I understand that people seem to fancy the distortion tactics we see so frequently as a means to further a bias as we see from political reporters or strategists, but doesn't it go a bit far to make a false claim?
A blogger actually posts a diary with a claim "Hillary:McCain would be better than Obama", and no where is that supported in the few quotations distorted from the CBS blogthat he linked from a couple of days ago.
Truly sad that Countdown actually picked up this piece to report on, furthering their distorted and biased coverage they have been conducting for months now.
He knew he had to be honest and stated ever so briefly and quickly in between the statement he was reading "talking about a campaign aganst him{McCain]" and then leads Rachel for a response to his liking.
The fact is, Hillary WAS talking about who would be best to run against Mc Cain. Acknowledging what he will run on and what she can run on. And for so many spinners to actually try to claim " Hillary said McCain would be a better President" is a lie and should be ashamed.
On running a campaign against candidate McCain, Hillary said,
March 1 Dallas,
"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
Gee, much different than a blogger claiming Hillary was endorsing MC CAIN, huh?
And quite disappointing that Keith would have distorted what the conversation was. Does Keith really expect Hillary to say, 'gee I think Obama, with his litle experience would be able to run against McCain better than I can with my extensive experience'? Please. But should we expect anything less than he's been displaying along with all the other commentators at MSNBC? Sadly, not anymore.
But at least we can get the facts without their help.
http://www.cbsnews.com/...