The longer they don’t re-group in terms of having been whipped, the better.

Yup, No matter who won yo mama would still be an idiot, either way.

The President of the United States would have to prove that he doesn’t hate America.

What a world.

I do remember Andrew Jackson about ready to personally kick some ass about statements regarding the Vice President’s girlfriend. Different times, I guess.

Honest answers:

Quite a bit farther than anyone has gone.

Considering Oliver linked to two blogs posts, which in turn point at opinion pieces rather than hard news reporting, you’re probably looking at something closer to slander than libel.

And even so, the standard for those civil actions is much higher for “public figures” like the President.

He would have to prove the “Actual Malice” standard – which is to say, “knowledge that statements are false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

In the U.K. the burden is on the author to prove his claim, which is why lots and lots of libel actions are tried there. But in the U.S., the burden is on the plaintiff – the President would have to prove the falsity of the statement.

Which brings us to the real problem with a libel suit filed by the President – the pesky matter of discovery. I hardly think it would be in the national interest for any President to subject himself to endless hours at deposition, under oath. There’s even precedent.

Has a sitting President ever sued someone for libel?

Of course not – it’s political suicide. What better way to turn the media against you than to sue them? To say nothing of the immediate cementing of national opinion that the President is incapable of weathering criticism and must rely on the courts to fight his political battles? Again, would you agree there is precedent?

It would be simpler and more convenient to hurl oneself off the top of the Washington Monument to achieve the same political result.

“Coming soon: Barack Obama proves what a bad dad he is by buying his daughters a puppy!”

But I assure you, someone is going to make that argument.

True story. Back in 1992. We were learning about the candidates, and there was an article in the Post about Chelsea seeing that kitten at her piano teacher’s house and wanting it, and they let her have the kitten even though Bill is allergic to cats. I commented on that story at my office – oh, isn’t that cute, what a nice daddy sort of thing.

And one of my co-workers just went OFF on this prolonged rant about how that proves what lousy parents the Clintons are, they’re raising their daughter to think of nobody but herself and have no consideration for other people, blah blah blah. Honestly! Even then, back at the dawn of the Right Wing Noise Machine, the message of hate got out.

Thanks for the help, Europe.

But at least they like us now. Even if there is no difference at all in how they actually treat us. Now they give us a middle finger with a smile instead of a scowl.

Woo!

Not that it would have mattered who won the election though. It’d just be more of the same either way.

Honest questions.

Obvious solution: Same old shit! It’s brilliant!