Reply #23: You should not deduce anything at all

[creeksneakers2]

You cannot determine that because you haven't heard of a Clinton denial none was given.

Clinton camp fires back over column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701228.html

You cannot deduce that an accusation is true because the Clintons don't deny it. The Clintons are victims of thousands of false accusations. They have experts who decide the best way to handle the ones that get big enough to even look at. Sometimes the best approach is to ignore something.

Novak said nothing about a whispering campaign. That's just made up.

Hillary gave clear denials to Novak's story and she never apologized. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Hillary didn't plant a story on Drudge about Russert. Russert asked his friend on the Clinton campaign what the campaign thought of Russert and she responded. Nothing planted there. Russert was way over the line during that debate and its not "trashing Tim Russert" to point that out.
The story about how Russert treated Hillary didn't get much play because telling it would be defending Hillary, which the mainstream press almost never does. They do protect their own like Russert.

Pointing out Russert's bias is not "the politics of personal destruction."

The link you gave links to an article in the New Republic about Clinton strong arming of the press corp following her. It also says that the Clinton camp doesn't lie or cross other lines like Bush. All campaigns use favoritism to get reporters to write better stories. All of them call up publishers to complain about unfavorable articles.

I don't approve of Clinton refusing to take questions. I'm not, nor have I seen anyone else turn "themselves inside out to hypocritically applaud identical Clinton/Penn media tactics."