..there are plenty. Current service, etc.
Thanks for proving my point while at the same time trying to tell me it was wrong. I don't insist that its the "only" definition possible, only that it is one that is possible THUS the ad can be construed in that fashion (and indeed was by a good section of people) The invented position of those debating me here is that I don't accept the other definition. Not so. I certainly accept it. I am not limited to it, though you seem to think I should be.
I am also not debating the fairness or accuracy of the details nor their ability to actually run the ad.
My entire point (which seems to be missed on all of your (plural) continual lathering on about me having the audacity to say something bad about the current democratic cadidates (which according to you(p) means by default that I must be a Bushboy), was that it was not wise to do this, that the candidates by necessity would have to distance themselves from it OR suffer the beatdown. Further, a refusal to distance themselves from it would place them (in the minds of the right and centrist voters) in the fringe...and a fringe candidate will have a much harder chance of winning the coming election.
Hill already has strike one. She's a she. She doesn't need any more baggage.