Ustwo, the excerpt of the NY Sun editorial in the OP, asks this question:
Quote:
|
What else to make of the latest press release from Senator Clinton's campaign, touting Senator Obama's one-time support of "banning all handguns" as evidence that calls Mr. Obama's "electability" into question?
|
I think that I did "make something else out of it. Something closer to what actually happened, than Mike Allen at politico, the Clinton campaign staff, the NY Sun editorial board, dksuddeth, or you have made out of it.
My main point is that there was no basis for Mike Allen's article, since he couldn't confirm that Obama ever knew of the questionnaire of 11 years ago.
There is no basis for belief that Clinton read or approved the press release about Obama's campaign being "put on the defensive" by the politico article.
So, again, what is there to discuss? Last night, I posted a report of Bush denying knowing of the existence of the destroyed CIA tapes, until last thursday, and whether his denial conflicted with reports of Harriet Meiers, the asst. white house chief of staff, knowing about the tapes, and admonishing the CIA not to destroy them, back in 2003.
Can you see why there is something to discuss about that, but not enough, here? There are no reports that Obama knew about the questionnaire or that he filled it out himself. There are no reports that Clinton knew about the campaign PR related to the politico article.
How do you decide what, and what not...to discuss. Is it all a visceral process, with you?