I liked the self- quote, but your mode of arguing merely suggests that, however you may feel about Clinton, you have made the calculation that he must be defended at all costs for the sake of the party. I floated that hypothesis before, and your quoted material is perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.
I actually have not published on the subject professionally, by the way. I tried to sell an op-ed on it, but it was too close to the election, and the situation was changing too rapidly, so it was rejected.
Why are you beating the Clinton- Capone horse? And how is that an "absolutist argument"? I told you that the thing in my mind related to Matthews position primarily, not Clinton, and even the direct analogy is, I believe, generally intended as an illustration of the difference between actual misdeeds, and what can be proven in a court of law. Some think that Clinton is a gangster, but I never said anything of the kind. |
