Dispatches from the Culture Wars

There's just one tiny problem: the link is to the NY Post, not the Washington Post. And the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the ultra-conservative owner of Fox News; so much for "liberal wisdom." Of course, even if it was the Washington Post, the notion that they "allowed" her to compare herself to JFK is silly. How could they stop her from doing so? She is of course free to say anything she wants and newspapers, regardless of their political bent, are going to report what she said.

And what she said, in fact, was far more reasonable than Gribbit would like you to believe. The only thing she compared, it turns out, was the argument that she couldn't be elected as a woman and the argument that JFK couldn't be elected as a Catholic:

"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president,' " the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser here.

"But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better," she said. "They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history."

Noting women are "the majority" of voters and are in the workforce in "record numbers," she added, "So when people tell me 'a woman can never be president,' I say, we'll never know unless we try."

But since Gribbit is busy attacking the wrong newspaper, he also decides to attack them for the wrong reason. Get a load of this reasoning:

This is the paper which printed unconfirmed (at the time) charges against a sitting President of the United States without a nameable source. Now later it was confirmed that a crime was committed under the President's authority (at the time - Nixon - Watergate). But they went to press with a story originating from a source who for over 30 years remained anonymous. This has empowered others like the New York Slimes to print stories without naming sources fueling the war efforts of our enemies. But I digress.

Well yes, you do digress. And dissemble. And look like quite an idiot when you say things like this. Anyone wanna take a bet on whether our old pal Gribbit was up in arms when a newspaper printed a negative story about the Clinton administration with information from an unnamed source? I'd say that's about as likely as Dick Cheney admitting to being wrong about something. Of course, regardless of Gribbit's hypocrisy, the argument is still absolutely absurd.

So the Washington Post printed accusations from an unnamed source. Those accusations were at the time unsupported. But they were true, and because the paper printed them there was an investigation that DID confirm them and reveal that the president of the United States was involved in a massive criminal conspiracy. Would he rather the media not investigate the possible criminal behavior of politicians? Of course not. Only of Republican politicians.

But it's the concluding paragraph that is the icing on this cake:

So for now with the assistance of the leftist propaganda rag known as the Washington Post, Hillary will try to ride the coat-tails of a dead before his time icon of American history all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Actually, you linked to and quoted the "assistance" - i.e. the accurate reporting - of a rightist propaganda rag known as the New York Post. Reading comprehension is such an easily overlooked gift.