Michael Kinsley once was a reputable writer (maybe I am being charitable). After Arthur Silber finishes with him, you will prbably never read Kinsley again.
(via the Instapundit)
Apparently Kinsley is being sarcastic. I can never tell- he is normally so pedantic and petulant that I miss any sarcasm. Go read it for yourself.
Apparently some “controversy” has arisen relative to whether or not Arthur may have misinterpreted Kinsley’s comments. Some are arguing that Kinsley was making points that were intended to be “ironical” in nature. I have no opinion on that aspect of the issue.
I do, however, think that Andrew Sullivan appropriately criticizes Kinsley’s column and makes the very valid point about the hypocrisy of his defending a certain former President’s “sexual relations” with a government employee while criticizing what appears to have been sexual relations between unmarried and consenting adults.
For all the fussing and storming, Kinsley’s been pretty consistent in his view that sexual history is relevant in the decision on whom we should elect to run our nation. The only point at which he seemed to deviate from this was when he noted (apparently approvingly) GWB’s and John McCain’s decisions not to entertain questions of this nature, and when he suggested that Clinton tell reporters it was none of their business whom he slept with. Kinsley can be aggravating, but he’s intellectually consistent and has his morals staked out clearly. You may not agree with them, but there they are.