…and in the interest of truth and fairness, here’s proof that (a) the recent ABC debate was absurd and by far the worst yet, and (b) that all the Clinton-Obama debates have been overwhelmingly biased against Obama as far as “scandal” and “gotcha” questions go.

And yes, the person who conducted this little study needs a hobby.  But still.

This is classic Clinton. Listen to how she responds to a reporter’s question about her statement to Bill Richardson, “Obama can’t win.”

“You know we have been going back and forth in this campaign about who said what to whom and let me say this about that. I don’t talk about private conversations. But I have consistently made the case that I can win because I believe I can win. You know, sometimes people draw the conclusions that I’m saying somebody else can’t win. I can win, I know I can win. That’s why I do this everyday. I’m in it to win it.”

I’m sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but that wasn’t the question. I cannot believe this woman has gotten away with doing this for decades, and she’s just barely going to lose the nomination. She should be getting annihilated. Her candidacy should have been a big joke, and she should have been laughed at until she quit.

But it doesn’t end here. When pressed by the reporter: “Is that a no?” she responded, “That’s a no.”

Except that “no” doesn’t really mean “no.” CBS reports a later explanation given by Clinton’s staff:

But later, a senior Clinton spokesman told reporters that Clinton did not mean to imply that she was not referring to what she allegedly said to Richardson about Obama.

Oh. Well, now it all makes sense.

Top Stories

The Treasury Department wants more power. I can’t even comment on this.

iMonk: What Do Gays and Lesbians Hear? Must reading.

Clinton’s Campaign Record

Sports: No way the Sabres are making the playoffs. And they don’t deserve to.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, reporting on Clinton’s claims about her stance on NAFTA in last night’s debate:

“I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning,” even though she didn’t have a “public position” on it–given the inconvenient detail that her husband had pushed it through Congress. In other words, she was against that treaty before her husband was for it.