Funny how a trivial subplot becomes the main story, innit? I don't see any evidence of underhand manipulation from Clinton here, just incompetent vetting by CNN. Still: it shouldn't have happened. And the fact that it did was probably just enthusiasm on CNN's part to have such a vivid questioner. And, of course, yes, I suppose CNN's producers are more likely to support lifting the ban. Most non-fundies are. My take on the actual, you know, issue here is below.
