She knew nothing? I thought she was her hubbie's co-president? I thought she had 35 years of experience? The "smartes woman on capitol Hill" knew nothing? She was fooled by her husband? She was fooled by GWB, too? Maybe she's not all that smart after all. Who would have thought.

Well, we know that Hillary knows how to pound the table, she's a lawyer, after all. And someone must have told Hillary to show more emotion, because emotion is "working." But examine this quote from the MTP transcript for today. Hillary said this as one quote, but if you break them up into two segments, you'll see the internal contradiction: 

1. "This is the most exciting election we've had in such a long time because you have an African American, an extraordinary man, a person of tremendous talents and abilities, running to become our president. You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling."
2. "I don't think either of us want to inject race or gender in this campaign."

That's what she just did! In typical Clinton fashion, she injected race and gender into the discussion, and then immediately (without either shame or self-reflection) denied injecting anything. That is the typical Clinton tactic. She does one thing, and then she vigorously denies that she did it. She figures that if she keeps a straight face in her denial, she can deny anything, and people will fall for it. And unfortunately, they do. Her campaign makes the backhanded insults on Obama, and then simply claims it didn't happen. Bill calls Obama's record a "fairytale," and then avoids the backlash by claiming he was referring to a particular, technical point. 

They're Eddie Haskells. Without shame, they do what they want, and then deny they ever did anything.

Then she says, later: "And much of what I've gone through in my entire life is, I believe, preparation for being able to go into that Oval Office. Clearly, I bring the experiences of women. As a daughter, as a mother, as a wife, as a sister. "

FAR be it from her to inject gender into the race!

* * * *

One point I feel compelled to make. I accused Tim Russert the other day of not pulling the trigger on Hillary. By that, I meant that in previous interviews, Russert would allow Hillary to toss off talking points without challenging her on any of them.

Today, in my opinion, Russert did much better. When she came back with her equivocations, Russert called her on them. Maybe he didn't skeptically frown at her, like O'Reilly does, but if you were paying attention, you saw Russert undercut every one of her arguments. He didn't over-emotionalize. He didn't whip out his sword and swish a Zorro "Z" on her face, but he did everything else.

We criticize them when they're wrong, and so we should compliment them when they do well. I thought he did very well.

Lies, distortions, denials and twisted facts tumble out of Mzzzz Hillary's mouth as easily as rain falls from clouds. This is just another example. There will be many more. The MSM lets her get away with it (Russert having done a better job today) because they are lazy and cursed with invincible ignorance-- a perfect formula for useful idiots.

Russert should do the right thing. Next week, he should say (and, great catch Tim, with perfect follow-up by Noel - imagine, if the MSM could be on its toes?):

Last week, in my interview with Sen. Clinton, I let my guard down. While I'm proud to find the strength inside me to rise above the fold of the MSM and actually ask her a pertinent question which goes deep to the stuff she is made of, partisan mean politics, I neglected to do my homework in missing her misstatement of fact on the air during the interview. Hillary Clinton stated for the record that she hadn't paid much attention to the term, VRWC, which she created under false pretenses back during the Monica Lewinski affair which disgraced our White House, but in fact see that she has remained quite focused on it and still uses it to unfairly promote divisive politics.

In the future Meet the Press promises to our viewers that we will try to do our homework, so that we may be prepared to, well, treat our Democrat guests like we historically have treated the Republicans -- never miss an opportunity.

I just want to be the first to say that even if she's elected, I'll never recognize her as president of the U.S. I know that doesn't mean much, but after respecting the presidencies of Jimmy the Sweater and Slick Havana Willie, I think I have shown enough of my patriotism.  In fact, an America that would elect her president is an America of which I am not a part anyway.  What kind of country would elect a power obssessed liar its leader?  

I tried, but I could not watch Hillary for more than a few seconds.  I so dispise this woman I cannot imagine her as president.  The blind hatred of this woman would make the BDS look like a passing tif.  She is one phoney lying *itch with blind ambition and no purpose.

I just wish someone like Russert would up and say to Ms. Cattlefutures, "You are simply full of crap.  Get off my show."  And then kick her out of the studio.

Hillary can tell a whopper as easily as her husband, but with none of his oily charm.

Thank goodness I hardly watch TV elsewise I might have come upon this nonsense for a moment or two, just imagining it irritates me.  Who watches this stuff in earnest?

I'm sure the Hillarious interview was a heartwarming INFOMERCIAL, both unethical and illegal. Could you imagine someone such as Rush Limbaugh interviewing Newt Gingrich on an hour-long show that is presented to the public as an objective news analysis? IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. And, if it did by some miracle of fate, the Demo-Marxists would be howling so loud that there would be retraction after retraction until Limbaugh was fired and banned.

But Hillarious and Russert? Not a peep, including from GOP candidates and committees. I'm sick of the GOP's pandering to CNN while Demo-Marxists refuse a debate on FNC and place hard-core tenured Demon-crats as moderators in all the other debates.