Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (11348)	6/14/2005 1:04:16 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

For what it's worth Power Line I agree with Captain Ed, Lorie Byrd, Bulldog Pundit and others that conservatives should eschew Ed Klein's story (as reported by Drudge) that Bill Clinton raped Hillary, etc. Klein has a right to include the story in his book, subject to the libel laws. But even if it's true (and it strikes me as highly implausible and insufficiently supported even by the "evidence" Klein apparently cites), it's not germane to Hillary's candidacy for the Senate or President. (I know that "clever" people can construct an attenuated argument as to why it is germane, but that kind of thing is the specialty of the left and we shouldn't play the game). There will be plenty of genuine issues of policy and, yes, character to raise against Hillary. Let's stick to those. JOHN adds: I haven't followed this story closely, but from what I've read it appears to be an example of something that shouldn't be published, even if the author knew for certain that it was true (which is obviously not the case here). What's the point? I note, too, that Klein's account apparently comes from an anonymous source, which strikes me as another example of how out of hand this practice has gotten. Journalists justify their use of anonymous sources with the fact that many people would be reluctant to "come forward" if they had to identify themselves. Yes--and that's generally a good thing. There is a reason why many people will say things anonymously that they won't say if they have to stand behind their assertions. Common experience tells us that claims that will only be made anonymously are often unreliable. We got an email from a reader who questioned the fact that an ad for Klein's book appears on this site. We accepted the ad, of course, before we knew anything about the content of the book. More generally, our policy has been not to undertake to investigate or vouch for the products and services that are advertised here, but rather to accept any advertising that is not offensive on its face. Consistent with that policy, we presumably would have accepted the ad even if we had known that the book contained content of which we disapprove. powerlineblog.com captainsquartersblog.com polipundit.com anklebitingpundits.com drudgereport.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11348)	6/14/2005 8:38:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35834

The truth about Hillary Posted by David Gillies Daily Pundit For what it's worth, here's my take on the controversial claim by Ed Klein that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in rape: the accusation is not worth taking seriously, and is in extremely poor taste. I'm no Clinton fan, but I disassociate myself from this statement. Nonetheless, if it had been Michael Savage writing this, the shrieking from the liberal media would have sounded like 1941-vintage London air-raid sirens with a German bomber force inbound. dailypundit.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11348)	6/25/2005 6:06:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Times Rows Back: Maybe Conservatives Aren't So Hot On Bill-Raped-Hillary Book posted by Ace Ace of Spades HQ After first publishing an article stating that conservatives were busy little bees promoting Ed Klein's anti-Hillary book -- despite the fact that, you know, we weren't, and even super-liberal hack Joe Conason noticed this (approvingly) -- the Times writes a follow-up story which partly corrects the original without acknowledging the original story was in error. Now the Times tells us that the Klein book has "unexpected" critics, like Bill O'Reilly, Peggy Noonan, and the New York Post's John Podhoertz. That this criticism is deemed "unexpected" says volumes about the Times. Apparently the Times is surprised that conservatives don't uncritically accept any anti-Clinton smear that floats by our collective transoms. Shockingly enough, we seem to discriminate between attacks on the Clintons which are plausible and supported by evidence and those which are implausible and supported only by annonymous single-sourcing. It also says that the New York Times still doesn't bother reading what conservatives write. Had the author of the original piece read any conservative blogs, he would have seen what Joe Conason did, that reaction to the Drudge-hyped rape smear was almost uniformly negative among conservatives. The Times spent a lot of ink trying to "understand" actual enemies of America and "why they hate us." Perhaps they can devote a tiny fraction of those reportial resources to the fringe extremists they call "conservatives" (better known as 43% of the American voting public), and perhaps form a fuller understanding of our strange mindsets and historical grievances. Perhaps by treating us as full-fledged enemies of America -- explicitly; they already seem to treat us so implicitly -- their coverage of conservatives will become a bit more fair and accurate. ace.mu.nu