The press is against Senator Clinton? Then why do they edit her statements so they make better sense?

In other words -- bullshit.

Not only are the Clintons -- two people who were presumed to OWN the Democratic Party just a year ago -- falsely playing underdog because the voting public doesn't really like them as much as they think we're supposed to -- the press is acting like their flack or a kindly version of Pravda.

Latest example:

"Clinton ... compared herself to Philadelphia's famed cine-pugilist. "Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common," Clinton said yesterday. "I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people."

Actually, what she said was:

"...I never quit. I never get up."

We may assume she MEANT "never GIVE up," unless of course, she's presenting herself as one of the Les Grandes Horizontales,* as a basis for her "experience," but it's not the job of the press to edit ANY politician's statements to make that politician appear more coherent in reporting than in actuality.


*Literally: "The Great Lays." And to quote from a review by Jane Stevenson in The Observer,of Virginia Rounding's book of the same title (Les Grandes Horizontales):

"...Their profligacy is easily understood by their own consuming need, which was not for sex or even for love, but for living up to their own reputations, without which they would disappear back into the obscurity from which they emerged. They ended up, consequently, with a lifestyle rather than a life."


eXTReMe Tracker