Posted on 04/22/2015 1:33:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I don't think it does. Hillary's not a dark horse nobody knows anything about, as Obama sort of was in 2008.
There's a lot of stuff circulating about her that the Times can't wholly ignore. Better for them and her to get it out of the way now. By Fall 2016 it will be old news.
But "Bush" is such a dirty word at the Times that I can't think that the paper or its staff would actually exert themselves on behalf of Jeb if he were nominated.
Is Gail Collins, who just would not shut up about Romney and his dog last time around, really going to say good things about a Republican for very long?
They'll fall in behind whoever the party nominates, even though Hillary isn't their favorite Democrat by any means.
“As he waited for them to decide, the two Harvard students conspicuously dithered, eating up Mr. Cruzs allotted speaking time”
Call it whatever they want, but it wasn’t a debate tactic. However, it was a perfect metaphor for what passes for debate on the left today, finding methods to deny the opposition a chance to speak.
And I am reminded of the debate champions last year in that horrendous hip hop style auctioneer speed “argument”. This generation is hopelessly uneducated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
“debate” in the modern era. As you watch this, remember, they are the champions.
All I know about Obama’s time in college is that he smoked dope, did cocaine and sat on a couch with an obvious homosexual.
Confident the NY Times will go after Obama;s college transcripts with all of the zeal it went after Ted Cruz college debate stories.
Oh, wait...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.