The one and only Kristol Ball is at it again:
In the short time since he was named an Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times, Bill Kristol has written a series of sloppy, error-plagued and incomparably hackish columns.
In his latest, Kristol introduces such an amazing groundwork for logic that, if followed, would mean that neither Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain are strong enough candidates to be their party’s nominee. Or, in other words, Kristol’s argument for McCain’s chances are actually even more effective as arguments against his chances. It’s a world of pretzel logic. That’s my guy, Bill Kristol!
From Glenn Greenwald:
There is now a correction appended to Kristol’s last column in order to correct two factual errors he made (that makes a total of four corrections in less than six months that Kristol has been writing a once-a-week NYT column). It reads:
Correction: May 21, 2008In his column on Monday, Bill Kristol said he could not find a recent primary in which the candidate who would go on to win the nomination lost by as big a margin as Barack Obama lost by (41 points) in West Virginia. Mitt Romney won the essentially uncontested Utah primary on Feb. 5 with about 90 percent of the vote.
Also, the California Supreme Court is based in San Francisco, not the state capital, Sacramento.
The correction is intended to downplay the significance of Kristol’s error (“Mitt Romney won the essentially uncontested Utah primary on Feb. 5 with about 90 percent of the vote”), but it fails to note that McCain also lost the Arkansas primary by 40 points to Mike Huckabee.