Hillary is control freak with the press

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3648738&page=1

And by the way, this isn't from Fox News or a conservative blog, so you conspiracy theorists can put that one away. When you get ABC News saying that George W. Bush more open campaigns with more accessbility to the media than Hillary, it's got to give one pause to think.

And Hillary believes there is no upside to access? That's Richard Nixon stuff right there.

 

What's your point?

 

how did hondo get an Ann Coulter ad to pop up?

 

I'd pay good money to have someone — anyone — with a last name other than Clinton or Bush in the White House for the rest of my life.

Sick of them.
Sick of their families.
Sick of their influence.

Ready for a change.

 

"Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President Bush during his 2000 campaign and first years in the White House, said the Clinton campaign has taken a hallmark of the Bush White House -- carefully controlled media access -- to another level."

Well, that certainly settles it for me.
As to ABC News and the Clintons, please google "Ken Starr" and "Chris Vlasto" and get back to me.

 

Hillary's a manipulative shrew. We know this we understand this. We hate this. You won't get an argument from many people here; and not all Democrats blindly support her. Many of us them loathe her.
Point being?

 

Oh, and here's a flashback.

"What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty's 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."

(Salon)

 

For a pronounced front-runner, there isn't.

We can pick at Hil, all the livelong day . . . and there'll be ample opportunity, from this
point forward.

She's no prize -- and many of the non-conservatives here will readily grant you that.

Alas, there's a reason she has a pronounced opportunity to be elected POTUS . . . and that reason is the sustained conduct of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. --
as well as the conduct of many of his deluded cronies involved in the maintenance of the current regime.

 

Thank you!!!!! I've been saying the same thing for years... since 1980 we've had 2 families with some control of the country....Bush as VP then President....Clinton years, Shrub jr., and now we'll see Clinton Part Deux for 8 years.

 

So you guys would prefer she go back to Hillary Rodham? Would that make you feel better?

 

If you like George W. Bush, you'll love Hillary R Clinton.

 

No. Some fresh blood would be nice. Perspectives from different households.

If I wanted the same families in control forever, I'd go somewhere with a theocracy.