I brought up your reading comprehension because you have twisted what I said about Hillary several times in this thread. The interpretation you have of what I said was simply incorrect.
I do not feel that talking about political history and the scandals that occurred is bashing. Are you simply bashing when you talk about Hillary and her cleaned up server? I do not think you are, I could be wrong. It seems to me that you are legitimately concerned that corruption and a cover up may have occurred....
....As far as the R's being victims of the MSM, I have a hard time with that, especially with Fox News being the highest rated news program in the country. That would make them very much a part of the MSM in my mind and they clearly support the R's. Seems like there is plenty of watchdogs on both sides of the aisle in our highly connected, information at your finger tips world....
I may have done some twisting, but I thought way back in the beginning, I had the opinion that hill would not be either held responsible or meaningfully questioned about her actions as sec-o-state, didn't mention her dem political activism. Then, something started getting twisted about heroes.
The interesting thing I thought about the twisting, was that the only impeachment ever was excused, very quickly, because of popularity polls. Maybe it is not legitimate to be concerned about corruption, only popularity? Bringing up history is not bashing, but isn't history a subjective record of the past, certainly open to other points of view. More to my point, I felt you were bashing R's because our history lesson was hand selected from only one side of the aisle. One sided repetition is likely intentional for an agenda.
If you ever have a chance to watch some Fox, every now and then they'll mention that they carefully time left and right wing responses, and try to split things evenly. I'm not a religious viewer, but my spin on it, they do not 'clearly support the R's'. But, I do notice it strikes a nerve with libs when the policy and tactics of each side are directly compared.
Quickly back to hill, Fox and the MSM. You mentioned hill will be grilled and let the chips fall where they may. I have repeatedly said in twisting ways, not good enough. My prediction, she doesn't show. Her first choice will be a carefully selected MSM campaign, she'll sit down for prepackaged 'interviews'. Do you suppose Fox will be on that A-list, a coequal, or will they be kicked off the campaign reporter pool like they were kicked off when bo was campaigning.
hill cut her last book signing tour short when she started getting more and more unscripted questions about her actions. If you're a fan of history and you're content with letting the chips fall, then this person would be a-okay as our next pres. She did the tour as sec-o-state for resume building, well that and to solicit compensation for influence. How about that for not too quick.
