"... 'nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped. All I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family.'"
Glenn Reynolds calls attention to something important in the news reports of Sarah Palin's hacked email. He comments that the hacker's scheme will probably backfire. But now, wait a minute. Let's look at it from another angle.
How do we know the hacker was really anti-Palin? Why take his assertions at face value? I'm focusing on the strong and helpful assertion that he's read it all and that there is "nothing incriminating," everything is perfectly fine. Isn't that convenient? Why don't we start suspecting that the hacker was pro-Palin?
After all, everything here helps Palin. She's had her privacy violated, so we feel outraged, sympathetic, and protective. And yet, what we're told was found absolves her of the charge that she's done something wrong.