George Orwell in 1984 introduced us to "oldspeak," "newspeak," and "doublethink." His assertion was that changing the meaning of established words was the first step in the process of political domination. We saw plenty of that in the 1990s, with the Clinton White House, aided by a pliant press corp, redefining words to suit its purposes (i.e., pull the wool over).
You can’t blame her for trying, but you can blame the other candidates for letting her get away with it. There was a big opening for any one of them to point out that by “mud” she meant noticing that she took two positions on an issue in two sentences, and couldn’t answer a Yes/No question on a topic that is on everyone’s minds. They could also have pointed out that no one threw mud, i.e., talked about the MANY parts of Hillary’s past that are embarassing but which do not relate to policy positions.
Since Hillary says alot of her experience comes from eight years as a first laday, a good question to ask her while she trolls for votes in Miami is did she support her husband’s decision to send Elian back to Cuba.
Evidently Queen Hillary does not care much for reason and logic: all criticisms are illegitimate for she was meant to rule. In her view, this whole process is only one painful ritual she must endure; it is one long coronation march to the altar of political power.Guess again, beeotch.