It’s worth remembering, from time to time, that for those truly overcome with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, there are no depths. For these poor, unhinged critics, concepts like “limits” and “decency” have no meaning at all.
Take, for example, Mickey Kaus, the in-house blogger for the Washington Post-owned Slate. Last month, Kaus pushed a baseless rumor about John Edwards having an adulterous affair, following a report from a supermarket tabloid. Edwards denied the rumor, saying, “The story is false.” Kaus said this denial was far too vague. Edwards later added that the rumors are “completely untrue” and “ridiculous,” before concluding the story was “made up.” Kaus responded that this denial was “not necessarily a smart move.”
Thankfully, the story went no where. This month, however, Kaus and his cohorts have a new one: Hillary Clinton’s adulterous affair. Here’s Kaus this morning (emphasis in the original throughout):
If they settle the writer’s strike, it could be bad for Hillary because Jay Leno will make Huma jokes! (Remember: Huma = comedy gold.) It certainly seems much more likely that the Huma innuendo would make it into the mainstream via late-night monologues than via investigative reporting. […]
But there’s another petard. Let’s assume what is likely to be the case — that the Huma rumor is a) unprovable if true and b) un-disprovable if untrue. Under the old rules that means it would never be proved and would probably never surface. If it did surface –say because it was the subject of vicious campaign push-polling–a simple denial by both parties and it would be semi-officially “false.” In the new Webby post-Lewinsky world it’s more likely to surface, which makes the subsequent denial all the more important…. The trouble for Hillary is that when it comes to sex rumors she and her husband (unlike, say, John Edwards and his wife) have no credibility.
Once again, it’s as if Mickey is doing a bad imitation of someone trying to make a fool out of himself.
Now, it’s likely most thinking people have no idea what the “Huma story” is. That’s no doubt a good thing.
About a month ago, various right-wing lunatics began circulating a rumor that Hillary Clinton is having an affair with an aide named Huma Abedin. The “proof” to substantiate these rumors are non-existent, but as we learned repeatedly in the 1990s, for those suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, evidence is, of course, irrelevant.
The right-wing rumors took a turn towards the “mainstream” this week, when Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London eluded to the baseless gossip, complete with a large picture of Clinton and Abedin together (the paper described the staffer as Clinton’s “beautiful aide”).
Matt Drudge, the paragon of journalistic ethics and integrity, picked up on the Times’ story, complete with flashing lights, earlier this week. Some right-wing bloggers became quickly became parodies of themselves: “[W]hat concerns me about it is not the affair but the fact that Hillary’s closest aide is a Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia, and whose father was an Islamic scholar there.” The post argued that Clinton’s aide is “most likely a Wahhabi,” before asking, “Does she influence Hillary’s view of jihad terrorism?” (It’s a trifecta for conservatives: Clinton, lesbian, Muslim.)
As I’ve noted before, when irresponsible rumor mongers engage in ugly gossip, especially in politics, my first instinct is to ignore it. As a rule, there’s no reason to dignify obnoxious rumors with a response. Besides, by criticizing the smear, one necessarily helps disseminate the nonsense.
There is, however, another side to this. If the Swiftboat lies teach us anything, it’s that attacks need to be shot down, quickly and thoroughly. Just as importantly, those who spread the lies need to be held accountable for their recklessness. Pretending the bogus attacks don’t exist is almost counter-productive — the whispers continue, and reasonable people start to wonder what to believe.
This Clinton affair nonsense fits the bill nicely — it’s an ugly rumor, based on nothing. Those who peddle such bogus scandal should be embarrassed, that is, if they were capable of feeling shame.