Originally Posted by Mellowicious
toots - I want to make sure I understand what you were saying:

You're suggesting the article was planted by the Clinton campaign (or someone associated with the campaign) in order to make women so angry they would vote Clinton just out of anger, is that correct?

If that was the case, would it not have been better to plant an article in the Washington Post prior to the Potomac primaries, rather than a month after?


Yes, but they run a campaign about as well as they can drive a car.