In case you are used to looking at one column for a specific blog, I noticed that the inner right column was "descending" topics at a much faster rate than the outer column over the first several hours. This was due in part to my adding some new blogs in the past couple of weeks to the inner column.
If I shifted your blog to the outer right column it was entirely to help ensure that your blog wasn't descending too fast by being in the inner right column.
---------------------------------------------
Two blogs were recently dropped for their "handling" of the Hillary Clinton Congo incident. Their criticism of Hillary Clinton's response to the what would Bill Clinton think question revealed them to be PUMA's that are not for Hillary Clinton. I am not against criticizing Hillary Clinton, but when it is so obviously either another media attempt to "put her in her place", or a republican led assault, then why go along if you really are a PUMA?
The Media treatment of Hillary Clinton is basically one of the primal tenets that caused PUMA's to be born, no?
I will also issue this request, If ANYONE can come up with what Hillary Clinton should have said when she was asked "What Bill Clinton thought about China and the World Bank's involvement in Congo" question, that would not have resulted in Hillary Clinton being skewered by the media or her political opponents, please, put it in the comments section.
I don't believe an answer exists that would have allowed Hillary Clinton to get away unscathed from that question. It is what used to be known as a "wife beating" question.
In the earlier days of our court system, lawyers would ask an opposing defendant, plaintiff or witness "if they STILL beat their wives".
No matter how one answers the question, they are made to look as if they beat their wife at one time or another. That is the type of situation that Hillary Clinton was put in, in Congo.
No comments:
Post a Comment