
> >> Believe that, and, well, we have that bridge that's still for sale.
>
> >So, you have no proof that she lied, do you, dipshit? She make a mistake. Get over it and get on with your miserable life.
>
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx?p=1
>
> >"But,Clinton...but,Clinton..."
>
> >rotfl
It's a moot point....
Hillary will be MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED from winning the nomination
unless she has massive victories in BOTH Wyoming AND Mississippi next
week (not particularly likely).... she is too far behind in both
pledged delegates and the popular vote, and superdelegates are
defecting from her to Obama.... they have already made it clear that
whoever has the most pledged delegates going into the convention will
be the nominee.
If she can't win anyway, why get worked up about her now?
Big Al
She can't win it fairly by getting the most pledged delegates but I'm
convinced that she will do anything she can to steal the nomination.
"The only call Hillary Clinton got at 3AM was from her husband asking her to come to the police station with $500 and a pair of pants." Bill Maher 3-7-08.