I’m not a big fan of anonymous sourcing. I think it tends to pervert the process of critical news reading by making it impossible for the reader to judge the source independently of their judgment of the journalist. I accept that in certain extraordinarily important cases anonymous sourcing may be the only way to get a story, but the casual use of anonymous sourcing for trivial or inflammatory but non-crucial stories has gotten way out of control. I mention this because I have been made aware of a story reported by Edward Klein (former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine) in his recent book about Hillary Clinton which is sensational but not important, and should never have been reported with anonymous sourcing.
According to Drudge, the book says that the anonymous source learned from Bill that he raped Hillary and that was how Chelsea was conceived. If that is what the book says, it is ridiculous to rely on an anonymous source for such a charge. It is the kind of charge which is impossible to defend against, and the only way to judge the story other than by pure speculation about Bill and Hillary’s character (and my pure speculation is that Hillary put up with lots of crap but would have probably engineered Bill’s accidental death if he raped her, and I for one wouldn’t blame her–and Bill may be all kinds of foolish, but if he did rape his wife and she for some reason didn’t kill him he wouldn’t go blabbing about it) is to judge the reliability of the source. I have never been a big fan of the Clintons, but this kind of charge ought to be way out of bounds. At least Juanita Broadrick was willing to personally stake her reputation.
This isn’t about national security, it shouldn’t have been anonymously sourced. And if Drudge is just blowing smoke (if the quote isn’t really in the book) he deserves to be smacked hard for it, preferably with a libel suit either from the Clintons or Ed Klein. If the quote really is in the book, I would hope that anonymously sourcing the story should open Klein up to libel if he can’t prove the reliability of the source.
Hat tip Captains Quarter’s Blog
Note: I am specifically stating that I do not believe the truth of the story and am mentioning it because A) the drudge mention puts it into massive circulation already, and B) the only way to talk about the impact of the story is to explicitly refer to it and decry its reporting technique.
I have to admit, I don’t see why Klein is going to print with this wild story. He must know that it’s impossible to prove, and he’s opening himself up to a lot of legal danger from someone who can basically squash him if he can’t support the allegation.
The only possibility I can see is that it’s an early salvo against Hillary in ’08, but even that possibility is pretty thin.
In any event, it’s weaksauce. Can’t say I’m surprised Drudge is pimping it.
This is not attacking Seb, but if you have access to a shower (preferably with good water pressure and an ample supply of soap), go over to the Captain’s Quarters and check out the comments. Unbelievable.
Actually the comments are encouraging in the sense that only the wingbats think have anything remotely good to say about the story. The regulars seem to be quite against it.
I’m curious who are the regulars there. Was it the persons who said the following:
and
and
and
Perhaps these are not regulars, but I wonder what would it take to depress you?
I don’t have anything to add (beyond, perhaps, a scream of rage at the way Hillary Clinton gets mistreated for being smart, ambitious, and female) but I wanted to say that this is an excellent post, Sebastian. This is the kind of thing I hang around Obsidian Wings for.
Dean Esmay and Ann are regulars, I also think I’ve seen Roberts before. BTW, I think you are misreading Dean. He is suggesting that there are private reasons other than rape for a hotel room to get rather messed up after a night of sex.
My distaste with Dean Esmay’s comments is the presumption that a mother did care about an unborn child that was carried to term. I think that is an incredibly disgusting thing to say (especially since we know that Chelsea was born and raised in what anyone with half an ounce of objectivity to be a rather admirable young lady) about someone and it says a lot more about him than I really wanted to know. If he believes that is an appropriate description to toss out on someone just because they are pro-choice, I hope he has a good dentist who can extract teeth from the back of his throat.
Sorry, that should be ‘did not care’. I am still gobsmacked by it. I also notice that one of the trackbacks has as the title ‘New Book alleges Bill raped Hillary’.
I should note that later, Dean says
I really hope that the ‘every word of it could be true’ is not some sort of way of supporting the message without dirtying hands with the messenger, and I would like to think that it is just the speed of response that is the problem here. But, sad as it is to say, I really can’t be assured of that.
but always remember, “Bush hatred” is much much worse than “Clinton hatred”.
I think there’s a more charitable explanation of Esmay’s comment, lj (and I’m not generally one to cut Esmay much slack). Not that she didn’t care in the general case about her unborn child, but that she had no reason to be concerned for her and her child’s safety because Clinton did not rape her, and she was conceived through normal consensual sex. That’s how I read it given the antecedent — she was not concerned for their safety from Bill Clinton because there was no reason to be concerned.
Then again, Esmay could just be being a dick.
Is this book being published in the UK? If it is, and this claim is in it, Hillary and Bill, independently, should sue the UK publisher in a UK court. Then they have to prove that what they said is true.
Ummm…this is kind of a sore point with me. Although Chelsea is about a generation behind me, age-wise, my mother mentioned (publicly) a few years after my parents divorced that she had been date-raped by my father. This is one of those things about revealed family history that invite disbelief: that a woman can be raped, then marry the guy and subsequently pop out six kids by him. The apparent paradox of this, as well as other things, led to a complete and (as far as is foreseeable) final parting of all ways between his family and my mother.
Years later, I discussed this with her. You cannot imagine how uncomfortable this was. I’m not going into detail, but the upshot is I’m now inclined (because of, among other things, the graphic detail in the things she remembered) to think it’s true. And I now completely understand how this event could have occurred AND the six of us could have happened. Things Were Different Then.
So; coulda happened. I’m still less likely to vote for Hillary for President than I am to vote for my mom, regardless of whether this turns out to be a story.
My guess is that this is just the tip of the anti-Hillary iceberg. Nothing we’ve seen thus far will compare with the venom yet to be spewed once she announces her bid for the White House.
Looks like The Arkansas Project folks are ready to swing into action again. Wonder if they still have Scaiffe money behind them.
Nice to see the same people who swallowed whole the “Billary murdered hundreds while running coke and making mulatto babies” filth are ready to swallow the latest spew.
I don’t remember that one, CaseyL.
Point taken, Phil. The name sounds familiar, but beyond that, nothing.
Slarti, lots of things coulda happened. If I strolled up to you and suggested that your dad raped your mom, I would fully expect anything I got. I hesitate to list all of the possible coulda happened’s because it would merely be me trying to get you angry, but what you have just done is use your own anecdote to try and suggest that Clinton is guilty. It’s so far below what I expect from you that I really can’t believe I am reading it. I realize that it is obviously a raw memory, but using it in the way you do is inexcusable. Perhaps you feel like you want to talk about this, but I can’t help but think it is totally inappropriate.
Slart:
(1) Cripes. Solely to the extent wanted, my thoughts are with your mom.
(2) Unbelievably generous use of personal information to throw light on an issue. I’m not sure if it’s too generous, but it’s way on that side of the scale. I wish I had that sort of impulse towards honesty (word choice?); truly one of the things I admire most.
(3) Obviously, as a Bush supporter, you remain the source of all evil.
“The only possibility I can see is that it’s an early salvo against Hillary in ’08, but even that possibility is pretty thin.”
No, it’s the entire point of the book, at least according to the publisher:
Etc. (Opposing view here.)
“Wonder if they still have Scaiffe money behind them.”
Gee, ya think?
LJ, please point out to me where you think I did that, so I can go back and remove that part.
Thanks,
Slart
“…he’s opening himself up to a lot of legal danger from someone who can basically squash him if he can’t support the allegation.”
Only if they can sue in Britain (without checking, my immediate guess is that there’s no British publication at this time, and likely won’t be). Malicious intent, or “a reckless disregard for the truth, or advance knowledge of falsity,” is a high and difficult standard to reach, as that intent has to be proven. And, of course, even if you can, it will cost you a fortune to prove it, and meanwhile, the publicity from the trial, which can take years to get to (the “speedy” thing fell out of our “justice” system more than a little while ago), isn’t apt to help you.
Here is a directly false statement, for example, but can malicious intent be proven? Maybe, but only if there are smoking gun memos, or the like, that say something to the effect of “haha, I know this isn’t true, but it sounds great!” Simply being untrue is, in regard to a public figure, not libelous under U.S. law.
Here’s a grand quote and bit of logic, quoting Klein:
“‘She said she was passionately in love with her husband, but many of her closest friends and aides were lesbians. Everything was ambiguous.'”
Absolutely. Everyone knows that having gay friends makes it highly ambiguous as to whether you caught it! (Warning: gay people, you might also catch being het from the breeders! Stay away! Avoid ambiguity!)
SomeCallMeTim
1) Thanks.
2) It’s one of those things you don’t use as an icebreaker, I’ll grant, and I’m sorry if it made anyone uncomfortable. But it’s also one of those things that kind of has to break itself out, and there’s precious little objective discussion of it to be had in our family.
3) Thanks! Wait’ll you get a load of our retirement plan.
Gosh: I have gay friends, and even, dare I say it, to gay co-bloggers whom I really like. Time to rethink everything I have previously believed about my sexual orientation.
‘Two’, not ‘to’.
My best man (in my first marriage) was gay; guess that makes me mighty confused.
So; coulda happened. I’m still less likely to vote for Hillary for President than I am to vote for my mom, regardless of whether this turns out to be a story.
Perhaps the coulda happened and story you reference in the last sentence is about your mom and dad, but it is unclear who coulda happened refers to
I really don’t want to make this a fight, so if I’ve convinced you, please skip down to the last paragraph. But if I haven’t, imagine the following chain of speculation
CNN has a story about a grandfather shopping pictures of her daughter on the internet. Turns out in happened in Florida. You live in Florida. Hey c.h. I know you see how unfair that is, can you see how your c.h. partakes of the same thing?
Also, you have often argued that we should treat people outside of the commentariat with the same respect that we treat people within it. Drawing the conclusion that it coulda happened would definitely not be acceptable for someone who is commenting here, why do you think it is acceptable for the Clintons?
Again, perhaps this is solely about your anecdote and if that is the case, my apologies for not reading it in that way. But if you do take my point and edit your comment, please feel free to erase this comment and my previous one (in fact, I would hope that you would as I would not like to leave then up).
Oh, wait: which two?
“My distaste with Dean Esmay’s comments is the presumption that a mother did [not] care about an unborn child that was carried to term.”
“Sorry, that should be ‘did not care’. I am still gobsmacked by it.”
LJ, while it’s possible your reading may be correct, I see no reason to assume that other than to simply assume it. So far as I can see, the first two more likely readings I’d give to Esmay’s statement, in context, are that either a) he meant that Hillary Clinton had no concerns about Bill Clinton being a danger to their unborn child during her pregnancy because she had no grounds for such concerns — which is a completely anodyne statement, and not at all the same as interpreting it to mean “she had no concerns because she is a psychotic, unfeeling bitch” or somesuch, perhaps milder, version — or b) she had no concerns about having “rough sex” affecting her “unborn child” because, you know, that would make no sense at all.
It’s perfectly possible that your interpretation of Esmay’s remark, on the other hand, is correctly detecting intonations and intent and meaning that I don’t see in the text, but I’d have to ask what external support you have to read that interpretation in. Where are you getting that from?
I think that Gary (as he usually does) nails the issue smack on the head. However untrue (or scurrilous, or downright disgusting) printed allegations against any “public figure” might be, the US has long since accepted that the freedom to publish takes precedence over the reputational rights of the target (and I’m sure that we would all be surprised to discover just how little it takes to be considered a “public figure”!). Like it or not, it’s our system and we’re stuck with it – and even in the UK, where libel laws are stricter, actually getting a judgement is a lengthy and expensive process (with no guarantee of success).
Wow! Vile disgusting Clinton-bashing back in the press! Let’s party like it’s 1999!
No, you got it right; it’s just what you’ve concluded from it that’s wrong. I’ve got absolutely no agenda in further discrediting either Bill or Hillary Clinton, and if you think I’m spilling my guts in this highly personal way in order to do so, you don’t know the first thing about me. What I was attempting to say (and probably badly, but this is me, here) is that I wouldn’t discount something like this if, for instance, Hillary were to come out and say it, because of my family experience. But I think it’d take something like that to give the story any credibility at all.
If the above isn’t compelling, feel completely free to continue believing I’ve just shown you a highly painful and confusing bit of my history just to take another potshot at the Clintons; I simply am not going to expend any further energy at all in attempting to convince you otherwise.
I’ve been wondering what the Republican Sludge Machine could come up with re Hillary. She’s already been accused of being a communist, lesbian, witch, murderer (Vince Foster, with whom she was also having an affair, despite the lesbianism), etc. What’s left?
It’s going to be fun hearing about Mena, the Clinton Death List, Bill’s mullato love child, and so on all over again. But come up with some new dirt Repubs, this stuff is old news!
“I simply am not going to expend any further energy at all in attempting to convince you otherwise.”
My sense, Slart, was that that’s how you meant what you said, both when you wrote your original comment, and thereafter. I might not directly accuse you otherwise if I thought otherwise unless I was sure, but I certainly wouldn’t stand up and say that I believe you if I didn’t. FWIW.
I do appreciate that, Gary. It’s a long swim back from Conclusions.
And, of course, even if you can, it will cost you a fortune to prove it, and meanwhile, the publicity from the trial, which can take years to get to (the “speedy” thing fell out of our “justice” system more than a little while ago), isn’t apt to help you.
I can see ways to shepard this through trial fairly quickly, assuming an attorney who has a clear and narrow goal (attack this allegation only) and a client who is certain she has the evidence to establish her case (for Hillary must have victory for it to be worthwhile). To ease up on the “malicious intent” issue, I’d name “John Does (1-20)” (the source[s]) as co-defendants; this makes it more likely to get at least one victory (albeit, perhaps nominal). Also keep in mind that, assuming the source actually was on Bermuda, he or she might be fairly easy for Bill or Hillary to track down. (If the source was not actually where s/he said s/he was, God save Klein.)
Note also that the key issue in the case won’t be whether Bill actually raped Hillary, but whether he said he did. If Bill was making a (very poor-taste) joke of the me-caveman-hit-them-on-the-head-drag-them-back-to-the-cave variety, it’s a huge problem.
Now, I’m going to go take a shower.
von
p.s. My condolences/thoughts are with you Slarti, to the extent wanted. And, for the record, your two gay co-bloggers are Ed and Sebastian.
“It’s going to be fun hearing about Mena, the Clinton Death List, Bill’s mullato love child, and so on all over again”
Don’t forget that the Clinton’s hung drug paraphernalia and sex toys on the White House Christmas tree! Who could disbelieve that, because everyone knows that liberals just love to do that!
And, of course, as everyone knows, staffers in the Clinton White House were:
I’m sure the damn hippie Clinton staffers smelled all the time, too, due to their lack of showers, and constant gay orgies and drug use. Euww!
Meanwhile, as he can be counted on to do, Rush Limbaugh takes the high road:
It’s unclear, of course, whether she had him murdered to cover up their affair which covered up her lesbianism, or because Foster discovered the Clinton’s drug dealing at Mena, Arkansas. Probably Foster was about to reveal that his affair had shown him that Hillary was a lesbian — or a transgendered man! — and that her drugs were low quality.
But perhaps both those reasons are wrong, and it was because he stumbled across the way that the Clintons sold military secrets to China for the sake of desperately needed campaign funds. It’s so hard to know which crime is most applicable!
What’s seriously sad is to be reminded of this insane nonsense in the context of the recent reminders of a true vast and appalling conspiracy by the President of the United States. (And it was extremely notable to me how the overwhelming majority of people young enough to not live through it said they “didn’t care” about Watergate, that it was “boring” and that who Deep Throat was was completely irrelevant and unimportant. Yeah, that whole Watergate thing, just a partisan attempt to get another President who didn’t do anything other Presidents did, and besides, it led to the loss of Vietnam, as everyone knows. Also: Civil War entirely over-rated in importance. Boring, too.)
Good. I was a little confused, and there’s also the possibility that Edward and Sebastian are also confused, rubbing elbows with the breeders like that.
As much as I like the “to the extent wanted” part of that, condolences aren’t needed. After all, no one died, and the one person who ought to be most upset by it is, paradoxically, the least upset. Nothing’s new, here, except for my/our level of awareness.
It’s going to be fun hearing about Mena, the Clinton Death List, Bill’s mullato love child, and so on all over again
it’ll be even more fun watching the media pretend this is all very interesting and serious and worth investigating. Downing Street? what’s that – some lefty conspiracy theory ?
And, for the record, your two gay co-bloggers are Ed and Sebastian.
Slanderous, libelous, bastard! Oh, no…wait…that’s true.
Never mind.
Re Hillary: In the end, I hope the aphorism rings true: the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. The first time she’s asked by Tim Russert to address the issue, she dismisses it soundly and moves on. Anyone still clinging to it can be made to look like a wingnut. At least that’s how the Bush team handles such outrageous charges (and in his case, he IS evil ;-)).
“If Bill was making a (very poor-taste) joke of the me-caveman-hit-them-on-the-head-drag-them-back-to-the-cave variety, it’s a huge problem.”
Yes, I can imagine it’s possible Bill Clinton was guilty of a quip in appallingly bad taste. (I can also imagine that in this case it’s not true, of course.)
The larger aspect, though, it seems to me, Von, is that even assuming Hillary could clearly win on any of several lines, what it would do is generate truly huge and spectactular publicity for the book, likely making it a huge best-seller, and even if she wins damages, zillions of people will have, if not bought the book themselves, heard all the gossip second, third, and fourth-hand, and thus the damage is done, both in regard to spreading the (hypothetically provably delivered with malicious intent) bits, and all the other sleazy bits that are false, but of which malicious intent wasn’t proven. And then all the Clinton-haters can say, “see, look, all this stuff wasn’t proven false in court, so it’s obviously true!”
It’s pretty much a no-win, even if you “win.” Lies race around the world while truth laces up its boots and maybe eventually takes a short lazy jog.
You know, I have always thought that you can tell a lot about someone’s character by the enemies they make.
Slart, my sympathy, and — I’m still waiting (tock… tock… tock…).
It’s perfectly possible that your interpretation of Esmay’s remark, on the other hand, is correctly detecting intonations and intent and meaning that I don’t see in the text, but I’d have to ask what external support you have to read that interpretation in. Where are you getting that from?
Gary, I believe that I pretty clearly stated that I didn’t know who the regulars were, which would strongly imply that I don’t know what the culture is at that particular blog. I am not at all certain that I pick up everyone’s intonations, intents and meanings here, and I think of myself as a regular (I certainly don’t comment anywhere else). I know that you haven’t always picked up my intonations, intents and meanings, on the basis of the fact that sometimes, I feel you choose some unfathomable tangent to go off on. For this, I generally blame myself, after all, I was the one who wrote it. But now, as a reader, I point out that something can be taken another way, (and bear in mind, we don’t know who is reading this, where they are reading it or or any of a host of contextual points that would effect how they read it) and I get ‘hey, why aren’t you reading it the way [I think a third person] wrote it?’
Which (to move on to the next point and this will be my last comment on this) is particularly strange because I was specifically asked by Slarti to explain my problem with his comment and I did, and you take the FWIW opportunity to imply that I believe that he meant something that he didn’t, which suggests that you have some problems with reading, given the fact that I tried to take pains to suggest that both readings exist. That you and Slarti don’t believe it is y’all’s privilege, but that you both take the opportunity to suggest that I am doing this because I don’t believe Slarti is pretty bizarre. I took Slarti at his word that he was interested and I tried to make it clear that I really couldn’t believe that he was writing what he was, but Slart, for reasons that I have no idea about, closes up his comments with the possibility that I believe that he would use a personal anecdote to attack the Clintons. I don’t, but I’m not going to waste my energy to try and convince you both of that.
Agreed about the anonymous sourcing AND that Bill did not rape Hillary, Sebastian. Michael Medved knew the Clintons at Yale Law and he said they were basically living together and couldn’t keep their hands off each other.
Oh, good grief.
NOT: I think I read you as saying x; could you clarify?. NOT: I tried to take pains to suggest that both readings exist. Instead, an outright accusation.
Whatever, LJ. Your posts of late have changed character substantially. None of my business, but if you’ve got some sort of personal issues you’re working through right now…please try not to work them out on me.
s/posts/comments
“I believe that I pretty clearly stated that I didn’t know who the regulars were, which would strongly imply that I don’t know what the culture is at that particular blog.”
Me, neither.
“But now, as a reader, I point out that something can be taken another way, (and bear in mind, we don’t know who is reading this, where they are reading it or or any of a host of contextual points that would effect how they read it) and I get ‘hey, why aren’t you reading it the way [I think a third person] wrote it?'”
Well, yes. You pointed out your reading, which is your right, and I pointed out that my own reading is that your reading seems to be predicated on reading something into the text that I don’t see there. This is called “two people having two different opinions,” at worst; I’m not clear what you’re objecting to about this, although you seem to be.
“Which (to move on to the next point and this will be my last comment on this) is particularly strange because I was specifically asked by Slarti to explain my problem with his comment and I did….”
Grammatically, you are here referring to a comment of Slarti’s, but I’m rather confused: did you actually intend “his” to, rather, refer to Esmay’s comment?
“I was specifically asked by Slarti to explain my problem with his comment and I did, and you take the FWIW opportunity to imply that I believe that he meant something that he didn’t, which suggests that you have some problems with reading, given the fact that I tried to take pains to suggest that both readings exist. That you and Slarti don’t believe it is y’all’s privilege, but that you both take the opportunity to suggest that I am doing this because I don’t believe Slarti is pretty bizarre.”
This is so convoluted, resulting in my being sufficiently unsure as to what it is you are referring to and saying, that I’ll simply ask if you might rephrase this more clearly, rather than respond to it with perhaps mistaken understanding.
“…but what you have just done is use your own anecdote to try and suggest that Clinton is guilty.”
And: “…but that you both take the opportunity to suggest that I am doing this because I don’t believe Slarti is pretty bizarre. I took Slarti at his word that he was interested and I tried to make it clear that I really couldn’t believe that he was writing what he was, but Slart, for reasons that I have no idea about, closes up his comments with the possibility that I believe that he would use a personal anecdote to attack the Clintons. I don’t, but I’m not going to waste my energy to try and convince you both of that.”
Um, what? I can’t make any sense of these two quotes, together, whatsoever. That is, they seem completely contradictory. I’m sure I’m missing things you must intend, or something.
For the record, Slart, for me it took me a second reading of your comment to work out that you weren’t endorsing the accusation. I’d chalk it up to miscommunication.
“None of my business, but if you’ve got some sort of personal issues you’re working through right now…please try not to work them out on me.”
I’ve felt as if LJ was unaccountably angry with me in more or less every comment he’s made to me in recent days, as well, but while my impression may, of course, be wrong (distinct as it is, and conceivably supported by the trivial fact, which I wasn’t particularly offended by, that he out and out said I was a “jerk” only a couple of days ago), I also have no idea why (other than the fact that I am, of course, annoying, but that’s a quality I hope I’m fairly equal-opportunity about; but perhaps he feels that I’m sufficiently a jerk that it’s pretty much non-stop annoying, in which case, oh, well).
Slarti: What I was attempting to say (and probably badly, but this is me, here) is that I wouldn’t discount something like this if, for instance, Hillary were to come out and say it, because of my family experience. But I think it’d take something like that to give the story any credibility at all.
Thanks for clearing that up, Slarti. I have to admit that I read your initial comment as saying the same thing Liberal Japonicus thought you were saying, and I’m glad LJ asked and you clarified. Since I would doubtless have incurred your ire had I asked, feel free to include me in any ire that’s going.
FWIW, I think you’re being a bit harsh on LJ, but OTOH, I think anyone who publicly reveals anything that personal and that painful deserves a free round of ire on people who misread it… so as I misread it the same way, conside me lining up to receive ire.
Since it seems like we’re taking a poll, I assumed Slart was talking about the prima facie plausibility of the accusation, rather than its likelihood. My first reaction to the charge was, like Sebastian’s, that there was no way in hell Hillary would’ve married Bill in that situation; Slart’s story provided an interesting datapoint.
“My distaste with Dean Esmay’s comments is the presumption that a mother did [not] care about an unborn child that was carried to term. I think that is an incredibly disgusting thing to say […] about someone and it says a lot more about him than I really wanted to know. If he believes that is an appropriate description to toss out on someone just because they are pro-choice….”
Incidentally, you never did quote which words of Esmay’s you derive all these assumptions from, LJ. Where did he say anything about a mother (Hillary) “not car[ing” about her unborn child? Where did he say anything at all about “pro-choice”? There’s nothing in Esmay’s text that refers to these things that I see. You seem to be simply assuming that they’re present in his background thinking, and must mean what you assume. Of course, perhaps I’m just misreading Esmay, but could you please just quote the words of Esmay that lead you to your stated wrath and assumptions, please?
There’s nothing there whatever about lack of concern for her unborn concern; if she has no reason to fear Bill Clinton, she has no reason, and that’s all. Are you saying Hillary Clinton did have reason to fear for “her safety and that of her unborn child”? Because that’s the only interpretation I see from which it would follow that therefore she could be accused of simply being an indifferent mother. Please feel free to explain a different route (other than misreading, of course) to get to your conclusion and “presumption.” I’m entirely prepared to believe I’m simply missing something or somethings.
“There’s nothing there whatever about lack of concern for her unborn concern….”
Sigh. A complete garble; my apologies. Try “There’s nothing there whatever about lack of caring for her unborn child….”
Actually (and I hate making this whole thing about this exchange, but…), if you look at my initial response to his, I gave him quite a bit of slack. It’s only after he tried to make ME the bad guy that I became Irish. And, for the record, I think he’s become unusually prickly of late, and I’d like to encourage the return of the calm, thoughtful, sage LJ. Who I liked quite a lot, BTW, and rather miss.
Which was the intention, thanks.
To drag the topic back to the original question, why does this speak against the use of anonymous sources? A lie is a lie, and a smear is a smear, whether it is offered for attribution or not. The Swiftboat sh*t-throwers took full credit for their fact-deficient excretions. The severity of the charges aside, is that somehow better than the slime-job in question? I don’t think so.
I’m not a journalist, but it seems to me that either the story checks out or it doesn’t, and the journalism should be evaluated on its own merits, not on whether the sources are named or not. The end result of this anonymous-source-bashing is one more rhetorical bludgeon for the powers-that-be to use against the media generally and whistleblowers in particular, one less tool in the arsenal of good journalists who are actually watching out for the public interest, and one less opportunity for the public to evaluate information critically. Are we to really settle for such simplistic, arbitrary rules as “anonymous sources = bad journalism”, Deep Throat be damned (literally, for some)?
Geez. Slarti. Something bothered me, you asked me to set it out, I told you, you make a snide comment about how I should “feel completely free to continue believing I’ve just shown you a highly painful and confusing bit of my history just to take another potshot at the Clintons”. Cheap shot in my book.
‘I think you really misread that, but I realize that saying ‘coulda happened’ might be interpreted in the wrong way. I’m not going to change it, but I hope this comment will make it clear’ Whoops, just me imagining there.
Gary, I have expressed my appreciation of your knowledge and your comments. I just get mightily frustrated by your inability to even conceive that people read things in a way that you don’t. As for Dean Esmay’s comments, I quoted 3 other comments that I thought were pretty nasty from the same thread. Hillary creating this rape meme in an attempt to get sympathy, Newsweek has always been sympathetic to the ‘Clintoons’, so this is proof that this is an attempt to engineer a sympathy vote, and the Clintons and henchmen are doing the same thing. Viewed in that light, I think that might shed some light on why I read it the way I did. I didn’t (and still don’t) want to spend a lot of time considering those comments (though Slarti can suggest (at 9:37) this is just our imagination, right after he tells us his Dad raped his Mom. But seriously folks, try the veal).
gary, As for ‘out and out saying you were a jerk’, while I am sorry that you read it that way, I gave a specific example of something I felt you did (which was to take issue with someone’s point when they had specifically retracted it) and I said ‘you are being a jerk’, not ‘you are a jerk’. I meant to preface the whole thing with ‘if’, but I really didn’t have the energy to continue and try to assuage your feelings. I first try to make the point humorously (using the metaphor of an epidemic, which would suggest that it is not a concious choice on your part, get it?) and failing that, try to explain it to you. Again, if you don’t understand, I don’t have the energy to explain it to you. Though you and Slart seem to have a lot of energy to rehash it ad nauseum.
If the calm and collected LJ does reappear, it won’t be in this thread.
Gary:
Few thoughts in response to this:
what it would do is generate truly huge and spectactular publicity for the book, likely making it a huge best-seller
1. Hillary might conclude that it’s already going to be a big best seller, and that the meme is already going to be out there. I mean, libel suit or no, “Former President Allegedly Raped His Wife, A Senator And Presidential Aspirant Herself, And Conceived Their Only Child” is a pretty big story. Frankly, I don’t think a lawsuit can possibly make the story bigger.
2. At some point, Hillary has to serve notice that she will no longer tolerate this level of muckraking and innuendo. She has to make a stand. This charge, which is so outlandish and vicious, seems to be pretty good grounds for it.
3. She has to win her court case, however, for it to do much good; yet, even if she doesn’t,
4. Don’t discount the broad discovery powers available in U.S. Courts to probe this allegation, and dig up dirt on the dirt-peddlers. Any case by Hillary (or Bill) would almost certainly seek to expose whomever is believed to be paying the bills for the anti-Clinton onslaught. [On the other hand, this cuts both ways.]
5. Despite my proto-Republican leanings, this will serve notice that I was a fan of the Clinton White House, which was generally pro-trade and (together with a Republican congress) fairly conservative on economic issues. Clinton was also the closest we’ve come to a post-race President. That’s a stunning achievement, given the U.S.’s long (and continuing) legacy of racism.
Exactly. But I think we’re done, here.
“that there was no way in hell Hillary would’ve married Bill in that situation; Slart’s story provided an interesting datapoint.”
Those under say 50 are going to have a different perspective on this. With whatever sympathy is due Slart & his mom, without wishing to seem barbaric or condone rape in any way…good grief, what a phrase…things were just slightly more complicated in the 50s and 69s then they are today.
The first girl I loved, a relationship in my freshman year in college, told me, after 2-3 months of dating, that her high school boyfriend, whom she had gone steady with since 8th grade, had “ruined her” the night of her senior prom, so she now was free to have sex with someone she loved outside of marriage. But she still felt guilty, and after we broke up, told me that the man she married believed her a virgin on her wedding night.
People are complicated, and sex is very complicated, and back in the day, it was not ridiculous to think a young woman would want the responsibility for the decision taken from her hands. Any yes without a ring meant she was a slut, unworthy of a decent man. But a decent man who really loved her could be forgiven for losing control. Tho it might be used against him twenty years later.
Any personal offense is entirely unintended. And those who think this desclose my latent barbarism, so be it. But the dynamics and games in a very sexist society are entirely different that in a liberated one.
My father once told my mother he never wanted any of us kids, and was faking all enjoyment for the 15 years we were a family. He probably meant it at the time he said it, or not, but I know at least at times he loved us. People bullshit.
That’s pretty much along the lines of what I was trying to say, Bob. So, offense definitely not taken.
“I just get mightily frustrated by your inability to even conceive that people read things in a way that you don’t.”
On the contrary, I see people read things differently than me all the time. Every day. Often many times a day. But if they seem to me to be making a reading that doesn’t seem to me to be justified, I will sometimes point that out and ask them to explain their reading further. I regret if that’s what you find “mightily frustrating,” but I’m afraid that doesn’t seem sufficient grounds for me to cease noting and inquiring about what seems to me might be a bad reading.
“As for Dean Esmay’s comments, I quoted 3 other comments […] Viewed in that light, I think that might shed some light on why I read it the way I did.”
I don’t know how to read this, precisely. You seem to be saying that since you read some things other people said, one should take that into account as to how you read Esmay. I don’t follow that logic at all. Esmay is responsible for what he said, and that’s all; he bears no responsibility for anything whatever anyone else might say or anything else anyone else might read.
“I didn’t (and still don’t) want to spend a lot of time considering those comments….”
Which suggests that you’re content to make an impassioned accusation regarding Esmay’s meaning, rip him for it, and then not consider further whether you may have completely misread him. I don’t know Esmay from a hole in the wall (okay, I know he has a blog that many read, and I’ve spent perhaps an entire minute of my life so far reading his work), by the way. But I wouldn’t want anyone to be so accused, and then have the accusations blown off with “I don’t want to spend a lot of time considering” whether they might be wrong. If you consider that fair interaction, so be it.
“As for ‘out and out saying you were a jerk’, while I am sorry that you read it that way, […] I said ‘you are being a jerk’, not ‘you are a jerk’.”
Yes, the meaning of “is” is that I was, in your view, at that moment, being a jerk, but am not, I take it, in your view, permanently and eternally a jerk. Since you make this point in response to my observing that you’ve seemed to be fairly consistently responding to me in heated terms regardless of topic, of late, I take it your point is… well, I dunno, actually. That your stance is that I simply deserved to be called a jerk in that specific occasion, perhaps, and that my perception that you’re otherwise lately offended by my existence is wrong. Okay.
“If the calm and collected LJ does reappear, it won’t be in this thread.”
Sure, let the accusations against Esmay stand. Why not?
1. I am as angry at this Administration and it’s supporters (meaning anyone who voted that way) as anyone I know. I’m inclined to generally just write off people like Slart (though, I admit, not Slart).
2. It’s not my history, but I don’t think it’s fair to Slart to turn this into a thread about the data point he’s offered up.
3. That said, I think whatever accusation was implied by LJ (there are at least a couple different interpretations I can think of) is unbelievably worse than the initial libel of Bill and Hillary that was the point of departure.
4. I know I’ve said worse in my life, and I still think I’m a pretty good guy, so this isn’t the basis of some claim about LJ’s character, etc.
I’d respectfully suggest that it makes sense to return to regularly scheduled programming.
I’m still less likely to vote for Hillary for President than I am to vote for my mom,…
C’mon Slarti, you’re leaving out important information. What’s your mom’s stance on Social Security, Iraq, the deficit, health care, and foreign trade? How can the rest of us know who to vote for if we don’t know how she stands on the issues?
(For the record, even without that info, I would probably have preferred to vote for Slartibartfast’s mom than for Bush in the last election. I’ll need some convincing to support her over Hilary in the next election, however.)
“Frankly, I don’t think a lawsuit can possibly make the story bigger.”
Sure, it could. If the major “MSM” decide, rightfully, that the ridiculous accusations deserve as much attention as Juanita Broderick first received (rightfully or wrongfully), the story isn’t at all big, by definition. But a lawsuit by Clinton makes it significant mainstream news.
Beyond that, I wasn’t arguing that she shouldn’t sue, or that there couldn’t be benefits. I’m simply noting that it also brings yet considerably further downsides.
“The first girl I loved, a relationship in my freshman year in college, told me, after 2-3 months of dating, that her high school boyfriend, whom she had gone steady with since 8th grade, had “ruined her” the night of her senior prom, so she now was free to have sex with someone she loved outside of marriage. But she still felt guilty, and after we broke up, told me that the man she married believed her a virgin on her wedding night.”
I’m extremely hesitant to relate stories about other parties who more or less told me things in confidence, so no details, but let’s just say that I’ve known one woman (several years younger than me, however, which makes her yet several years younger than you, Bob, if my memory isn’t confused) who had a not entirely, though somewhat more melodramatic, tale. (It took me a bit of a while to realize that she was majorly, in my opinion, screwed up in her head about a number of things, including sex.)
Never mind Social Security and the deficit, what is Slarti’s mom’s position on Santa Claus?
I think her politics are basically interchangeable with Hillary’s, but she’s much nicer, and she can handle a bunch of unruly kids (think, Congress). So Mom gets my vote, if it comes down to that. Plus she gets some major points for maintaining any sort of decorum and sanity, considering that she’s a minority of one in the presence of an extremely vocal (and frequently rude) majority. Small wonder she will only see us singly, if given a choice.
“I’ll need some convincing to support her over Hilary in the next election, however.”
For the record: I am Hilary. She is Hillary.
She has the feminine spelling, as she should. My parents gave me my name in haste, when they decided I was too small to be victorious, and thus couldn’t be named Victoria, as they had planned. (I was, in fact, 8 lbs., but I was also their first child, and I looked small to them.)
“…but she’s much nicer….”
Hillary Clinton hasn’t been nice to you?
“…what is Slarti’s mom’s position on Santa Claus?”
Everyone knows there ain’t no sanity clause.
“I’m extremely hesitant to relate stories about other parties who more or less told me things in confidence”
Kiss-and-tell after 35 years, I am a beast. I can see it now:”My husband reads this blog, and recognized your name, Bob, and now our happy marriage is over. You promised.”
No, I didn’t. And anyway, I am still bitter that you wouldn’t marry me, because my low moral character was demonstrated by loving a woman who wasn’t pure.
And my girl was country Christian. Hillary, being more sophisticated and intelligent, is a unlikely candidate for that kind of repression in the mid to late sixties.
Given the above, I think in terms of vote-getting probability, I’d rank them as follows:
1) Hilary
2) Mom (sorry, Mom)
3) Hillary
Hilzoy’s got way too much tendency to gravitate toward things right and moral, though, to wind up running for public office. So I think Mom’s in no danger.
That’s just about the most screwed-up thing I’ve ever seen. That hasn’t already happened to me, I mean.
Um, I wasn’t, with that comment, addressing anything you said, Bob, and I apologize if that wasn’t clear. I was considering what I felt comfortable saying (my uncensored self would like to give some very colorful details, but I can’t exclude the possibility that, if not now, someday, given Googlemortality, someone might find my comment and, in fact, knowing me somewhat, might rightfully or wrongfully connect it to someone I’m known by many to have known in the past; I’ve lived a fairly public life, for a small population of “public”). I wasn’t criticizing you in the slightest.
Q: Gary, have you got everything?
A: I haven’t had any complaints yet.
For the flipside of Bob’s comment, Slarti: I’m acquainted with a woman who spent many years as a Pentecostal Christian. One of her boyfriends once, in the midst of kissing her, decided to do it French-style. After they were finished, he told her that it was sinful, that he had just been testing her to see if she would submit to that sin, and that she should go to the pastor and pray about it.
There are some messed-up people in the world.
I’m sorry: what?
Well, if hilzoy was to run for president, I would definitely become a campaign volunteer.
I agree that’s unlikely, though, so I’ll start on my “Slartibartfast’s Mom in 2008” placards.
There are some messed-up people in the world.
yikes.
Sorry, Gary. It’s also from a Night at the Opera. Groucho (Otis B. Driftwood) and Margaret Dumont are carrying bags getting off the steamship and she asks the question. (The contract scene with Chico and the sanity clause is in that same movie.)
This might actually increase Hilary’s positive polling numbers among the Christian right who believe a woman should submit to her man no matter what.
“This might actually increase Hilary’s positive polling numbers among the Christian right who believe a woman should submit to her man no matter what.”
Nothing could increase my polling numbers among that group. And even if it could, I don’t think it would be a tawdry allegation that someone else was raped.
I don’t know about this supporting hilzoy for president thing. If I recall correctly some of you have already pledged to submit to Sebastian and Katherine as co-dictator by unanimous decree. 😉
For the record: I am Hilary. She is Hillary.
Hilary in ’08!
All the news that’s FIT to print
I don’t quote the item or repeat the item. You have to follow the links to find it. I warn you that it is nasty. You don’t have to go there. How many will be able to avoid the click? Aha! I thought so.
“I don’t know about this supporting hilzoy for president thing. If I recall correctly some of you have already pledged to submit to Sebastian and Katherine as co-dictator by unanimous decree.”
Well, you’d better start running, then.
“For the record: I am Hilary. She is Hillary.
Hilary in ’08!”
And Hilarity at all times.
Amazing … I had forgotten this scene, but somehow it seems appropriate:
A Night At The Opera (1935), review by Tim Dirks
“I don’t know about this supporting hilzoy for president thing. If I recall correctly some of you have already pledged to submit to Sebastian and Katherine as co-dictator by unanimous decree. 😉”
Bah, if I want a dictator, I will settle for none but Giblets. Giblets would not share power with a co-dictator. Sharing is for the weak. Giblets would crush any would-be rival who presumed to claim the title of co-dictator. Nor would Giblets bother with smiley-face emoticons. If Giblets wants you to smile, he will order you to smile. Smile for Giblets, NOOOOWW!!
That is, if I wanted a dictator. Just saying.
For those of us more inclined towards democracy, there’s still the choice between Hilary, Hillary & Slarti’s mom. (Why is democracy so complicated?)
“(Why is democracy so complicated?)”
If we give Chancellor Palpatine more authority, he’ll be able to cut through the corruption and inefficiency of the Senate, I say.
I do suspect Senator Hilzoy might harbor Rebel sympathies, by the way. People nowadays need to watch what they say, watch what they do. I have that on very good authority.
The Clintons know an awful lot of high-powered lawyers, and the ground that this claim is based on is visibly ludicrous–the actual malice standard is hard to prove, but that might not stop the Clintons from suing and hammering both Mr. Klein and his publisher with a nice big bill for billable hours and discovery costs before the case is resolved, and I won’t have any problem with them doing so, either.
At some point, Hillary has to serve notice that she will no longer tolerate this level of muckraking and innuendo. She has to make a stand. This charge, which is so outlandish and vicious, seems to be pretty good grounds for it.
This is exactly right. I don’t know if a lawsuit is the best strategy or not, but I think if she wants to run for President, or even remain a prominent figure, she must counter attack sharply. If she does a good job it will be enormously positive for her.
And it will be enormously good for the country too. It’s time to call the slimers, and especially their defenders, to account.
I’m not sure what her best strategy is, but if she sues for libel the counterattack will be to smear her as abusing legal process to silence free speech. It may be worth it anyway, but it does open her up to a frsh line of attack.
I’m not sure what her best strategy is, but if she sues for libel the counterattack will be to smear her as abusing legal process to silence free speech.
Well now..if the charge is that Bill raped Hillary, does Hillary have a libel case?
Perhaps these are not regulars, but I wonder what would it take to depress you?
Hmm, regarding your concerns about the “Captains Quarters” commenters and the excerpts that listed .Here are exerpts from the first 8 comments on the Watergate: For the Record thread:
I think it got even worse farther into the thread. Dear me, I am sensitive to this sort of stuff and I am so sorry that you were exposed to mean partisan comments on Captains Quarters blog, altough you seemed to have been seeking them out. Funny thing is that ObWi is the only comment section that I currently read, and apparently you have no objection to partisan comments as long as they’re on your side.
But of course, you all are good because you are liberals, and ObWi’s a welcoming place for liberals.
As a matter of fact, hilzoy’s response to all this was Welcome, Millicent, and all the other people from Atrios and Brad and Ezra…
Oh yes, and Glenn Reynolds is a partisan hack limiting his subject matter to a limited VRWC talking points, as opposed to the wide varieties of issues discussed here.
DaveC
As you may have noted, the air in this thread does not seem to agree with me, so I hope you appreciate that I am trying to hold back a bit here. I simply noted what I thought was the disconnect between the sentiment expressed by the poster and the sentiments expressed in the comments. If you feel they were of a piece, I find that depressing, but that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
I would note for the record that of the people you quote, RedDan has been banned, John Thullen has taken a sabbatical, ozoid and melior are not regulars. I also recalled a specific effort to encourage adherence to posting rules by all guests. I don’t believe that any “conservative” blogs had any trackback to the post, and, though I admit this is just speculation, I feel certain that Hilzoy would have welcomed them with the same basic courtesy. Also, not meaning to pile on here, but the discussion of whether Nixon was or was not a crook is, to me, fundamentally different and I don’t really understand why someone as perceptive as you can’t pick up on the difference.
I would also note that people have defended you and your right to post here without people ganging up on you (I believe that I was one of those, if you would like me to provide a cite, I would be happy to oblige) and some people have even mooted you to be a front page poster (again, cites on request). So, while I appreciate your note about the Instapundit, what exactly are you on about?
But of course, you all are good because you are liberals, and ObWi’s a welcoming place for liberals.
Since I was among those you just quoted — with my horrible, horrible statement that Ben Stein was deliberately lying about Saint Richard Nixon, which is exactly like accusing a former President of raping his wife and conceiving their child as a result — no, no we are not all liberals. If you are stuck on the same Manichean train as Charles Bird in regards to there being “people who agree with me” and “liberals,” I’d be happy to point out where you erred.
I’m not a liberal, and I find that ObWi is a welcoming place for me.
Now, if you’re looking for a place where no one’s going to disagree with you, this isn’t it. If you’re looking for a place where polite disagreement is fostered, this definitely is it. Just jump in.
I would also note that people have defended you and your right to post here without people ganging up on you
Thanks! I know. Plus I like most of the people here that I disagree with. For instance, I have appreciated many of Phil’s comments, especially his back & forth with felix, which was very interesting. And I like John Thullen. Gotta give a nod to lily, who was the 9th commenter in that thread and is always pleasant to read (I disagree with her 99.9% of the time). And of course I like lj, various cheeseheads, brits, ethicists, etc, etc. Basically everybody but Edward_ ;^)
I’m not a liberal, and I find that ObWi is a welcoming place for me.
True, it is and the conservative comments are actively invited. My points were that any comment section can be cherry-picked to demonstrate the shrillness and craziness of the other side. I certainly feel welcome to fuss and shake my fist here, or to brood, or to even go wildly off topic.
Ah. Well, ok then.
” I certainly feel welcome to fuss and shake my fist here, or to brood, or to even go wildly off topic.”
“Ah. Well, ok then.”
I really think he should demonstrate the ability to do all three at once. While rubbing his tummy and patting his head. And jumping up and down.
Mustn’t let standards decline, you know.
While rubbing his tummy and patting his head. And jumping up and down.
2 har d2 hit the keys
Use the Force, Dave. There is no try.
I certainly feel welcome to fuss and shake my fist here, or to brood, or to even go wildly off topic.
But, but, but… I thought your people liked to do that sort of thing? ;^)