So says this gal. An excerpt:

Goldberg is really beneath contempt — he’s engaged in a smear campaign, resurrected McCarthy Red-baiting techniques such as proof by assertion and guilt by association and used a series of logical fallacies to imply that tenuous or even unsubstantiated connections between the candidates and people Goldberg accuses of violence “prove” that the candidates themselves support violence. There’s no point in wishing that Goldberg wouldn’t do this; clearly he’s being well paid for writing nasty innuendo and rehashing “scandals” circulating widely on the Web. But it’s distressing to see The Times publish this garbage.

I like this part though:

Next, Goldberg accuses Hillary Clinton of a “brush with violent radical leftists” while she was in law school at Yale. The occasion was the trial in New Haven of a group of Black Panthers, who, Goldberg says, “murdered police and civilians in cold blood.” He mentions Panther leader Bobby Seale, but then omits the fact that Seale was acquitted.

Update: From a reader:

Jonah –
If you check the Snopes link in the rant about your column in the LATimes . . . i really, really admire the Mikkelsons for the amazing work they’ve done over the years, and this “debunking” stands out against their other work. You can read a bunch more of their well-crafted take downs of internet myths, and see quickly that if this weren’t about Hillary Clinton, they would have labeled this one partly true and partly false, and tagged it accordingly. I can find no other case where they found as much in line with facts that are independently verifiable and still just said “False” at the top. To be fair, they may also be annoyed at their names being drug directly into versions of this story on the internet, but even so . . . And “housing consultant” in my circles usually means someone who works part-time with homelessness programs and doesn’t have a social work degree, or they’d call themselves that first, ditto counselor. In Santa Monica i’m sure there’s plenty of need and i hope she helps people, but the Snopes article, in my opinion, helps defend you if you actually take the time to read it.

Me: Yes, I know. When working on my book I had to go through the legal fact-checking ringer. The Snopes version of Hillary’s story is at minimum debatable. Moreover, it is hardly as if that one episode is the only “brush” Hillary had with radicals in the 1960s.

As for the “housing consultant” translation, I am in your debt for I did not know that.