Indeed, the trick is "...hearing differing viewpoints from people who still have respect for their fellow debaters".

David Plotz expresses himself as if his unexamined opinion is just as valid as anybody else's deliberate throughts, so he inevitably shows enormous contempt for his fellow debaters' views.

Case in point, there was nothing hard to understand about the publishing of a NYT article on the eleventh of September 2001: anybody older than 30 probably remembers the obligatory trip to the local newspaper to see how the paper got cut, pressed, folder, etc. Consequently, anybody not born in the last decade _knows_ that what we get on a newspaper was printed many hours later.

The point Bazelon and Dickerson were making was that the fact the NYT published a quote from a Weather Underground member (Ayers) on September 11, 2001, was simply a matter of insidious coincidence.

Clinton--proving Samantha Power was absolutely correct in calling her monstrous--chooses to quote the NYT article from a secondary source published _after_ the Twin Towers and Pentagon massacres (making it appear that Ayers, the Obama supporter, found solidarity with Al-Quaida, insinuating Obama's guilt by association, etc.). Anyone with the slightest clue would find the tactic distasteful at best, but Plotz immediately felt the urge to turn the argument upside down and argue Clinton was being unfairly treated. Duh?

Both George Stephanopolous and Juan Williams have done well transitioning fully away from real journalism, surely Plotz can find a job at Fox. I would only ask that Plotz take Hitchens with him