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.