Pundits debated whether or not Clinton would address the allegations in his State of the Union Address. Ultimately, he chose not to mention them. Hillary Clinton stood by her husband throughout the scandal. On January 27, in an appearance on NBC's Today she famously said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

Oh my. I just heard that they are also trying to blame the outcome on Democrat Party voters just voting for the " name that showed up first on the ballot ". They couldn't be bothered to learn anything about the candidates.

And yet, they ( The Dimocrats ) want to claim that Republican voters are " uneducated ".

God that's RICH...LMAO

I wonder if were gonna see a job offer from the White House to get this guy to step out of the race........

Wait a minute, Obama would never do such a thing.....

Thank you Yellowrose for posting the article. I am going to keep looking into the story and find out what is really going on. My dad watches a lot of political shows, so it's either he or I will find out the outcome of this Great Political Circus.

Next thing y' know, this guy's gonna be Obama's newest 'czar' ...

Obama's new "czar"? Oh mercy! That or they will turn this into an ideal movie. Anything to make a movie. That's when I'll start crying for Hollywood.

You guys realize it's damn near impossible to rig an election by those margins nowadays.

I am just flat out laughing my azz off over this one.

" WHAT??? 60% of the Democrat Party voters voted for THIS GUY?? OMG!!! There's no WAY they could be THAT stupid. He HAD to have been " planted " by the Republicans!!! "

here is a piece of an article with more potential explanations,,

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/10/how-a-greene-candidate-can-win.html

Thank you, too, for this article.

I was kinda thinking, also, that maybe the voters viewed Alvin's name wrong. The name almost comes close to Al Green or Allen Green. Any name that sounds famous must be a good choice to vote for. Truly retarded to think that, but hey. What can I say. I read in the paper today that Greene, as of yesterday, is officially a candidate for the Senate race. If I have to sit here and read about this shenanigan, I'm officially voting for Jim DeMint.

Now, if that had been AL Green, he of 'Love and Happiness' fame, that would be WAY cool ... but this dude is a scam artist and a felon ... not cool ... and I betcha he can't sing, either ...

yeah, that article is interesting. I guess people vote for lots of reasons, ...we see examples in these threads even of people voting for race or religious affiliation, Im sure they vote by the sound of a name too(remember all those who wouldnt vote Hussein because of his name?),,,,Greenes opposing candidate had an odd sounding name too

there are many potential reasons why people vote the way they do and I would guess in this age of media,, image is most of it

But this guy didn't do any serious campaigning...didn't get much media exposure...

So how, exactly, could he have cultivated an " image " for people to vote for??

the image of the other candidate might have been poor enough for people to vote AGAINST him,, and this candidates name was first on the list(at the top of the choices), plus the other candidate had a strange NAME(which is also part of image, if you look at all the celebs who have 'stage' names as opposed to their real ones)

I had a fellow Facebook friend post another video online on another Alvin Greene interview with CNN. The interviewer seemed to think this was the most bizarre interview he has ever done. I thought it was the most bizarre interview ever. Even questions about Greene's sanity came up. I'm going to see if I can find the link. Or if anybody finds it first and posts it, that's great too.

Okay, I hope this works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDb7l0AAvUY

Oh my. You are one to always want to think that voters actually educate themselves before they vote.

Yet, when presented with OBVIOUS proof that they, indeed, do NOT ( hence the 60% of the vote this guy got ) you make excuses for their sheer stupidity and laziness.

Face it...the 60% that voted for him voted for the first name that had a (D) behind it and couldn't be bothered to actually KNOW who they were voting for.

perhaps it was more important whom they were voting AGAINST,,,

many voters do educate themself, but many others align themselves with those things they most relate to,,,like race,religion, even political affiliation.. and many just choose the lesser of two evils,,,,,, I dont live there , so I dont know what the other persons reputation was,,

I see. So you don't have to know who your voting for. You just have to know what they SHOULD be for??

Seriously. If you don't even know what the person is FOR...how on Earth can you possibly make an educated vote based on what the candidate is AGAINST???



But...they couldn't have KNOWN the " lesser of two evils " if they had no idea who this guy was.

The fact is..they saw a (D) after his name and voted for him.

Any other conclusion, based on the story so far ( Republican " plant...no real campaigning...felony charges pending ) is only making excuses for laziness.

I would be willing to bet that, even though he got 60% of the vote, you won't find ONE PERSON in that state that would admit to voting for him.