A while back I noted a diary (rec'ed, I think) propounding that links to right-wing sources ("you know who they are") were verboten. If I recall, the rationale was that, by definition, they all lie. Or, if they weren't exactly lying, i.e. the facts were true, their purpose was nefarious, so unworthy of analysis.
I thought then, and think now, this position was ludicrous on several levels.
But the first sentence of an article today by William Kristol reminded me of the diary (and more importantly, of it's proposition). The sentence is:
We know from the philosophers that a true statement is true without regard to the reliability or sagacity of the person who utters it.
The article discusses the Clinton/Obama contretemps, and it provides the most cogent discussion I've seen yet on the potential fallout for the Democrats. It isn't a hit piece on the personages, although I suppose the blinkered might argue it's a wedge piece.
What I do think is that if one doesn't consider it's arguments, one isn't getting all the angles.
The link is here, for the courageous. (Pre-publish thought: I am so screwed.)