Like Stephen said, we've had this discussion: She's an elected Republican, and thus incapable of wrongdoing, just as I'm a liberal and thus incapable of doing anything right. Hitler's a liberal, too, and Mubarak re-introducing private industry to Egypt makes him one as well, because those things fit your world view, and don't confuse you with facts, right? You decry "propaganda" and "editing" yet edit the factual record whenever convenient. I'm done; last word is yours, though since you're just going to deny the facts and accuse your opponents again I'm not sure why you'd bother.

I show you a US Congressmans urging us to support terrorists murdering innocents because he says they aren't "morally responsible" for their own actions, who's got FAMILY in a terrorist group but is "investigating" fellow Congressmen with NO known ties to terrorism and STILL defends terrorists he liks because "they didn't attack the United States". Your response? "Pelosi is worse!" Like I said, if a Republican leader was caught ripping the heads off puppies your only response would be "it's OK because liberals are worse" (which is pretty much how Peter King defends his own preferred brand of terrorism). Never freaking mind; I pray that attitude really is the fringe minority you claim, even though the evidence indicates otherwise. When they come to burn you at the stake for not sharing their religion, be sure to tell them you're not a liberal.