In a July 4 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein takes offense at the idea that "politics has once again managed to work its way onto the pages of ESPN" -- more specifically, that an ESPN writer stated that Tiger Woods is "as eloquent as Hillary Clinton":
But of all the adjectives one might employ in describing Hillary, surely "eloquent" is not among them. Even if you were seeking to be complimentary, you could call her "determined," or "purposeful," perhaps even "redoubtable." But eloquent? She of the nails-on-blackboard shriek?
Any excuse to slam Hillary, eh? The sound of her voice is irrelevant here. Is no one allowed to say anything positive about Hillary without being accused by NewsBusters of liberal bias? We suspect Finkelstein would have been similarly offended even if the article had used "determined" or "purposeful."
Finkelstein similarly took issue with the article's calling Woods "as distinguished as Barack Obama" -- Barack might be a pretty cool customer, but what makes the one-term senator "distinguished"? -- but not with the descriptor "as esteemed as Rudy Giuliani," though there are some New York firefighters who would beg to differ.