BloggeRhythms

Despite significant sponsor promotion and media hype, the true value of the upcoming presidential debate remains to be worthless. That’s because a few minutes of televised rhetoric isn’t going to change either candidates history, experience, job performance, fundamental knowledge or capabilities an iota. Both contestants are what they are and their resumes have been very well known to the voting public for the past thirty years or more.  

And, most important, their platforms won’t change due to some TV show. For those wanting more of the same stagnation as the last ten years and continuation of a government controlled welfare-based nation, Bill Clinton’s wife is their only choice. And for those wishing for a national turnaround, economic growth, a more secure country and foreign policy improvement, Trump’s the singular alternative. And thus, except for the show business angle, there isn’t any reason to watch two old folks toss insults at each other.  I know I'm not going to waste any of my time on it.

However, if nothing else, this particular debate preamble resulted in one of the biggest laughs this writer’s had in quite a while now.  

It was reported a couple of days ago that the Democrats were planning to put supporter Mark Cuban in the first row of the audience, because he’d be a loud and distracting heckler to Trump. 

To that, Trump brilliantly tweeted back: “If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!”  Which would really be quite funny indeed.  

And that’s because, as reported by Aaron Short and Mary Kay Linge @nypost.com, Gennifer Flowers, carried on a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and governor of Arkansas.  

“Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate,” her personal assistant, Judy Stell, wrote in an e-mail to BuzzFeed, according to the Web site. 

“The revelation of Flowers’ affair with Bill Clinton — the first of many “bimbo eruptions,” as his inner circle called them — nearly derailed his White House hopes in 1992, one month before the New Hampshire primary. 

“Rumors of infidelity had haunted Clinton from the moment he announced his candidacy, but when Flowers told a supermarket tabloid that she and the governor had carried on a torrid, decade-plus relationship, he and wife Hillary sat for an awkward “60 Minutes” interview to save the campaign. 

“Bill Clinton admitted that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, but would not confess to the relationship with Flowers — or admit to having obtained a state job for her. 

“Instead, he maintained that his private life had no place in the presidential campaign and refused to say whether he had ever committed adultery. 

“The next day, a furious Flowers called a press conference at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to tell 200 reporters that Clinton had been “absolutely lying” by denying their affair. 

“She played 15 minutes of phone conversations between the two in which Clinton instructed her to lie about having been his lover. 

“If they [reporters] ever hit you with it, just say ‘no’ and go on — there’s nothing they can do,” said a voice that she claimed was ­Clinton’s. 

“Six years later, Flowers was vindicated when lawyers for Paula Jones, who had accused Clinton of sexual harassment, forced him to admit under oath that Flowers had been telling the truth.” 

While the resurrection of Bill Clinton’s past digressions would certainly be quite damaging to the entire current presidential campaign of his wife, Cuban’s support of her might come back to bite her as well. Because, he certainly isn’t her strongest ally in the world either.    

   

According to Sally Bronston @nbcnews.com, as recently as May 22 2016: “In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Cuban said, "If [Trump] asked me, I'd be like, 'Okay, Donald. That's great. Let's talk about it. But we're both going to have to dig in and really look and understand the issues so we can come up with solutions.'" 

In the very same interview: “Cuban also expressed interest in running with Hillary Clinton. He said he would "absolutely" entertain that conversation, but "she would have to go more to the center." 

“Clinton, in a separate interview on "Meet the Press," did not fully dismiss the idea. "I appreciate his openness to it," she said.” 

“The tech entrepreneur did admit Donald Trump has "opened the door to non-traditional candidates, which is a great thing." Cuban says he's more open to running for public office now because "You don't have to be the perfect Stepford candidate like you would've been in the past." 

Most importantly: “Cuban said he believes Trump "has a real chance to win, and that's scary to a lot of people." 

“What alarms him specifically is that Trump is "listening to everybody, which is fine on the surface," but, he continued, "It's coming across as if he's proposing things based off the last person he talks to." 

However, that was six months ago, and now today Trump has far more clearly defined his platform, intentions and objectives. Which means that Cuban’s main concern has been greatly reduced, if not completely eliminated. 

And therefore, since Cuban has no solid political interest aside from whatever he can do for himself, he’s really the only completely loose cannon in the bunch. Which is something that Trump can bury him with.  

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

While the soon to be forgotten debate will likely have quite little to do with the upcoming election’s outcome, another item holds strong indications for the future in very real terms. 

Bob Unruh @wnd.com titled his column today: “Amazon steps in to 'fix' Hillary book review,” and added: “If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad.” 

“[O]ut of 1,244 reviews, 81 percent were one-star and 16 percent five-star. The book plunged from No. 840 earlier this week to No. 1,538 on Thursday. It was No. 5 in the subcategory “Books-Politics & Social Sciences-Politics & Government-Elections & Political Process-Leadership.” 

“WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000. 

“But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump. 

“Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1.” 

What’s most interesting, however, is that: “[R]eviewers many times simply punched the five-star button then made harshly critical condemnations of the book and Hillary Clinton. 

“The reviews dripped sarcasm, both before the Amazon edits to the reviews and after.

Elaine wrote: "I bought this thinking it would be a how-to book. I wanted ‘How to set up your own Foundation for fun and profit.’ Also, would like to have seen a chapter on ‘Ten easy steps to setting up your own secure server in a bathroom.'”

“Not only no but hell no. I’d rather read Mein Kampf,” said Anthony Messina. 

“Another anonymous Amazon Customer wrote, “not worth it.” 

“Yeliya said, “Don’t waste your time and money on this book full of lies.” 

“Cross Locket said, “I am now on Hillary’s watch list for rating this disgusting book ‘1 star.'” 

“Alei said, “Trash, farce, fairytale.” 

“And kpm said, “Imagine my dismay when key parts of her life were omitted, would have made for far better reading if she had included all of the below starting with flunking the D.C. Bar Exam to:

• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
• The Whitewater scandal.
• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.
• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
  The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

“Nearly 1,500 people found that review “helpful.” 

“But more than 3,400 found helpful the comments from Daniel B.:

“I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.”

All of which means that there are quite many in the voting public who know precisely what Bill Clinton’s wife is all about, regardless of attempts of influential supporters like Jeff Bezos to help her. It also means that showcases, such as debates, can’t possibly alter or reshape her very well-known history.  

Thus, considering the overwhelming negativity surrounding her, the ongoing question needs asking again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are you guys reading this?   

That's it for today folks.     

Adios