From a reader:

I was reading the NYTimes story linked on Drudge in re: the NARAL ad
attacking John Roberts. I saw this and noticed something funny:

(More after the jump because cutting and pasting made the spacing all weird and I don’t have time to fix it.)

<beg>
Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was
considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of
other groups generally refused to speak on the record. One who did,
Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice,
said she was "deeply upset and offended" by the advertisement, which she
called "far too intemperate and far too personal."

Ms. Kissling, who initiated the conversation with a reporter, said the
ad "does step over the line into the kind of personal character attack
we shouldn’t be engaging in."
<end>

Did you see that last sentence "who initiated the conversation with a
reporter".

She’s cold calling reporters now. Of course, that’s her whole career
isn’t it, with the fax blasting and whatnot.

It just gives me an image of Quissling standing in the shadows outside
the Times building, waiting to pounce on the first reporter she sees,
"I’M RELEVANT! COME TALK TO MEEEEEEEEE!!!!"

LOL, just thought that was funny.

Oh, I forgot to add this tidbit:

<beg>
She added: "As a pro-choice person, I don’t like being placed on the
defensive by my leaders. Naral should pull it and move on."
<end>

OK, isn’t it a little creepy to see that "by my leaders" phrase. I know
it’s entirely truthful, and appropriate, but it just kills me that she
identifies with NARAL as one of her leaders (and yes, I know that
nothing about that woman should shock me anymore).