We all agreed last week that he is having numerous affairs, why do we need the photograph? Is it the evidence of the affairs or the affairs themself that are supposed to humilitate?
Well, affairs carried on with insouciance are generally taken to be more demeaning to the betrayed partner, so the evidence matters.
Perhaps the woman in the picture will sue Klein for libel for implying that she engaged in an affair with Clinton... wouldn't that be poetic?
"You've probably seen this picture on Drudge...."
That would require me to look at Drudge's site; I think that has happened at least three or whole four times in the years he's been online. I wouldn't link to him, either, but that's me.
I have to admit that I don't read Drudge out of sheer inability to navigate his site, rather than principle. I look at his layout and instantly grow so confused that I have to close my browser and stare out the window for a bit.
This makes me wonder about your TPM Cafe criticism. Drudge is just headlines and links to news and columnists.
Do you only come here because the layout is simple? You can be honest (I know how often you lie to protect my feelings).
Drudge is ugly, more than confusing -- it might be possible to figure it out, but I hate looking at his layout so much I don't try very hard, or, really, at all.
And yes, ogged, I only come here for the layout.
I knew it. I hate when people only like me for my sense of style, you know?
that must be why you effort to make it such a rare occurance.
Anyway, I'll also go on record to say I don't read Drudge. Should I? His style is really annoying.
I don't read Drudge either. And I don't know if we agreed that Bill Clinton has numerous affairs--I'm sure he can if he wants, but I don't think I have any evidence that he is.
And I hope it's clear that Klein is being infinitely scummy here. It's as if I were to write that W is still on the sauce while linking to a picture of him holding a glass that looks like it contains a martini but in fact is known to contain water and an olive. It's a lie.
And not only does this defense amount to "Yeah, I lied, so fucking what?"
"It invites the reader to see a pattern of behavior on his part. A man who masturbated in the Oval Office with a cigar shouldn't be going around leering at women and kissing them on the mouth"
it's factually inaccurate. Bill wasn't masturbating with the cigar.
Interesting. Drudge is something of a hub for Republican smears, so I check him a few times a day. I thought everyone did. Huh. Good to know.
I'm not sure what the logistics would be for Bill to masturbate with a cigar, actually. Well, unless he's taking his accusations in a completely different direction.
Well, let's say he has a Thin White Dick. Then he could take one of the giants (diameter approaching one inch), hollow it out until it was on the verge of losing structural integrity, and put some lubricant inside.
Or he could stroke it orthogonally along his shaft. Or he could shove it up his butt (I suppose he might need to masturbate some other way to count as masturbating). However, it has always been my understanding that that is not what took place.
The up-his-butt angle is what I thought Kotsko was referring to with his "different direction".
Oh, that makes more sense than my reading of it to imply that Bill Clinton has female genitalia.