KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as "Clinton haters," including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe "Bush haters"?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without "hating" them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word "hate" were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they'd actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

Of course, ol' Skip Rutherford apparently can't count. George Bush is the 43d President of the United States, but only 42 people have been President.

As Montgomery Burns noted, he was spanked by Grover Cleveland on two, nonconsecutive occasions.

> KLo over at NRO points out this story about the
> Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to
> have a fact-checking version of it just down
> the street. The people who propose to do this
> are referred to, of course, as "Clinton
> haters," including one usage of that phrase in
> the headline.

> I wonder if the WaPo would run an article
> calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or
> Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry
> McAuliffe "Bush haters"?

I am quite sure that if some Demo politicians trie to do the same thing to the future George W. Bush Library, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NATIONAL REVIEW, WASHINGTON TIMES and other publications would indeed refer to them as "Bush haters".
---
In fact, conservative mags. frequently use the term already, when discussing the Left. So what's your point?

MARCU$

Are you comparing the Washington Post to those publications? They're happy to tell you they have an ideological viewpoint. Do you think the Post is?