>I don't disagree with you that HuffPo is liberal. That wasn't my point. My point is that Breitbart is extreme and the guy running it has said that they are specifically providing a platform for white nationalists (aka the alt-right).
>
>I'm not sure what you consider to be extremists on the left, as opposed to mainstream liberal.
>
>I certainly don't consider the Huffington Post to be mainstream liberal although IMHO the mainstream liberals are moving father to the left every day. As far as equating Huffington Post with Breitbart:
>
>From Wikipedia:
>
>In August 2010, Breitbart told the Associated Press that he was "committed to the destruction of the old media guard." As part of that commitment, he founded Breitbart.com, a website designed to become "the Huffington Post of the right."[4]
>

I assume that's Andrew Breitbart being quoted. As I'm sure you know, he's dead. The guy who run Breitbart.com today (or did until he signed on with Trump last week) is the one who specifically said he's providing a platform for the alt-right. So perhaps Breitbart has moved farther to the extremes.

>You're putting words in my mouth. I simply said that they presumably don't see the value in suing everyone who says nasty things about them.
>
>And I'm saying that if it really is libel that the Clintons would want to defend themselves. Since they don't, I presume that at least part of it is true.

I've been libeled and/or slandered (I won't name names, but I think you can think of at least one person) and chosen to walk away. I think most people do.

Tamar