ON FRIDAY, the Clinton's released their tax records dating back to 2000. Turns out they've been doing pretty good: they earned $109 million over that period.
So the New York Times wrote this in the Saturday paper: In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.
Is it necessary to point that out?
The same edition of the Times has only one longer story about Hillary Clinton's competitor, Barack Obama. The Obama story is a campaign journal that follows the candidate on campaign stops - watching him eat onion rings, debate the usefulness of the penny, and bowl. Oh, and we learn that Obama wears a size 13.5 shoe.
Is that fair? Does it have to be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment