Conventional wisdom in my inner circle of sorcerers and sources has been that the first female president will be a Republican. This is because America is still mostly a center-right country, and voters would feel more comfortable with a conservative-leaning woman. So goes the thinking.

Kathleen Parker mug

kathleen parker

Republican Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, no doubt concurs.

While she waits out President Trump’s possible second term (because life is strange), Democrats have filled their bench with enough declared women — six at last count — that one wonders why we’re always talking about men. Given the bulk of media coverage, one would think the only candidates were Joe, Bernie, Beto and Pete.

The fact that those four are known by their first names is helpful if you’re a politician or a simpleton, not that they’re mutually exclusive.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders need no introduction because they’ve been around since the Gold Rush. One looks like he just stepped off a yacht, the other like he just lost a fight with a bulldog.

Beto O’Rourke is famous for being newly famous — and also for mastering the distant gaze in profile that reminds people how much they dislike him.

And, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (South Bend, Indiana) is just so darned likable, we can’t get enough of him and his multilingual-ness, despite his reportedly lugging around a copy of James Joyce’s gloriously indecipherable “Ulysses.”

But, what about Amy, Elizabeth, Kamala, Kirsten, Marianne and Tulsi?

Until recently, being a woman meant a presidential candidate could count on special attention, if only for her rarity. But that was in the era known as HRC — Hillary Rodham Clinton — which occupied most of the past three decades. In the post-HRC era, more Democratic women finally feel free to go for the prize. Perhaps for the first time in history, Americans will fully understand that women are not all the same.

The challenge for these six female candidates is how to stand out. Fortunately, or not, some have already made headlines with their uniqueness. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar reportedly ate a salad with her comb when an aide delivered her lunch without plastic utensils. Call her utilitarian, or a mother of invention, but never call her hungry.

Another tactic might be to claim Native American heritage, as the history-haunted Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has done. Even though DNA testing indicated that she does, indeed, carry a teensy-tiny fraction of Native American blood, she’s forever saddled with Trump’s nickname for her, “Pocahontas.” This is a shame given Warren’s considerable intellect, her passion and her professorial grasp of complex policies.

In politics, you only have to do one monumental- or minuscule-but-memorable thing, and that thing becomes your persona, identity and legacy. A single impression can catapult a candidate to instant popularity or condemn her to infamy.

Similarly, Klobuchar has been characterized as an unholy boss. Again, a shame. For Klobuchar is a levelheaded, centrist pragmatist and surely capable of handling Trump in a fair debate. But comb-cuisine is an unappetizing image, to say the least, and other Draconian tales abound.

Now let’s turn to New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who will be most remembered for pushing the ouster of former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken after sexual misconduct allegations. Democrats may have manned the #MeToo battlements, but they sure didn’t like losing one of their favorite senators, and may be unforgiving.

Another candidate cursed with controversy is Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who two years ago met with Syrian genocidal dictator Bashar Assad and called the U.S.-backed opposition “terrorists.”

Marianne Williamson is a New Age self-help specialist beloved by Hollywood. Say no more.

Kamala Harris, a former California attorney general and now U.S. senator, is perhaps best known for her prosecutorial zeal during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination hearings. Great for the primary, disastrous in the general.

These pithy summaries aren’t meant to be disparaging or dismissive, but reductive identity is the bumper sticker of fate. This time around, there will be no female nominee or president — but not because of their being women. They will lose like men — because they weren’t right for this job at this moment — a feminist feat in itself.

Be not dismayed, for a female president is coming soon, likely in 2024. She’ll be a woman of color, a real Indian (with parents from Punjab), a Christian, a Republican, a wife and mother with Southern manners, statewide governing experience and an international profile. Wouldn’t that beat all?

Be the first to know - Sign up for Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker can be reached at kathleenparker@washpost.com.


(64) comments


Just taking a look at the female candidates Democrats are producing, not a one could come close to being elected but if I had to choose from this group Amy Klobuchar because she is as close to Trump in her thinking as you can get. She's tough and is a little nasty and expects results, you will find she is not the Democrat folks think she is.


If a woman is the best candidate, GREAT,! Problem is this, liberals vote emotionally, just like when Obumer was elected because he’s black. Use your heads in the voting booth people!


Ah, yes. The always level-headed, cool as a cucumber, reasonable and drily philosophical Climate tells the world how to act. If we all acted like he actually acts, there would not be a house in town without broken windows because of stuff being thrown at each other by the angry occupants inside, and stuff being thrown into them from outside by angry neighbors holding grudges and nasty opinions. He is truly a hero for our times.


What in the he// are you hallucinating about??.


I am not hallucinating, Climate. I am only describing your own, personal hallucinations that you so graphically detail for the rest of us daily in your appearances on these opinion boards.


The Hoaxer raises his racist head once again, claiming Obama was only elected because he is black. Please, Hoaxer, rip off your white hood and let the whole city know who you are.


You’re showing your stupidity, as usual, who with ANY intelligence would vote for a woman based on that fact or a black man based on that fact? You’re right almost half the country, stupid liberals!


I again challenge you, Hoaxer. Stand up and be a proud racist and let the community know your real name.


Cmon "Climatehoax", show us who you really are!


"Liberals vote emotionally". What exactly does that mean? You don't think Republicans voted for Trump out of emotion? "just like when Obumer was elected because he’s black". That might be the most racist comment you have ever made.


"America is still mostly a center-right country..." Democrats won the popular vote in the last presidential election. Democrats won the popular vote in the last congressional races. Democrats are the majority voters for the Senate. Parker's contention that we live in a "center-right country" is just more myth making in an effort to shore up the republicans' illegitimate grip on power which was gained through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and an outdated electoral system.


California gave you the slim majority. One massive, communist state does not represent the values of the rest of the country. Is a little logic.


D, I assume when you say you read thousands of history books that they must be comic books, not actual history texts, as your "facts" are always so bewilderingly wrong. Hillary won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A 2.1% lead is not a "slim majority". It is not a landslide, either, but it is a healthy win. Still, Trump came in like he had a landslide mandate to do anything he wanted, just like George W. did when he lost the popular vote in the 2000 election. Two of the worst presidents in history found their way into office after losing the popular vote. That is a real history lesson that should not be ignored.


Should CA and NY decide the course of events for all Americans? Answer me that.


No, they should not, D. Between them, they probably represent about 20 percent of the national population, if that. How would they be able to do that? Do you think that voters in Wyoming should have a voice that is 15 times as powerful as the voters in California? That is roughly what is happening in a nation that is supposed to cherish the precept of one man/one vote. Answer me that.


Dmoney you act as if California and New York could between the 2 of them win a nationwide election. If we agree that these 2 most populous states have 20% of the national vote then if every eligible citizen in those 2 states voted for candidate A and voters in the other 48 states chose candidate B who would win the election.? Obviously candidate B would win. My point is lots of other people in other states have to vote for candidate A along with California and New York for a candidate to win.


I guess you put to bed D and his argument against having New York and California voters have equal say in who is president. He must be hiding behind the outhouse.


Facts simply don't matter to the D-bag who ignores the Democratic majorities in many states that were overridden by the antiquated Electoral College. He ignores the fact that Democrats continue to win majorities across the country, but have been stymied by republicans gerrymandering to keep them from gaining their true and earned representation. Wingnuts like the D-Bag simply aren't interested in democracy if it means they can't cling to power and use the government against the majority.




Should minority voters in states across the country be allowed to control their state legislatures and have outsized influence in Congress because they were able to manipulate voting districts through gerrymandering? Answer me that, D-Bag.


Worth repeating... if the Democrats had chosen a candidate other than Hillary Clinton, a female candidate, we would already have the first female president. The corruption within the DNC resulted in Hillary Clinton, already widely hated by the right and many, many on the left vs Donald Trump. We know the outcome.

Trib-libs you may console yourselves by saying that she won the popular vote. OK... but that isn’t how presidents are chosen. Next.. You’ll insist we get rid of the electoral college.

If you want to win, why not simply choose a better candidate? How bout in 2024, vote for that exceptional female candidate? As Parker says here, she’ll very likely be a Republican.


Yeah, like Sarah Palin. LOL!


Palin? I agree... LOL! [lol] Choosing Palin to run for President would just as stupid as the DNC's choice to anoint Hillary Clinton. Hillary is/was so horrible that she couldn't even beat Donald Trump. Had you picked someone else, nearly anyone other than Hillary, you would have won.


Donald Trump, the very openly corrupt, amoral, immoral lout that you voted for in 2016, crank? You have evidence that Hillary was more corrupt than your man Donald, the guy you continue to defend every day on these boards? Show us a few facts, for once. Convince us. If you can't, keep quiet.


You first, old trumpy. You continually say I “defend Donald Trump every day” Show me where. Prove it!


Here... Let me help you out, oldhomey. In August of 2016, I posted this. Hardly ringing praise of the guy you say I admire...

crank Aug 16, 2016 3:22pm
"...There are enough people who will never vote for Hillary because they know who she is. You may choose to turn a blind eye to her faults. Fine, shut up and vote.

I'd make the case that Hillary is no less ambitious, no less corrupt, has just a large an ego, etc. as Trump. Clearly, Trump is not the best candidate for president. I'd say neither is she. From the time she was in the White House with Bill she has shown she is in it for herself. Face it, the trib-lib Trump critics on here would never vote for ANY GOP candidate. Likewise, there are conservatives who would never vote for ANY democrat (especially Hillary).

Hell, I would have voted for Sanders over either of these two but I'll never vote for Hillary. I wrote in these comments that I'd write-in Chip Denure if Scott Walker and Hillary Clinton were the candidates left standing. I'm voting but I sure as heck won't be voting for Hillary.

Here's why... Hillary has a vast political machine dug in like a tick on a hound. The DNC, justice department, political cronies, people willing to do whatever she commands because she is plugged in to Washington DC. It is demonstrated by the cover-ups and scandals that date back to the subpoenaed Rose Law Firm records which were 'lost' in the 1990's and found to be in the Clinton residence in the White House the whole time (safe and sound). It continues today with the FBI ignoring the e-mail and security issues to State Dept. scandals. She'll be dangerous as President because she'll be untouchable as ever and has willing accomplices already in place.

Compare that to Trump... Trump is an outsider who won't likely be able to get support from either party in congress for anything he wants to do. He doesn't have the clout. If he does anything illegal, corrupt or un-Constitutional, you know there are people willing to give close scrutiny to and expose his every move. It's happening already. Witness the people screaming TREASON because he made a joke on the stump about the Russians having Hillary's missing emails. Opponents love to shout that Trump is a fascist without really knowing the meaning of the word and that he will become a dictator. Actually, Hillary Clinton is better positioned and more likely to become a dictator. Look at her decades-long history of corruption and her willing accomplices in positions of power within the press, government, Wall Street, etc. to cover for her and do her bidding. Is anyone going to do this for Trump?"

Your response? #GOSH #gee #ahem You contributed then about the same as you do now... snotty personal attacks but little more.

"oldhomey Aug 16, 2016 7:56pm
Gosh, Crank, after that BRILLIANT disquisition, we are humbled and honored. You have put everything in perfect, proper, correct perspective, leaving not a shred of anything left that anybody might disagree with. Devastating. Just devastating. And even then, you have given us stupid liberals options. We can spout off or just shut up and vote. One question, however. If this evil harridan has carefully laid plans and built up networks of operatives inside the government who are so beholden to her that they have and will continue cover up her horrible crimes against the state and society, what is her end game? World domination? Imposing an LGBT dictatorship in America that will outlaw heterosexual marriages? Establishing a free state for ISIS somewhere in the southwest so that they have easier access to behead Americans at will? Setting the ATF on Buggs Raplin to take away his guns and bar him from paranoid conspiracy websites on the Internet? Perhaps it is the latter, as much of your information would seem to have come from those sites. But please do tell us. We are SO fascinated by your erudition."

Fact is, you are still whining like a spoiled brat because your party mis-calculated 'bigly' and lost to this horrible, horrible guy.

Even a guy commenting on this little, small-town newspaper in the Midwest had a pretty good idea how things would go. You guys are still trying to blame everyone but yourselves and your corrupt party for that loss. Happily, we never learned what Hillary would do if she were to become president because she LOST. Looking back from Aug 2016 until now, I'd say I was pretty close in my predictions. Of course you'll quibble about details because bickering is what you do.

I will throw your snarky/snotty questions back at you, oh pompous one. We're more than two years in to Donald Trump's presidency. What is Donald Trump's end game, smarty pants? Any ideas what his master plan is yet?


Well thank you for further making my case with your 6:35pm post, crank. Number One. Your August, 2016, post, composed of entirely imagined "sins" of Hillary Clinton you gleaned from right-wing posts, some probably hot off the presses of Russian intelligence, are empty, with no attempt on your part to substantiate them. Already you are at that time posturing that you don't like what Donald Trump had done -- which was already on the record as true, often substantiated by himself speaking on camera on video -- but say, gosh, if is down to this choice, I am going for the proven corrupt lout. You don't think that is defending him? Throwing your support behind a bully and a lout is not defending him? You seem to have trouble with definitions, crank, in this case, just like your mis-use of the term "doxing".

Number Two. It is interesting that you would include your typically uninsightful insight in what to expect if Trump were elected, that he would not get support from the Republican congress and, if he did anything corrupt or un-Constitutional, he would get his ears pinned back. You sorta blew that pretty badly, didn't you?

Number Three. For somebody who likes to accuse others of being paranoid and overly defensive, you certainly have dug pretty deeply into old exchanges to try to make your case. It didn't work. My response to you in 2016 stands up pretty well.

But, boy, that Hillary Deep State really showed up after the election, huh? Trump is doing his best to decimate our government agencies, loading up his administration with the worst swamp people in the history of the republic while happily doing the work of Vladimir Putin to sow discord and distrust in our institutions and our way of life. You are backing a real champ.

I am particularly pleased, however, crank, that I made you sweat over your 6:35om post. I hope it took you a couple of hours to piece it together. Too bad it failed on all cylinders.


Nope, it didn’t take long at all. You have such an imagination, old homey. Delusions of grandeur? #kingofkings

Worth noting, mr puppets, after all that, you didn’t offer your own thoughts about what Mr. Trump’s end game is. You demand so much of others but what you post is empty bluster gleaned from leftist talking points.


Well, excuse ME, crank! You simply try to duck out here with another silly deflection when you realize you have nothing credible to say in your own defense.

But since you ask what I think Trump's end game is, I will repeat it for you once again (I have said this so many times already in posts that I am sure you objected to previously as you lodged your support for Mr. Trump). I think Trump has no political agenda whatsoever other than to keep his base of supporters behind him. He is an ignoramus who has no sense of what he is doing other than to protect his flanks while he promotes himself, which is the only thing he is interested in doing as president. He sees it as a position to feed his monumental narcissistic personality. He is interested in nothing but himself, and thus has not even a concept of serving others in any purpose. He hopes all this translates into billions more for his coffers, which he illegally tends to daily from the White House. That is why he will fight tooth and nail to keep his taxes for the last six years from being examined by a House committee.

If you disagree and think Trump is in office to serve some noble purpose, please correct me with some information to that effect.


So, you're saying his motives are the same as the Clintons? Self-interest, narcissism, power and money? Donald Trump was already a billionaire when he ran for office. How exactly did the Clintons obtain their wealth?


Well here's a laugher for you crank. Bill Clinton was the president, not Hillary, so I ascribe these to his presidency. She didn't make it to the presidency, so I can't talk about her achievements from the White House. With Bill Clinton, he shepherded through the North American Free Trade Agreement, which created a free-trade zone for the United States, Canada, and Mexico. You recall that, don't you? The worst deal ever made is one of Trump's plaudits for that agreement, except he made a few cosmetic changes, put a new name on it and now considers it one of the great trade agreements of all time. Clinton enacted a deficit-reduction package and some 30 major bills related to education, crime prevention, the environment, and women’s and family issues, including the Violence Against Women Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.Strong economic growth continued during Clinton’s second term, eventually setting a record for the country’s longest peacetime expansion. By 1998 the Clinton administration was overseeing the first balanced budget since 1969 and the largest budget surpluses in the country’s history. That is some of the stuff Bill Clinton did. I never liked him all that much, but I supported him because I thought he had the country moving in the right direction. Was he, like you, a sleazeball? In some respects, yes. Was he, like Trump, a narcissist? I don't think so. He had an authentic sense of concern and compassion for people in need of help. He reached out to them, her worked at legislation to help them. Trump not only doesn't lift a finger for the needy, he attacks them and uses his disparagement of them in his bid to attract and hold on to his base of support, of which, I believe, you are a member.


How exactly did the Clintons obtain their wealth?


So instead of reacting to what I said, crank, probably because you have nothing credible to say in response, you try to deflect away from the issues that you raised and can no longer defend. Your question about how the Clintons acquired their wealth is off topic, as you like to accuse me often of being. But since you ask, I think they became wealthy pretty much how all ex presidents and their families become wealthy. They wrote best-selling memoirs, they were asked to join well-paid boards of various corporations and non-profits, they gave speeches around the world, often with astronomical speaking fees attached. You get to do that when you have been sitting in the most important chairs of power in the world, but you can't accept the money until you are out of power. Our current president does not seem to understand that. He may well not be able to enjoy the wealth that will be showered on him once he is out of office if he is, as seems more and more likely, locked up in prison for betraying his country. I know, since you tirelessly defend him, you will be protesting and showing your support for him even then.


You first, old trumpy. You continually say I “defend Donald Trump every day” Show me where. Prove it!


crank, I and others have constantly and consistently challenged you when you have used misinformation to defend and support the presidency of Donald J. Trump and his policies. Go through any string up on these boards today and look at the evidence. You can say you don't like Trump, find him to be a loud-mouthed ignoramus, but that does not absolve you from then turning around and saying, in effect, "but, hey, I like what he is doing as president, even if he is shredding the moral standards of his office."

There, I went first. Now the ball is in your court, big fella. Put up or shut up.


So... You cannot produce proof that I constantly defend Donald Trump every day. Just say so and be done.

Instead, you have become exactly like the man you criticize.


I tell you what, crank, I find that I should in some instances saving some things you have said to me in your posts, because the nature of what you said is actually somewhat menacing in nature. So long as I am doing that, I guess I should begin to save things when you do your usual two-step dance of telling us how awful you think Donald Trump is as a person, but how much you support him and what he does as president. I am not going to Google your past examples of that. You seem now to claim that you also track how often I go on Google. Jump on here and tell me if I am lying, that I am all of a sudden Googling recent statements of support you made for Donald Trump.


They already all insisted on getting rid of the Constitution. As well as changing the structure of the Senate and getting rid of the two members per state. It was a real **** show.


Ah yes. If that is what you are reading into what has not happened, D, what do you make of what IS happening right under our noses, of President Donald Trump trying to strip Congress of its right and its duty of oversight of the executive branch? If he gets away with it, we will have an imperial presidency. I suppose that would meet with your approval, since you are on these boards every day defending the worst, most corrupt, immoral, amoral, bullying lout and ignoramus ever to inhabit the White House.


*in your humble opinion


Well, D, that is what these comment boards are for, to express our opinions. I try to back up my opinions with vetted, reliable information. What I said in my 5:11pm post regarding Trump's attack on Congress is based on general knowledge that is all over the news every day these days, including in your right-wing, go-to propaganda sites that you rely on for your thinking. Perhaps you can think of a president who has been an even worse, more corrupt, immoral, amoral, bullying lout and ignoramus than Donald Trump has been. Please tell us who you think it is, but you better come in armed with convincing "data", as you say, to prove your point.


D-Bag, please cite your evidence of anyone insisting on "getting rid of the Constitution." We'll wait. And wait. And wait.


Still waiting, D-Bag.


Worth repeating, crank, if you want to win, why do you resort to corrupt practices on something as insignificant as commenting on the opinion boards of a small town newspaper in the MidWest? That is what is worth repeating here. You are a nasty sleaze ball who all commenters on here should steer clear of.


Someone seems to be feeling especially butt hurt today. Look at how you have yourself all worked up. I’m confident in saying that I think we feel the same about you, old pompous. #kingofkings #getoffmyboards #sockpuppeteer


Well, crank, you SHOULD feel particularly butt hurt. You stepped over the bounds of good behavior, and I will not let you forget about it. You are a slimeball. Normal people would not do what you did, but you apparently get so upset when you get called out correctly for your bad behavior, all you can think of is to get even at any cost.


The Crank is employing the typical wingnut tactic of shifting the subject and refusing to answer any challenge. The fact is, republicans can never seem to win without resorting to lies, obfuscation, gerrymandering and voter suppression. They simply don't care that their worst instincts undermine the very principle of American democracy. As long as they get to use the power against their perceived enemies, they are happy to trash the republic.


It appears that you've just described oldhomey to a T, Cassandra2.

BTW: I know this is completely off topic but why Cassandra2 and not simply Cassandra? Similarly, I wonder why martian2 and not just martian?


Perhaps you can answer your own question, oldhomey, Why do you resort to the corrupt practice of posting comments under multiple accounts on the this small town Midwest newspaper?

Normal people would not do this but you apparently cannot get over being called out for YOUR bad behavior. You did get caught. You're very clearly projecting your own misdeeds onto others. First, the sockpuppet thing and now it seems YOU are trying to get even at any cost. #enemieslist


cranky/HolmenPackerFan, what you see with oldhomey is what you get on these boards. I have, unlike you, no other accounts here. You can type out that accusation against me just so many times before it looks pretty lame, given you have no evidence to back that up. There is no evidence, because oldhomey is my only account. You will have to prove it otherwise. Are you going to deny that you are not both crank and HolmenPackerFan?


Holy cow! You've really must've gone around the bend to come back to this HolmenPackerFan thing. LOL! #unhinged

You... "You can type out that accusation against me just so many times before it looks pretty lame, given you have no evidence to back that up."

Do you have a bulletin board with photos and post-it notes connected with red yarn tied together with push-pins? Hmmmm, let me see. This week I'm really HolmenPackerFan but a few days again it was Ona something...mamasboy is really 'Ricky' (or is it DMoney?)...Buggs Raplin comes back variously as Snow Cougar, Neighbor of the Beast or any new person who disagrees with you...Otis something or is a second account set up by ClimateHoax?...New2Lax is Fidel Cashflow? (that screen name is the best, BTW)...Veteran must be posing as someone on your enemies list/conspiracy tracker board, right? Batman? [batman] #emojitrigger

Did I miss any, you crazy nut job? #enemieslist I suggest you take your pills and have the missus put you to bed with your sock puppet.


Ahem, as I have already posted elsewhere today, I knew I had caught you last year at some point using two screen names, crank and, as best as I could remember, the other a name that had some reference to Onalaska in it. My bad.

Your mistake is today you resurrected the second screen name and account, HolmenPackerFan, and as soon as I saw it I remembered that was the second account. It was evident to me for months last year simply by the writing style, the same word selection, the same syntax and even the same use of emoticons that you and Holmen were the same person. Then one day you were in a running argument with me using both identities, but you skrewed up, answering to me with information that should have come from one identity but forgot and had the other identity supplying the answer.

You can look this up on Google, as I did a few minutes ago. I simply typed into the search field "la crosse tribune holmenpackerfan crank". Upsy daisy pops a Richard Kyte column from October 7, 2018, with the relevant comment post in which I caught you. I won't make you go through the effort of doing the search, I will cut and paste it here for you, if you want. Just tell me that you want to see it, and I will cut and paste it here for you. Do you need me to prove that I am right, that I caught you using two accounts? You know you did it. I guess there is nothing wrong with doing that, but lies are lies under any name.

And it is incredible that, while you have made a practice of doing this, you have the gall to wrongly accuse me of doing the same thing. Put up or shut up, big fella.


By the way, you seem awfully p.o.ed with me in your 8:23pm post, crank. I suppose if I were the sleazeball that you have proved yourself to be, and I was exposed for my sleazy behavior, I would be p.o.ed, too. I would like to think, however, I could have composed a more articulate and to the point message than your effort, desperately grasping at straws that simply underscore your guilty frustration. You should probably go back to your cave and lick your wounds for a few days and take stock of what you have become. Sleazy is not something you should aspire to.


Why not simply post a link to that article?

I did find the one you're claiming 'proves' I'm HolmenPackerFan. I admit, I had been puzzled why you insisted we were the same person. I was unaware of that exchange. Now I see why you keep saying it. But... He ain't me.

Your claim that I have resurrected some other screenname is more of the same, tired conspiracy nonsense I've listed out for you. You make this claim about everyone. POed??? I'm LAUGHING at what a nut-job you've become. You're not quite to the level of Buggs Raplin and aliens but you're pretty damned close.

What remains unclear from that exchange is that HolmenPackerFan apparently was playing some sort of joke on you (us?). Did you ever figure it out? What does this mean? "Crank, unfortunately, is caught in the crossfire."


I don't know what HolmenPackerFan was doing. You would know better than I, I expect. He disappeared about that time and just reappeared once again this week. Now, can you provide the proof that you say you possess that I have multiple accounts and identities on these boards? I don't, so I am willing to bet that you can't produce that evidence. If you do produce it, I will never appear here again. If you do not produce it within the next week, all you have to do is stay off these boards until July 4. Deak? Or are you going to make more menacing insinuations that you know how to track me and others on these boards and, in fact, already have my actual identity in hand plus knowledge about my computer? What a gentleman you are.


I really have you spun up about this.

1) I've already told you I don't know your identity (several times).
2) I've already told you I would not seek out your identity. It was never my aim. Stop being paranoid.
3) I've already told you I will not post any of the information I've collected. In fact, it's already been deleted. I've confirmed what I suspected, that's enough for me. #sockpuppets
4) If I posted any evidence, you'd either a) deny it is accurate b) get upset I posted info I said I would not. Again... moot because the data has been deleted.
5) In any event, I know you would not make good on a bet. Never come here again? Puh-lease!
6) The 'menacing insinuations' are a product of your own fevered imagination. You've become your own version of Buggs Raplin.
7) You're PO-ed that you've been caught doing what you have accused nearly everyone with whom you have ever disagreed of doing. Get over it. Stop doing it.


Well, now, crank, which version of you are we to believe? You now seem to be pulling back considerably from when you were boasting about your internet and computer sleuthing skills in which you certainly seemed to insinuate that you knew who I was and had information about my computer and my accounts. You stated this several times. To refresh your memory, let me cite a couple examples of this:

"crank Apr 30, 2019 11:10am
"Yes, homey... when you and your sock puppet visited my web links, I determined they were the same computer based on IP address, browser info, cookies, etc.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to do this but your continued denials combined with accusations that others are using fake accounts is quite pathetic. Perhaps you’ll stop? #kingofkings #sockpuppets"

"crank May 12, 2019 6:22am
"Because putting up those details, oldhomey, is something I said I would not do. I will not post your IP address or your location or your name or any other details. Though you call my claims “menacing”, I don’t see how anyone but you could believe that is true given the fact I said I had not and will not make additional attempts to determine your real identity nor would I Dox you. Doxxing is what liberals do...I confirmed my suspicions and that’s enough, sock puppeteer. Why don’t you stop?"

Now you are saying you don't actually have this information? Make up your mind, big fella. Is this just a way to weasel out of actually having no evidence of what you accuse me of doing, having multiple accounts and screen names on these boards? Put up or shut up, big fella. I don't, and you should withdraw the inference that I do.

And by the way, while I am sure everybody else on these boards is bored silly by this face-off between you and me, I hope it serves to warn off people from ever opening any link you ever try to offer on these boards in the future. You are a slimeball for what you say you are able to do in tracking anybody opening those links.

And explain to the rest of us how your behavior can be explained in any other way than your own personal paranoia. You use that term pretty loosely, like you have with "doxing" and "sock puppet".

And if you doubt my word, test me. Show me the "proof" you say you have on me from your sleuthing efforts. You already erased it? A computer whizz like you should be able to recover in pretty quickly.


Asked and answered, old dummie. You just quoted back to me the statement where I said that I did not have your real name and would make no effort to obtain it and would not post the information I had collected. The puppet master doth protest too much, methinks.

“I said I had not and will not make additional attempts to determine your real identity nor would I Dox you.”

Then you deflected off onto some tangent claiming I didn’t know what doxing meant. ?? Then you claimed *I* said you had doxed me? Again… have you fallen recently and banged your head. You’re all over the place and ‘mis-remembering’ things even more than usual.

I’ll state again, though this seems beyond your ability to fully understand what happened or what I did to catch you… The information was collected in server log files, which upon analysis by a web analytics software package (not hacking or sleuthing), revealed you were/are using multiple accounts. I did not boast about anything but you do love to exaggerate (lie), don’t you?

FYI: I did not erase anything, those log files get purged automatically after 14 days. You want proof??? Too bad! I don’t really care. I know what I need to know and I already told you from the very beginning that I would not post your IP address or any of the other information from those logs. You’ve painstakingly quoted me saying as much.

I know you’re PO-ed that I caught you doing what you and your sock puppet literally accuse every person of who disagrees with your opinion. It must be very embarrassing for you. Good!

Now you’re back to making this paranoid claim about me because someone you claim to have sent into hiding (in weeds?) has posted here again. You do think yourself to be quite something, don't you? Now....If you consider my actions to confirm my suspicions about you having multiple accounts here to be paranoid, what does that make you when you make this charge about nearly every single person you encounter who disagrees with you? Slimeball??? Perhaps you should examine your own behavior before wagging your guilty little finger at others.

In the weeks since you were found out, you have seemed desperate in your attempts to insult or discredit me. You’ve tried all of your various tactics including this latest “put up or shut up” scheme where you ‘bet’ me and promise to stay off “these boards” forever? Old trick, seen it before, oldtrumpy. Get over yourself. I’m laughing at you.


So, crank, let's go into your latest missive and ask you to supply a little more detail than you seem willing to give out.

You self-righteously say: "I’ll state again, though this seems beyond your ability to fully understand what happened or what I did to catch you… The information was collected in server log files, which upon analysis by a web analytics software package (not hacking or sleuthing), revealed you were/are using multiple accounts. I did not boast about anything but you do love to exaggerate (lie), don’t you?"

Ahem. "I did to catch you… The information was collected in server log files, which upon analysis by a web analytics software package . . . " Are you having difficulty saying publicly now that it was you, crank, who claimed to have informartion "collected in server log files" and subsequently put through some sort of analytics software? Why did you avoid in this instance to say that it was YOU who instigated this?

You go on to claim, "FYI: I did not erase anything, those log files get purged automatically after 14 days. You want proof??? Too bad! I don’t really care. I know what I need to know and I already told you from the very beginning that I would not post your IP address or any of the other information from those logs. You’ve painstakingly quoted me saying as much."

Thank you for giving me credit for accurately quoting you. On the other hand, it ignores completely that you have lied. How do I know? I have one computer account with the La Crosse Tribune, and I have one screen name for purposes of commenting on these boards. No others. You can crow until you are blue in the face that you have proof otherwise. How convenient for you to now say that, unfortunately, the proof was erased. You are a low-life, indeed.

You attempt to deflect from the truth by self-consciously accusing me of a shame that certainly you are feeling: "I know you’re PO-ed that I caught you doing what you and your sock puppet literally accuse every person of who disagrees with your opinion. It must be very embarrassing for you. Good!"

Perhaps, to clear your name as being a liar, crank, you could supply to me a citation in which I ever "boasted" of sending your other screen name, HolmenPackerFan, into the weeds.

You go on angrily, "You do think yourself to be quite something, don't you? Now....If you consider my actions to confirm my suspicions about you having multiple accounts here to be paranoid, what does that make you when you make this charge about nearly every single person you encounter who disagrees with you? Slimeball??? Perhaps you should examine your own behavior before wagging your guilty little finger at others."

You continue to prove you are a slimeball, using new menacing language on another post today. Have you been checking the opinion of "nearly every single person [I] encounter who disagrees with me?" Are you serious, or seriously desperate? I have a wide group of people I communicate with almost daily on email, many who disagree with me, but none has even mentioned you and your nasty endeavors, mainly because they don't know I get on these boards. And so far I haven't seen anybody on these boards comment one way or the other about our faceoff. D'ya think maybe nobody else is paying too much attention, crank?

I repeat. Put up or shut up. The last laugh is on you.


Oh! No, oldhomey, make no mistake... I AM laughing at you. Such a fuss from the puppeteer. [rolleyes]


Typical, crank. You want me to lay out my arguments, I do, as I did in my 4:44pm post, and you duck. And why shouldn't you? You have nothing to say. Case closed.


And you'll go on using your sock puppet account(s) to troll those people on this web site who dare to disagree with you.

You'll recall... You started out by you accusing me of using multiple accounts. Then, after a while, it seemed to be your thing to accuse more people of this practice. GOSH! All along it was YOU who has been the person doing it. Slimeball, thy name is oldhomey! Case closed! #kingofkings #getoffmyboards

I'm STILL laughing at you and your pathetic attempts to duck and deny!
[lol] ← #emojitrigger


I repeat, crank, you self-righteously say: "I’ll state again, though this seems beyond your ability to fully understand what happened or what I did to catch you… The information was collected in server log files, which upon analysis by a web analytics software package (not hacking or sleuthing), revealed you were/are using multiple accounts. I did not boast about anything but you do love to exaggerate (lie), don’t you?"

And you continued: "I did to catch you… The information was collected in server log files, which upon analysis by a web analytics software package . . . "

So I repeat again, big fella: Put up or shut up. You acted in a nasty, underhanded way, but in the end, you are lying about what you say you found. You are a slimeball. No better, more accurate word to describe you.


Nevertheless, I did catch you. You’re like a guy who gets caught speeding and then complains about the cops being sneaky. Poor you...sock puppet master.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.