Is it me, or does the following statement by a Clinton campaign official sound creepy?
The Clinton campaign has been [b]monitoring coverage of the Hsu case.[/b] "We don't think the Hsu story has broken through with voters at this point," one Clinton adviser said. [b]"And we're going to keep trying to make sure it doesn't overshadow her message."[/b]
What would that entail exactly? Could it include pressuring media NOT to run the story at all? Because I gotta tell you, if you don't read a paper, you aren't getting ANY coverage of this scandal at all! During the Jack Abramoff scandal, you couldn't turn on the G-damn TV without seeing that guy's black hat bobbing around in front of the cameras as he tried to flee blood-thirsty reporters. You also couldn't watch a promo for a news show without hearing some reference to his name or the names of those who benefitted from his "services."
But in this case, one that threatens to eclipse the Abramoff situation in terms of dirty dollars donated? Narry a peep about it from the MSM.
Coincidence or complicity?
Do we really want a President about whom we could seriously ask such a question?
I sure don't, and one would think--for consistency's sake at least--the nutroots wouldn't either. I mean, aren't they always harping on how they're sure Bushitlerburton and his evil henchmen are secretly working behind the scenes to twist the arm of the media so we never get the truth about things that could make them look bad? And this is different how exactly?
Ah yes, that's right. It all depends on the goals of the liars and dissemblers. The ends justify the means, and some liars are more equal than other liars I guess...
I see how it is.
/eyeroll