[I got the rope]

Read it again. She didn't contradict herself. She not using her fathers money (present tense) she using the money he gave her (past tense).

This liberal rag your reading has made it look like she is contradicting herself. They took bits and pieces of an interview and made a mountain out of mole hill and now sheeple (like you) are pissing all over themselves trying to find a new candidate.

[Bubbatuck]

That doesn't make sense. First, her father HAS no money now, as he's dead.

She made two claims: 1) She was going to use the $10 million inheritance from her father to finance her campaign, and 2) that the $10 million was ALL her money.

Now it turns out she has ANOTHER source of $10 million - her own assets. So she is NOT going to use her inheritance, and she is NOT "putting it all on the line".

There's no ambiguity about what she said on Hannity - he repeatedly asked her if she was going to use her inheritance, and if that was all she had, and she repeatedly answered yes.

I've given her the benefit of the doubt at every turn, but this just looks unbelievably amateurish, at best, and deliberately dishonest, at worst. Calling herself a Christian doesn't mitigate it at all.

[Pukin Dog]

I think you have a problem.

The article says that she will INSTEAD OF USING MONEY FROM HER FATHER, that she will sell off her existing assets. Now, I don't know what your problem is, but I can read as well as anyone.

Don't spin, it is not necessary.

The article makes it clear that she is not going to do what she stated she would do during her Hannity interview. Spinning it to blame the media in this case only makes you look silly.

[HitmanLV]

I used to think that Democrats were the best at contorting into ridiculous positions to make sense out of what one of their politicos has just said.

Nice too see GOPers are as adept, too.

By the way, it's ridiculous in either case.