To: Diana who wrote (3111 ) 7/8/1999 9:12:00 AM From: Gary M. Reed Respond to of 17683
Funnier still is how the Hillary shill-ing gets strong whenever there is potential bad news looming. Yesterday I had the radio on in the car and heard the tail end of some reporter breaking a new story about this China stuff. Since I only caught part of it, I didn't hear who the reporter worked for, but the show the guy was on is traditionally a politically neutral one. From what I could gather, some government employees blew the whistle on China stealing nuclear secrets and the Clinton administration responded by treating the whistle blowers to a "permanent vacation" (sounded like TravelGate all over again--whaddya want to bet Craig Livingstone is involved in this one too). I'm 99% positive this is done by design, i.e. the Clinton PR team hears that a negative story is about to break, so they call all the network shills and say "Hey, lookie here--Hillary's in upstate New York today." The media is all too happy to oblige, so we have to watch Alina Cho gushing over the possibility that Hillary may run for Senate. Of course, they never mention Hillary's numerous closet skeletons, only that she is the best thing that happened to New York State since the Indians sold Manhattan for $24 worth of beads. If CNBC continues this non-stop Hillary-watch, I just wish they'd give both sides of the story. Such as "what is a person who has never run for public office before doing running for U.S. Senate," or "what has Hillary accomplished in the past 7 years as First Lady, besides trying her damndest to wreck the healthcare industry 6 years ago," or perhaps illuminating the fact that the only position she has on *any* of the issues is that she will fight like hell against any attempts for tort-reform in Congress. Let's face it, if you were an ambulance chasing plaintiff's attorney living in NYC, I could see why you'd vote for her. But if you're not a member of the NY Bar Association, what would make you want to even consider her?