I understand what you're saying here, but part of what I do is holding media accountable for what they write (or at least I hope that's part of what I do). If I am going t have credibility in that role, I can't wink at egregious editorial control and unsubstantiated smears just because it benefits my political allies. If I did that, then all I am is just a shill for the GOP. That's not why I started blogging.
Besides which, I just flat-out think it's wrong.
Sorry Starboard, but I think you are overboard. First off, I am not kissing anyone's ass. However, see know reason to demand a modicum of respect out of our politicians and MSM. I for one am not concerned one bit about Hillary in '08 - so my Chillin' days are still with me. What, do you think we can't beat her on the up-and-up, without getting into the gutter?
We are in a political war so it is OK? Is it OK to attack women and children in a real war too? What has Chelsea done to deserve this - she is not a combatent? This makes Hillary a victim again - one thing we do not want.
Buck up Starboard - we can win with class easily. Keep the faith and keep the class
we're in a political war, and we don't get brownie points for fairness or magnanimity. Doesn't mean we need to cheer what the good Captain aptly dubbed "tawdry Weekly World News gossip/hit pieces" at the opposition's expense, but silence and circumspection seem to me to be more than sufficient when fratricide breaks out on the other side of the aisle.That's exactly the same tack that's been taken by Oliver Willis to justify his non-criticism of Howard Dean and other Democratic foibles.
Lovely company you're keeping.
Hi, Ed. It's an honor to have you comment here.
{I understand what you're saying here, but part of what I do is holding media accountable for what they write (or at least I hope that's part of what I do). If I am going to have credibility in that role, I can't wink at egregious editorial control and unsubstantiated smears just because it benefits my political allies.}
I never suggested the Klein excerpt is a boon to our side of the aisle. If there was any effect from it on us, it would undoubtedly be negative. Such has it been with pretty much every previous Clinton scandal allegation, both genuine and artificial.
My point is that you should consider just exactly where your credibility comes from and from which sources it actually has value. Because you'll get no such credit for bipartisan magnanimity from the other side of the aisle, no matter what you post about it. And the tone and bent of your Klein post seemed aimed in precisely that direction.
{Besides which, I just flat-out think it's wrong.}
I think it's a flat-out scam, myself. Time will tell.
{First off, I am not kissing anyone's ass.}
Not wittingly. But it's difficult to interpret "I support the Clintons on THIS!" any other way.
{However, see know reason to demand a modicum of respect out of our politicians and MSM.}
I guess I don't spend very much time demanding or expecting things I know will never be forthcoming.
{I for one am not concerned one bit about Hillary in '08 - so my Chillin' days are still with me. What, do you think we can't beat her on the up-and-up, without getting into the gutter?
You should be concerned about Hillary in '08. She's their de facto nominee, we have no clear frontrunner, and unless somebody emerges in the next couple of years with the right resume and sufficient star power, she's going to be the next POTUS.
That being said, "going into the gutter" is not a tactic at which Republicans have ever been proficient. Besides, without media sympathy and cooperation, it wouldn't work even if we were good at it. Watergate is the proof.
What strikes me about your post is the implicit assumption that we had any connection to the Klein excerpt. I wasn't aware that the ranks of the Right were overrun with former Newsweek editors. Consequently there are hardly reasonable grounds for any on the other side to connect him to conservatives. My point, though, is that they don't need "reasonable grounds" to draw such connections; they'll do it regardless, and no amount of full-throated "I support the Clintons on THIS!" innoculant will prevent it.
Far better, I think, to let it play out and see what emerges. If Klein was either incompetent enough, as a former major "news" magazine editor, to be unaware of basic libel law, or had any personal motivation to deliberately slander the Clintons - both of which I highly doubt - then his kiester will be in a sling. If, on the other hand, he can back up his excerpt, then it strikes me that the Clintons' pose of wounded indignation is a bluff and they won't want to initiate legal proceedings that will mean discovery and precisely the march down Moist Memory Lane that I would think would be the last thing that Hillary's presidential ambitions would need.
Either way, I don't think that blurb was meant to be taken 100% literally. Some mitigating context is obviously missing.
{What has Chelsea done to deserve this - she is not a combatent? This makes Hillary a victim again - one thing we do not want.}
If my supposition of another Clinton PR scam is correct, that is one of the points of this entire sordid exercise.
Buck up Starboard - we can win with class easily. Keep the faith and keep the class.
We haven't forfeited any class, AJ.
But neither class nor its lack will be of any avail against the rise of the Clinton machine in '08, I'm afraid.
That's exactly the same tack that's been taken by Oliver Willis to justify his non-criticism of Howard Dean and other Democratic foibles.
Lovely company you're keeping
Why do you expect Oliver Willis to criticize Howard Dean?
Incidentally, Jon, your attempted parallel is rather sloppy. Willis is "non-criticizing" one of his own; unless you know something about Ed Klein that the rest of us do not, he is not, nor has he ever been, a member of any stripe in the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
If this "rape" charge had come from right-wing ranks, I would pronounce it unpardonably stupid, as the GOP never did gain any ground on the Clintons in their previous tenure via the scandal route. As it came instead from an Extreme Media huckster, I am deeply suspicious of the authenticity, much less veracity, of the whole thing. As such, it certainly isn't worth all the fuss & bother that you and the others are devoting to it.
Virtue may at times be its own reward, but this isn't one of those times, particularly given the potentially dire consequences of this highly ill-advised generosity.
JAS, Am I kissing any American's ass when I stand up for defending them against terrorists or murderers? When it comes down to what morales we stand for, do we have two sets - one for our political allies and one for our political enemies? I think not. I stand by ANY parent slandered in a manner that would hurt their children. Nothing wrong with that.
You can demand a lot, especially through example. I know Hillary is the nominee, and I am confident she will lose. But my insecure about an election doesn't mean we lose our standards.
Actually, I included in an update that given Klein's background I was interested in finding out the motivations. One is out to get Hillary (OK, that would mean this backfired now that she can play the victim again - this time legitimately), the other is some strange dem plot to make her out to be a victim (which would do what is necessary to kill her candidacy if true) or Klein is a slimey, greedy low life.
I am not saying reps had ANYTHING to do with this. What I am saying is we can keep our high ground by being honestly outraged just on the grounds of simple human decency.
BTW, serious, mature disussions on important issues will beat Hillary any day - simply because the liberals are incapable of such acts.
Hey, AJ. Thanks for the repeat visit.
{Am I kissing any American's ass when I stand up for defending them against terrorists or murderers?}
Are you seriously comparing the Klein excerpt to terrorism and murder? Or that the Clintons are indistinguishable from "any American"?
{When it comes down to what morales [sic] we stand for, do we have two sets - one for our political allies and one for our political enemies? I think not.}
Who suggested otherwise? Remember, this alleged "smear" didn't eminate from our side of the aisle. Our fingerprints are not on this "story." Even if this "unnamed source" were to turn out to be a "Clinton Chronicler," it would still be the former editor-in-chief of New York Times Magazine who'd be responsible for including it in his book.
It's not our responsibility to disavow things we've never said.
{I stand by ANY parent slandered in a manner that would hurt their children. Nothing wrong with that.}
If, of course, they've actually been slandered. And if the controversy is genuine as opposed to contrived. I just think you and the others are buying into it far too uncritically.
Reminds me of a line of trained seals, to be honest.
{You can demand a lot, especially through example.}
And you're naive if you think that will make one jot or tittle of difference when it comes to the Clintons.
{I know Hillary is the nominee, and I am confident she will lose. But my insecure about an election doesn't mean we lose our standards.}
You seem stubbornly adhered to this misconception, AJ. Let me reiterate: We haven't lost our standards. We didn't launch this mayhap-it-is-and-mayhap-it-isn't "scurrilous" charge. But our standards do not require us to leap unilaterally to an opponent's defense. And Bill and Hillary Clinton are the last people on Earth who deserve any benefit of the doubt.
{I am not saying reps had ANYTHING to do with this. What I am saying is we can keep our high ground by being honestly outraged just on the grounds of simple human decency.}
And what I'm saying is that we forfeit nothing of the high ground by omitting the latter, at least in the absence of credible evidence one way or another - which, by the by, a libel suit would provide.
What if it were to turn out that Klein's charge was true? Or that this whole thing was just another Clinton scam? Would you not feel the slightest bit foolish at having been taken in by it?
{BTW, serious, mature disussions on important issues will beat Hillary any day - simply because the liberals are incapable of such acts.}
Serious, mature discussion on important issues didn't beat Mr. Bill. Indeed, his presidency was characterized by the irrelevance of truth and the triumph of propaganda. That history suggests there's no reason to suppose that it would be any different with his wife heading the Donk ticket.
When a Clin
public insurance adjusters public insurance adjusters public insurance adjusters // world poker tour poker world poker tour poker world poker tour poker
Commenting by HaloScan
