I get a kick out of how pollsters hedge their projections, usually throwing in some cautionary built in degree of miscalculation, somewhere between 3 – 5% either way. I read an article on the AOL website, originally from The New York Times and co-written by Patrick Healy and Jim Rutenberg, “In Both Parties, Politeness Falls to Infighting”. (link provided in title bar )
“The sun was not yet up yesterday, and members of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign team were confronted with the kind of attack that most infuriates them: one questioning the character of Mrs. Clinton and her husband.” Can you believe it, somebody questioning the integrity of Queen to be Hillary Rodham Clinton?
I could care less who donated money to the coronation proceedings or, in this case, not.
The interesting poll taken through on line readers did catch my attention. There was a statement, “Geffen said the Clintons lie “with such ease, it’s troubling.”, Your opinion?” 73% of the respondents agreed that the Clintons, that being Sir Bill and Her Majesty to be Hillary, lie “with such ease, it’s troubling”.
Back to my original idea that most pollsters hedge their projections to some degree, how can anyone consider Hillary as a person with sufficient character to hold office; as a Senator, much less a power hungry egomaniac intent on sitting on the Oval Office Throne? Just for fun, let’s say the poll taken was off by a margin of staggering proportions, maybe 20% error (either way), that would mean that somewhere between 53% believe the Clintons lie with impunity, or going towards a more plausible thought, 93% of those polled believe the Clintons lie with such ease as to make them habitual liars incapable of telling the truth.
In the event of a Hillary coronation and subsequent matriarchal dynasty, this blog opinion will self destruct. I never said a thing that would imply a lack of honesty in Her Majesty’s more than generous platitudes.
No comments:
Post a Comment