i have it on my ipad and read bits of it now and again, in between other things. i understand her support of Mittens, she’s pragmatic rather than an idealogue.
you know, the more i think about this, i wonder if it’s not a function of being a lawyer. you look at various legal strategies in a case, and you decide on the best one to win. there is NEVER a strategy that doesn’t have drawbacks, risks, weak spots, etc. in it, but you assess the range of choices and you pick the one most likely to WIN, and you don’t sit there and bellyache about what’s wrong with the strategy you have chosen because that is pointless, you just go great guns and do the best with what you’ve got. and you don’t sit there and try to cultivate a weak strategy either, because that is also pointless. you go with the highest winning percentage possible. that’s how i see Ann’s support of Mittens. she’s made her assessment, and she’s going for it.