‘Bout Time Someone Said This… Someone Besides BitsBlog, That is

Boortz, doing a message to Bill Clinton:

You want to talk about being “rough” on your wife?  Let’s do a short review:

We’ll start with a few names: Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Then there’s Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones — plus goodness knows how many more.  These are just the names of some of the women Bill Clinton either assaulted or has had affairs with during his so-called “marriage” to Hillary.

So Bill calls it “getting rough” when Hillary’s campaign opponents question her flip-flopping on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegals, or make statements about Hillary’s planted questions during campaign stops.  That is “getting rough” on the lady … while having multiple affairs and being a serial sexual harasser – including at least one rape – is not?  If putting your “wife” in charge of cleaning up after multiple affairs and assaults isn’t “being rough on her,” then what, pray tell, is?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has been engaged in a fraud marriage for decades … a marriage born out of a desire for political power rather than an endearing love and dedication.  The problem here isn’t that the “boys” are being rough on Hillary, or that Hillary and Bill are playing the gender card in this primary … the problem is that we have a woman who has conspired with her husband to disgrace the institution of marriage trying to pass herself off as a loyal wife and dedicated mother in order to appeal to women to whom the institution of marriage actually means something.

The real question here is why various pundits and columnists don’t step up and call the Clinton marriage what they and everybody else knows full well it is … a fraud and a sham.

And there it is, Gang. I’ve said this here for years.  Mark this well:

There is only one reason these two are still “Married”…. Political power to the degree they want it would be harder to get, if they were to surrender to what everyone else on the planet already knows… particularly the women Boortz mentions.

And if she’s willing to lie so about this, what else would she be willing to lie about?

Update: (Bit) The wheels are coming off the wagon.

Surber:

CNN uncovers more planted questions

Guess it no longer is the Clinton News network. CNN interviewed the Grinnell college student who said the Clinton campaign gave her the question to ask Hillary in Iowa.

Planted questions are her Dumbo Eruptions.

The student, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, 19, said a senior staffer for Hillary approached her and asked her if she’d like to ask a question. He opened a binder with 8 questions.

Said she: “The top one was planned specifically for a college student. It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

At the top was this question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

What Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff wanted to ask was how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans. The staffer said he didn’t think Hillary was prepared for such a question.

Fellow Swamp Stomper Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard quoting Jonah at the Corner, here:

Earlier today, I posted about a new Rasmussen poll that indicated that American voters were most definitely refusing to buy the “Hillary Clinton as victim” game that her campaign has been trying.  Hillary’s campaign, however, appears unable to change course and are trying to play the victim card yet again, this time preemptively.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday’s Dem debate on Hillary. ‘This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,’ top Clinton insider explains. ‘Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull ‘a Russert.” Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux… Developing…

Again, can someone please explain to me, how asking the junior Senator from New York state whether she agrees with the governor of the state (and a close political ally) on the question of drivers licenses for illegals is even remotely wrong, never mind some sort of vicious, Nazi-like, personal assault on truth, decency, and Hillary Clinton’s integrity? I really, really, don’t get it.

John at Right Wing News notes the same post from Jonah, and wonders a bit:

Doesn’t Hillary seem like she’s a little too delicate to handle the Presidency? After all, you can’t get all teary eyed if 2 or 3 world leaders decide to “pile on” you or if the press ramps up their normal all out assault on you a notch or two.

Captain Ed: (under an interestingly named post)

The Clinton team has forgotten the First Rule of Holes: stop digging. No one except the most ardent of the netroots bought the explanation that Tim Russert was a right-wing plant at MS-NBC. If the Clintons expect that anyone will believe them when they hang the same jacket on Blitzer, they’re not just mistaken, they’re delusional.

Ed goes on to point out…

t wasn’t just an overeager staffer who improvised the planted question out of excess zeal. The student noted at least seven other prepared questions, along with the profile of questioner they wanted with each question. That indicates a lot more preparation and thought than the Clinton response acknowledged. It looks like question-planting has its own process and procedure, indicating a more extensive use of it than first thought.

Gee. Hillary Clinton lied to us? Whodathunkit?

More, Memeorandum