The N.Y. Post hits a new journalistic low

I have to admit that I didn't believe that the N.Y. Post could surprise me by how low it would stoop in its campaign to smear Sen. Clinton. But in Wednesday's edition it scraped the bottom of the journalistic barrel.

Anyone who reads Contested Terrain knows that I am not a Hillary fan, but even I was shocked by Post Correspondent Geoff Earl's article ("Heel Hails Hill" - the Post is big on alliteration).

Post readers know that the most important world news over the last week is coming out of the newly split Christie Brinkley-Peter Cook menage. I should add that Earl's piece is an "exclusive." Of course, one might wonder if any other editor would have considered it a legitimate news story.

The heel of the headline, of course, is Cook, who cheated on ex-supermodel Brinkley with "a doe-eyed teen," named Diana Bianchi. The innocent 19-year-old teen has since these revelations has hired two "high-powered" attorneys, "in case she is called as a witness" in the upcoming divorce trial, although there have been suggestions of "a great sexual-harassment claim." Her attorney might sound a little less gleeful about it.

The core of this ridiculous article is that

"Cooks Clinton donations were spread out between 2001 and 2004, long after his sex romps with pop singer Samantha Cole, who was then about 18, and just before he picked up Bianchi, now 19, last summer."

Then comes the Coup de Earl,

"Like his cheating ways, Cook's contributions to Clinton, appear to be a summer tradition."

In other words, he zipped up his fly and ran to his checkbook to pay off Sen. Clinton. Just as other people in the same situation run off to drop some money in their church collection box.

Now the fact that none of this was known until last week seems to have slipped what passes for Earl's research.

I was also amused by the fact that when "asked by the Post whether she will return the contributions , Clinton said, 'I'll have to look into it.'" And "Campaign aide Ann Lewis later said, 'Senator Clinton has met Peter Cook. We do not intend to return his contributions.'"

What I don't understand is why any moderately intelligent person wouldn't have looked at the questioner and said, "Your an idiot, go away."