Ooh, ooh! I've been studying for the bar exam for a while now and we need to know about defamation like libel! Let's see if I remember the test.
6 required elements of constitutional defamation for public figures:
Defamatory language by defendant
Of or concerning the plaintiff
Publication by defendant
Damage to plaintiff's reputation
Plaintiff showing that the defamatory language is false
Fault on the defendant's part: showing that defendant knew that the statement was false or was reckless as to whether the statement false.
Assuming that the NYT story counts as a defamatory statement and there is damage to McCain's reputation, my guess is that for McCain to win a defamation suit against the NYT, he'd have to show that NYT story was false and that the NYT was reckless or knew that the story was false. Then the NYT can defend itself by showing the statement is true.
If Obama is the candidate, vote for him for the sake of the Supreme Court. Civil liberties and the right to have an abortion is at stake. The liberals on the Court are not young anymore. At the very least, we need someone who will appoint liberals as judges.
I like this site since it seems like it's the last bastion of Clinton support on the web. What's the post of reading comments that you agree with? Are there any other political blogs out there with such a pro-Hillary slant?
"By arguing that one of Clinton's key virtues was her ability to go toe-to-toe with the GOP attack machine, her campaign exacerbated instead of ameliorated her reputation for ruthlessness. "By bragging about how tough they were," says John Edwards's former chief strategist, Joe Trippi, "they reinforced the sense of the media that everything they did had a negative cast to it." At the same time, Trippi argues, "it made it really hard for them to call Obama on his shit. How can you complain about Obama being negative when you're bragging about your willingness to do the same thing against the Republicans?""