Had to contribute my two cents to the Rachel debate.
Wait, Rachel bashing?
She can bash Clinton but I'm mean if I ask her to stop?
How "Left" does one have to be to not agree with her stunning exposes
of excesses and chicanery illuminated by her stabbing flashlight?
I don't know what that means.
We were talking about Rachel's three-year-old Clinton obsession.
I learned in 2008, when the hard Left wins, they get even more angry.
What is "Left" about clearly revealing data to support her every position?
She is the only pure researcher remaining in the MSM, and backs up her assertions
with documented facts. Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite would applaud her work
and extol her professionalism in a media world gone amok.
So why is she going after the Big Dog?
Why can't she accept victory and move forward?
Her coups in coverage from Afghanistan and the Gulf Coast were amazing for the depth
and breadth, as are her continued "gotchas" of political candidates. Again, how "Left" is that?
You're listing some good work that she's done while avoiding the topic at hand.
BTW, I like and respect the Clintons AS WELL as Obama; I'm mystified that you'd
take a position that pits them against each other; esp. when the mid-terms loom and
unity is essential. Living in the present is the imperative.
Michelle in AZ
Michelle I think you have that backwards.
Right now, Bill may be the most important guy on Obama's team.
When Obama offers to come to a candidate's state, they're asking,
"Can you send Bill, instead? I'm in real trouble, here!"
Rachel needs a new horse to beat to death.