Hah……….Democratic, I hate Rumsfeld Eyebrows……….lol

While we are talking about the Madrassa thing… How about that Fox News anchor?

And this story… a nonstarter if I ever saw one…

A Clinton spokesman has “denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim�. So who’s playing dirty here? The right-wing smear machine or the Clinton campaign?

and

And, in this case: No one has offered “any proof that this information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign�.

You yourself, Joe, in your original post on the subject, suggested that Insight was perhaps being used or otherwise misleading the public about its sources for the story:

Could this story be sourced by people who may have a vested political interest in demonizing Ms. Clinton? Just because it’s in a publication or on a website (unless it’s in The Moderate Voice, of course) doesn’t mean you should believe it’s true or sourced by sources that are reporting, rather than trying to create negative journalist narratives to slime perceived political foes.

You also said:

And perhaps that is the intent. You get a bad smell from this story. Like it’s being put out by someone hiding under the name “sources� to slime Obama and Hillary Clinton.

You also seemed to me to clearly suggest that Insight itself was being deceitful:

So Insight Magazine, the magazine associated with The Washington Times, has inside, stellar Democratic sources?

That reads as sarcasm to me, which is confirmed by your later statement: “This source sounds like it is not a Democratic source“, despite Insight’s clear statement “An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered… Sources close to the background check…”

I really have no objection to your story on Rumsfeld hanging around. As you say, it’s an interesting new story, and from your comment, I sense you agree with me that all in all it’s a relatively minor one.

I only intended my initial post to be a snarky little observation that in describing the Washington Times when they ran a story you found inappropriate, you (and co-bloggers and commenters) were deeply suspicious of them and emphasized their conservative sympathies, while when they run a story which you find appropriate or amusing, they’re just another news source. My snark was mostly aimed at the attacks on the Washington Times in the prior posts.

My point (and I suspect most people got it) was that the last time TMV cited a story (the Obama research done by the Clinton campaign) from the Washington Times (well, its sister publication, Insight), many commenters jumped to attack it, citing its ultimate ownership by the Rev. Moon and its reputed right-wing bias. Now, they have a piece critical of a Republican, and no mention of “unsourced comments” and the like. Yes, the raw fact of Rumsfeld having the office may be properly sourced, but the innuendo and criticism and suggestions of some vague impropriety are not at all sourced (“some said”).

I guess it’s only a horribly biased right-wing hatchet job of a paper when it’s reporting stories about Democrats?