Why is it so hard to believe that in a moment of weakness, when she was really pissed off, Hillary Clinton said those things? God forbid she would just come clean, admit it and move on. As usual though, apologists for the Clintons will find a tortured way for someone else to be at fault.
-- Ian Board
Paul Fray rightly set the record straight about Hillary's anti-Semitism. If he was a dishonest person, why would they have picked him in the first place? To hire someone and then denounce them is to raise the question of the Clintons' judgment. Maybe since then they have learned better.
-- Leo L. Castillo
Trent Lott's problem here is that New Yorkers (the only people who can vote in this Senate election, after all) who care about this issue don't see him as someone who would be genuinely morally outraged at anti-Semitic remarks in the first place, so it is easy to regard him with suspicion. Lott's framing of this issue, implying that Hillary's supposed comments were current and ongoing, is such an incredibly crude attempt at trying to steer Jews (and others who are offended by anti-Semitic remarks) toward voting Republican because of this "issue" is so transparent that if anything it will end up having the opposite effect.
Lott and the Republicans have done it again. Whenever things have looked bleak for the Clintons, they have been able to count on the Republicans to bail them out by shooting themselves in the foot. Once again a Clinton, this time Hillary, will be, perhaps somewhat undeserved, the recipient of Republican tin-ear political bungling.
-- Jerry Haft
Shares