Keep Sitting On It

The big question of the day comes from Ron Rosenbaum at Pajamas Media, who heard that the Los Angeles Times has a juicy story on a sex scandal that could rock the presidential primary race. The Times hasn’t decided whether to run the story, or at what time, Rosenbaum reports, but they have a solid factual case from all indications:

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.
If it’s true, I don’t envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they’re likely to be attacked, when it comes out—the story or their suppression of the story—whatever they do.
I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, [i]t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.
And when my source said “everyone in Washington”, knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

Keep sitting on it. Do we really want these tawdry tales getting bruited about the media in place of real policy issues? Do voters have to know every detail of the sex lives of the candidates?
Instead of providing coverage of the candidates as if they were entertainers — a problem already seen in UFO questions at supposedly serious debates — we should remember that they’re running for public office. We have enough celebrities already to sate our attention-deficit curiosity. Let’s stick with qualifications and policy positions, and leave the vicarious thrills of sex secrets to Hollywood stars — and while we’re at it, they can return the favor.

128 thoughts on “Keep Sitting On It”

  1. I’d agree with you if that standard was applied equally to both parties. You know this has to be a democrat that is involved because it it was a republican the news would be front page, above-the-fold news for weeks on end.

  2. It continues to be ridiculous that many, many people believe a candidate’s sex life is relevant in a presidential race.

  3. I can think of a reason the LAT would wait to report this if it is a Republican. They’d wait for the person to become the nominee then REALLY take them down.
    I have no trouble imagining that.

  4. A SEX scandal? Involving a POLITICIAN? I’m shocked, shocked!
    I do think that the Democrat Party successfully persuaded the American people that Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct was irrelevant to his ability to govern.
    That opened the door to Arnold Schwartzenegger (“to all the women I have offended”) and others. The only people who would be offended by such a revelation are those who think that politicians should exercise sexual restraint in their personal behavior. By that standard, Ted Kennedy and many others would not hold their offices.

  5. It continues to be ridiculous that many, many people believe a candidate’s sex life is relevant in a presidential race.

    But they do believe that and that is their privilege.
    As a Christian, I believe committing adultery is a grievous sin and the personal dishonesty that goes into that, not to mention lack of self-control, are real issues that affect a candidate’s fitness for office.
    As a voter, I care about policy issues AND the character of the person I vote for or against. This is my privilege. If you don’t feel this matters, then just vote policy. Personally, I want a candidate to IMPLEMENT certain policies, not just state them, and I trust non-adulterous liars more to keep their word than others. If you disagree, again, follow your own voting criteria, not mine.
    It’s a real news story if there’s facts to back it up. Captain Ed is wrong. Again.
    Run it.

  6. Of course it is relevant. We select people based on many factors. One of which is their judgement. Another is their ability to tell the truth. We have seen in the last 6 years what kind of person we get when their bad judgement and lies drive the partisan agenda.
    This is especially troubling when the elected representative continually spouts moral imperatives at us, then to be found in a hotel room with a goat, a football, and a blow up doll.
    We deserve better. maybe a “none of the above” is the proper choice. We deserve better!

  7. You’ve got to be joking.
    This means the MSM is holding something over a Presidential candidate. For what?
    Blackmail, protection of their selected candidate or protection of a Republican candidate with a late surprise to kill him off later.
    This needs to come out now.
    That is the way the MSM works, so quit the moralising and find out who it is.

  8. I guess I am just old fashioned and think that adultry is a major character flaw and therefore is news and relavent. Clinton demonstrated this in spades with all of his unethical and sleezy behavior. If your going to cheat on your spouse, you are probably going to cheat in other ways as well.
    It would be pretty funny if it was Hillary and I sure would not blame her given the perpetual humiliation the Bill has put her through. She might even gain a few percentage points in the polls!
    I think sitting on the story is more unethical and they should print the story ASAP assuming its properly sourced. Let the chips fall where they may.

  9. Nononononono. Out now, because if whoever it is gets the nomination it will come out after and then the real election will be a disaster. I’m sorry peeps but you damn well better be clean or murderous if your gonna play the game, and I don’t think anybody other than Hillary is willing to kill. I don’t think there’s any chance of HER being in a sex scandal either.

  10. There have been rumors about the wife of an ex-president, who could be running now, for several years. Might explain some previous behaviors?

  11. If I were running the campaign of whoever-it-is, I’d want the story out now, as far in advance of the primaries as possible, in order to deflect it and (gad, I hate to use the phrase) “move on.”
    Since the LA Times editors are smart enough to figure this out, my guess is that if it’s a Democrat, they’re discussing it with the candidate now. If it’s a Republican, you can bet their ‘ethical’ dilemma is: “When can we run it when it will hurt the most?”
    /Mr Lynn

  12. National security secrets and electronic surveilling techniques are fair game for disclosure by the MSM, but a candidate’s personal peccadilloes (sp) are not? What’s wrong with this picture?

  13. I could vote for a candidate who had committed adultery because we are all sinners. Not all that sin, true, but all fall short of the glory of God.
    But to say something that a large number of people do consider a major character flaw — it did make the ten commandments you’ll see and Mormon, Jew, protestant Christian, and Catholic … and Muslim for that matter… consider this a major sin.
    All of our respective religions with the exception of Mormonism (which prescribes excommunication) at least in times past commanded death as the penalty for this sin.
    So, to say that because YOU personally don’t care… that it isn’t news… is plainly ridiculous. And I expect better thinking from you, Captain Ed.

  14. I agree that this should come out. I also think it is about Hillary just by process of elimination. If it was a Pub, the MSM would be screaming it from the rooftops already and she is the only leading candidate on the dem side. I seem to remember a book by a former FBI agent that had hinted at the idea of a lesbian sex scandal with her, but nothing more ever came out about it. I’ll say this, if it were true and some one individual identifiable person actually did come out and prove it, that persons life wouldn’t be worth a plug nickel and if they know the Clintons at all, they would be well aware of that. I think it is most certainly relevant though. We should know what kind of person we are electing. Does anyone really doubt that if we elected a gay president, gays would become a new affirmative action protected class, and to disagree with them would be a federal crime like it is in Canada and some of Europe? Now I don’t know what this scandal is about, but I think it should come out.

  15. Yes, it’s only a pity that can’t all show the restraint now that was shown to Bill in the 90’s.
    Whoever it is, apparently it’s relavent. Whether it’s adultry, or gay sex in an x-rated video store, or whatever… the news is there and will come out sooner or later. Might as well flush the whole thing now, get it over with and move forward.

  16. Let’s stick with qualifications and policy positions, and leave the vicarious thrills of sex secrets to Hollywood stars
    Ed, you can’t seriously expect the Times to show restraint and ethics, can you? The same paper that tried to smear Arnie with a last-minute hit piece in 2003?
    Just for the heck of it, my bet is that it’s either Obama or Rudy. I can’t imagine a sex scandal involving Hillary would be big news — I mean, who would raise an eyebrow at yet another Clinton sex scandal?

  17. For years the Democrats have used every medium they could to destroy conservatives. They have had great success and now the Captain says not to bring sordid sex affairs of a Democrat into the election news.
    The democrats have always got the better of us in the dog fights of dirty politics. In fact they think we are “weak”.
    “Out” the dirty hypocrite and lets have some fun!

  18. Just to take further my critique of Captain Ed’s thinking on this post — and more often than not I’m a fan, so please forgive me — Captain Ed is the sort of person who says we should look beyond Mitt Romney being a Mormon.
    And I agree Mitt Romney is a capable man. My objections to him are more on trust issues — i.e., his very public liberalism in his past — than on religious ones. Some of my best and most beloved friends are Mormons even while I state I firmly believe Mormonism is a false faith and their leader a false prophet. But I digress.
    So on the one hand, Captain Ed says we should accept Mitt for being a Mormon because they’re really Christians or in any event good people… but we shouldn’t accept what THEY believe, which is that adultery is such a grievous sin that a person should be excommunicated from the church after a religious trial for practicing it.
    This is only one of several possible outcomes, I know, but it is a not uncommon one. In any event, the Mormon church feels it is immoral. I agree with them here.
    So we can support candidates of whatever faith we disagree with and our own religious views aren’t supposed to matter… but we SHOULDN’T care about THOSE THINGS the religions of the candidates we’re not supposed to withdraw support from on account of their faith STRONGLY BELIEVE to the point of taking decisive action on it.
    Captain Ed, how does that work?

  19. Hey this is a career opening for the next Matt Drudge — it’s how he made it big…scooping the MSM on BJ Clinton.

  20. I’m assuming it’s a Democrat, although not because of the ethical anguish, but because they wouldn’t be likely to have that kind of access to Republican candidates.
    Christoph — you “expect better from me”? What does that mean? You expect me to be interested in the sexual peccadilloes of other people? Sorry. The only reason Bill Clinton’s affair was relevant was because (a) it involved a White House staffer and therefore interfered with his performance as President, and (b) his team tried to hush her up with a similar deal that Web Hubbell got when he stopped cooperating on Whitewater.
    Did you know that FDR had a mistress? That Eisenhower did during almost the entirety of his command in WWII? So what?

  21. Seems at first like a classic whispering campaign to discredit a GOP candidate at first blush. Maybe get one of the GOP candidates to admit to something bad in hopes of heading off a deluge, even if not the subject of the LA Times’ allegeded story.
    But, then reason takes over. If it were something salacious and a GOP candidate was allegedly involved, Media Matters would have pushed this to the front page weeks ago.
    So, the LA Times apparently has something about a Democrat candidate…
    Not Hillary…Teflon being what it is, if you undestand what the meaning of is is.
    Edwards? Good probability. Seems the type. Haven’t met a lawyer yet who understood what ethics is all about. But, he is almost a second tier candidate for the most part these days, and his being pushed out of the race will only add votes for Obama and Hillary, both.
    That leaves Obama…and this is where something allegedly salacious story gets a bit messy, especially given the rock-star status the LA Times and others have granted the junior Senator from Illinois.
    Plays into the stereotype a bit too much. Cuts him off at the knees as a strong candidate to keep the nomination from Hillary. Would raise all sorts of holy hell from a large part of the Democrat party as well…charges of racism and bigotry following the disclosure of such allegeded behaviours would tear the party apart in every precinct in the country.
    But, if I were to wager, I’d lean toward Obama, he has too much to offer the Party and rank and file, has been raised to sainthood by the press thus far, and there is that pesky racial thing…all the more reason for the LA Times to sit on it.

  22. Would we care if it came out that Hillary is a lesbian?
    Or that any candidate is homosexual? Aren’t all of them safely married, but is America ready for a gay president any more than it’s ready for a woman president?

  23. Hey Tim,
    Do you think SHE will go up in the polls if it happens to be other than a male figure ??
    LAT has been after HER with a passion. It was the LAT that brought the HSE matter to light.
    Maybe their secret has to do with HER too. But then again she doesn’t act like she has been found out !! But then again, maybe Bill is at it again …and she is planning on more sympathy !!
    Whoever it is, this wait till the time is right, is out and out DIRTY POLITICS. Unless, it is Hillary w/other than a male …..I think it will backfire on the MSM. If it involves a Republican, I think everyone should blame the Clinton machine and their FBI files and dirty politics !!

  24. Ace is reporting on a Michael Musto gossip piece claiming Hillary! is scissoring one of her staff.
    If God would be so kind as to allow the scandal to be Hillary!, it would be some kind of cosmic symmetry to have her say on national TV “I did not sleep with that woman!”
    It would also explain a heck of a lot about the Clinton’s marriage dynamic. We’ve always known theirs is a power-marriage of convenience. Revealing its a open marriage would be pretty logical.
    Of course, if it comes out she’s a lesbian, her campaign is dead, period. Americans, in 2008, at least, would NEVER elect a lesbian as president of the USA.

  25. It is probably Obama. Disclosure now would backfire on the Clintons. The most likely sources are his ex supporters. Hence the dilemma.
    However if right wing blogs or sources disclose the rumour, the backlsah would be even worse. Fairness doctine anyone?
    This is a big story but it needs to be handled with kid gloves, hence Pyjama media’s reluctance to move forward.

  26. Christoph — you “expect better from me”? What does that mean?

    It’s a good question and I’ll be happy to answer it. As I said in my 5:29 comment, people make voting decisions and you and anyone else are free to discount an adulterous affair as being unimportant. As I said in my 5:52 comment, I personally could vote for someone who had committed this sin provided there weren’t any better alternatives and hopefully that the person had repented.
    I don’t expect anyone to be sinless. I’m not.
    But I do like information and it’s the job of the media to provide it.
    Precisely because a large minority of voters do care about this issue and it’s a reasonable concern too considering the teaching of all the major North American faiths by numbers of adherents on this issue that it should be reported.
    It’s not a matter of:

    “the sexual peccadilloes of other people”

    … and that’s both a red herring and a laughably false one. I couldn’t care a less how George and Laura practice their sex life, nor how Bill and Hillary do. Or if they do. That’s their business.
    But the trust, honesty, and even religious issues related to an adulterous affair is a whole other ball of wax. I don’t care whether the alleged participants had oral, anal, or vaginal sex… with or without foreign objects…. that’s their business and as far as enjoying the pleasure(s) of sex goes, I wish them well with all of the above.
    But I care about the 10 commandments and marital vows in a leader. Peter Pace, a well respected longstanding military man, made clear the same thing in recent testimony to congress. Adultery is a crime in the military, you should know, and the commander and chief should set an example.
    Or so many people believe.
    When I say I expect better from you, it isn’t that I think poorly of your reasoning for not agreeing with me… it’s that you don’t think the press should even report the issue and that others who have different value systems used for making judgments than you do shouldn’t even know about it.
    You say:

    Did you know that FDR had a mistress? That Eisenhower did during almost the entirety of his command in WWII? So what?

    And those are valid points. So if you’re position is that it’s not important to your decision and shouldn’t be to others either, that’s one thing. But that’s not what we said. After all, you know the above facts. They’re not mysteries to you. Having learned them, you put them in context and came to the quite understandable conclusion their positive accomplishment quite outweigh their human flaws.
    Still, would you say historians should never have mentioned it and you shouldn’t have had an opportunity to learn about any of these great leaders’ personal behavior?
    And if historians are justified to analyze personal behavior, which definitely forms a part of character and judgment, why not voters?

  27. Oh, not another sex scandal!
    As to “lesbianism,” it doesn’t come with bar dates. And, if you must know, Eleanor Roosevelt was “accused.” Because she didn’t like sex. Was glad to unload the “problem.” And, did have a strong emotional bond to a friend of hers.
    What you’d discover is that women really are emotional. But it’s not sex!
    For instance, you cannot go shopping with your best friend; where both of you enjoy what you’re doing emensely … and not be more focused on the clothes; than your friend in a pair of underpants.
    As to “rumors.” You should go and talk to Tom DeLay. He knows, full well, the cost. And, the responsibility of Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
    For evidence? In 1998, his friend, and colleague, James Rogan, got tossed out of his California district (here), because he “partook” of that moral hanging.
    In other words? It was the republicans who go hung up on their own petards.
    And, over in France. Leslie Stahl made an idiot of herself.
    Like Sarkozy said. He’s not going to discuss Cecilia with the “likes of her.”
    As to trash. Gossip always flew faster than anything else. So, call me unimpreswsed.
    WORSE! All this talk of lust, discounts the best part of sex. When you do this with your ordinary wife. And, you’re both growing older.
    As a matter of fact, I knew a couple (friends o my parents), who had one of these terrific marriages. Sol. And, Rose. He was a tailor. She was a stay-at-home wife; getting by on his factory wages. (All her kids went to college.)
    You may not believe this. But at one time women viewed the fact that their kids “went to college” as “better than orgasm.”
    Yeah. When I was young, and I wanted to try on a pair of jeans in my mom’s store; Sol was working on Saturdays, for extra income. And, the store was a mad house. I asked him if he’d mind if I changed from my pants, to try on a pair of jeans. And, I’ll never forget his answer:
    Sol said, “Carol, if you have vericose veins, don’t change your clothes. Because Rose has vericose veins.” A happy man finds his wife sexy.
    He just kept pressing pants. I laughed. He was so good natured.
    So, how does someone long-time married explain that sexual activity continues; as long as your partner permits? You’d be surprised.
    Still. My dad would say, “if you were meant to be coupled for your whole life, you’d have been born a Siamese Twin.” (And, you do have to learn to stand on your own two legs.)
    Life’s got lots of painful events in them.
    It also has, once you become successful, a lot of parasites. Oh. If you go and view one of these naked? It’s more expensive than it’s worth.
    Besides. If it’s Hillary, it’s gonna mean she has a “softer side.”
    While the right is going mad trying to portray her as a screaming ninny. Not that you can find this in her public record. She managed being First Lady, okay. (At least she didn’t don a burka.)
    And, she’s held her own in the senate. Going on seven years. Winning her re-election, handsomely.
    And, one scandal too many, can burn republican hide, if the mood of the people, now, is angrier than anything you feel in your bones.
    The Los Angeles Times is lucky. It doesn’t need a license to print. (And, for it to know anything about normal people; and normal sex lives … Have I got news for you!)
    I guess talking about Irak, and it’s $3-trillion-dollar price tag; which is mounting, produces boredom, huh?

  28. drywall says
    “It continues to be ridiculous that many, many people believe a candidate’s sex life is relevant in a presidential race.”
    Sorry, sheetrock, but it IS relevant. Sex is one of the prime ways that people blackmail each other, and any President having an affair while in office could definitely be compromied. What if Monica Lewinsky had turned out to be a spy for Israel?
    I would assume that the LA Times is sitting on the story because the guilty party has a “D” after their name, After all, Newsweak sat on the Monica Lewinsky story out of loyalty to Bill and Hill.
    That doesn’t necessarily mean the story the LAT is sitting on IS about Hillary, but if it is, it may be something other that whether or not she’s bisexual or whatever. Maybe they have concrete evidence she was fooling around with someone like Vince Foster or Webster Hubbell or heaven forbid, James McDougal?
    Then again, maybe the story is about Obama. In that case, they might be accused of being “racist” by trying to take him out…

  29. Dear Captain…I too must disagree with you. If a married man (or woman) is going to easily throw away the marriage vows to have a fling with whomever, they are going to just as quickly cast aside any other vow that they may take. Thus it is a very important issue for many voters….myself included.

  30. C’mon… Hillary is a lesbian? Give me a break. How many books have been written about this woman by conservatives looking for anything to throw at her. Heck, they accused her of killing Vince Foster. Don’t you think if she had some raging lesbian love affair that there would be some evidence of it before now?

  31. BTW, I am completely suspicious of this story to begin with. My guess is the author just wants to stir up trouble. If he can name names, let him. Otherwise, he sounds like he is in high school spreading rumours.

  32. Captain,
    A few facts seem apparent considering the political bent of the mass media:
    1. The proposed adulterer would have to be a Democrat, considering the trepidation of the solidly Left-wing media. Would they hold back for an instant if the person was Rudy Guliani? Doubtful.
    2. The Politician would have to be within striking distance of the nomination, meaning that the person would be Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.
    3. Considering a recent story by the National Enquirer (lets not laugh, they have been remarkably accurate in the past) about an ongoing affair between John Edwards and an as-yet disclosed young woman, it is possible that this is the scandal that has been brewing behind the scenes. This could also be the reason why we have not seen Elizabeth Edwards recently, as she would have a hard time fielding “uncomfortable” questions. I also cannot see how any woman could easily disguise her feelings under such a cloud. Only Hillary Clinton was able to do it effectively.
    The power of the Leftist blogs and are behind Edwards and he has been a literal fountain of Liberal talking points, meaning they would not like him hurt by such a story. This does not mean that an initial leak could not blow this all apart, and I am thinking that this will happen in due time. The media, despite their love of the Left, also likes to sell papers and would love such a “scoop” over their rivals, regarless of the cost.
    Politics is indeed a dirty business, and in the end it will always be dirty. We cannot expect anything more than this one grim fact.

  33. I’m with Del’s take on this one.
    Sad to say that whenever the Lefty media is covering up a story it is bound to be carrying on the Newsweek / Isikoff tradition of hiding the latest Democrat sleaze.
    Probably a Hillary Reno Shalala luv triangle. The LA Times editors asked permission and she reminded them of Vince Foster’s sudden departure. Then cackled.
    Either that or Chelsea is asking who daddy really is and Hillary is demanding that’s a Webb she’d rather not weave during her campaign for the throne, uh, presidency.
    What is surprising is that the LA Times actually admits (obliquely) they’re hiding something for their pols which is something most expect the Liberal media to do routinely albeit without ever admitting same.

  34. If the politician runs on “family values” or anti gay marriage etc… Then yes, it should come out as it shows the hypocrisy…
    If the candidate isn’t claiming everyone should abstain from sex outside of marriage, then I don’t think its as big of a deal.

  35. Christoph — you “expect better from me”? What does that mean? You expect me to be interested in the sexual peccadilloes of other people? Sorry. The only reason Bill Clinton’s affair was relevant was because (a) it involved a White House staffer and therefore interfered with his performance as President, and (b) his team tried to hush her up with a similar deal that Web Hubbell got when he stopped cooperating on Whitewater. Captain Ed
    Sorry Captainn Ed, you are wrong. It was relevant as well because he committed perjury to cover it up. The crime of perjury makes a mockery of the rule of law. In my opinion, as a lawyer, nothing undermines the administration of justice today as much as this offence and our tolerance for it. America should have dealt with this serious issue before MovingOn . It didn’t and the administration of justice suffers as a result.
    A person’s sexual peccadilloes as you refer to them are as relevant as their honesty, ethics, intelligence , self-control, judgment and compassion for the less fortunate.
    All of these characteristics are relevant to a person’s fitness for office.

  36. It was relevant as well because he committed perjury to cover it up. The crime of perjury makes a mockery of the rule of law. In my opinion, as a lawyer, nothing undermines the administration of justice today as much as this offence and our tolerance for it.

    He does make an additional good point, Captain Ed. That was after all the main argument for the whole impeachment. Yet somehow you skipped past that.

  37. Let’s see… Cheney’s lesbian daughter? ROLL TAPE!
    The Bush Twins went to a party? BREAKING NEWS!
    Clinton sex scandal? Welllllll, you knowwwwwww, there are ethical considerationnnnnnnns…
    I have really mixed feelings about not pursuing this.

  38. I have to disagree with the Captain as well. A sex scandal is relevant to a candidate’s fitness. Not because of the sex per se, but because it’s often an indicator of other issues with the candidate such as dishonesty, a ‘messy’ personal life, impulsivity control, judgement, vulnerability to blackmail, etc. Remember that it was the coverup (and resulting perjury) that resulted in Clinton’s impeachment – not the sex.

  39. No, the argument was whether it was germane to begin with. The perjury came after that point in the argument. If it hadn’t been relevant, then Jones’ legal team wouldn’t have pursued it. Perjury is very relevant, screwing around with White House interns is very relevant, but run of the mill unfaithfulness should be an issue between the spouses, and not for public consumption.

  40. I find it hard to believe that the LA Times has had a story and “everybody knows about it” and it hasn’t leaked out. That would be a first.
    On another point, a candidate’s own or spousal’s sex life becomes very important in the greater scheme of things when it involves rumors/charges of harassment, rape or serial adultery. To pretend it doesn’t is to be ethically challenged.

  41. I’m not sure screwing around with interns is serious at all… It shouldn’t be done, but having a special prosecutor investigate it seems pure partisan.

  42. Yes, let’s leave a blackmailable personal secret as a secret, and elect the person president. Sheesh!

  43. A lot of you are missing the point regarding timing. If somebody has it, it will get out. It is much better if it gets out now so that there can be an alternative candidate, if the voters so desire. It is not your place to decide what the voters should care about, no matter how much you might like Eisenhower. But if this stays buried until after the primaries then the people of that party will have been deprived of information that they should have in making their decision and the other party will have a HUGE advantage if it comes out before the general election. I don’t care if Hillary is a lesbian. Who could blame her? But some others might. I’m sorry, Cap, but you have no more business censoring the news than anybody else. I’m also not entirely convinced that there is anything here at all.

  44. Terry Gain : “The crime of perjury makes a mockery of the rule of law. In my opinion, as a lawyer, nothing undermines the administration of justice today as much as this offence and our tolerance for it. America should have dealt with this serious issue before MovingOn . It didn’t and the administration of justice suffers as a result.”
    Are you of the impression that Libby shouldn’t have been pardoned then?

  45. “… but run of the mill unfaithfulness should be an issue between the spouses, and not for public consumption.”
    I have several problems with your position, not least of which any violation of the ten commandments, from a person who claims to be religious (and all the leading candidates — without exception — do) is an issue other religious voters have a right to consider.
    But aside from that do you believe the President should serve as an example to the men and women of the armed forces who he leads, orders into battle, and, as commander and chief, prosecutes when they misbehave?
    If you do… then if a Major, Captain, or Brigadier General is having an adulterous affair, they can and will be prosecuted if this is discovered. How is a presidential candidate having an ongoing adulterous affair not relevant?

  46. (Incidentally, I oppose adultery being a criminal offense and have made that point elsewhere, vigorously too, and will find links if anyone doubts me. My point is the law as it exists now is that adultery in the officer corps is criminal and the president is commander in chief. So I think it’s relevant from a leadership perspective and voters have a right to consider it from both a leadership, moral, and their own personal religious point of view.

  47. Some women enjoy peaches and cream kisses.
    I’ve heard Hillary likes alfalfa.
    Could this be the story?

  48. So Rudy’s campaign is over, right?
    He should throw in the towel because his adulterous ways eliminate him from consideration?
    How ridiculous.
    And besides, if he repents in front of God and begs for forgiveness, he gets that forgiveness, no questions asked. So how come you people can override something the Almighty has already forgiven Rudy for, if you’re going to get all 10 commandment crazy on this?

  49. Are you of the impression that Libby shouldn’t have been pardoned then?
    Two points. Libby was forced to testfy by POTUS in a politically charged situation where the Administration should have come straight out and challenged Wilson as a liar and the exposure of his “covert agent” wife as a CIA employee as a natural consequence of Wilson’s misconduct.
    I think forcing someone to serve their sentence while their case is under appeal is hideous. It, in effect, denies one of the right of appeal.
    So, I agree with the commutation of Libby’s prison sentence for both reasons. Doesn’t every fair minded person?

  50. Terry G,
    One point — no one is forced to testify in the United States unless immunized against prosecution. Libby could have taken the Fifth; he chose not to do so. He would have (probably) lost his job, but he could also have answered honestly to investigators and the grand jury. Those choices were his to make.

  51. Nope – He lied and obstructed justice — Obviously you just talk a good game Terry – When it comes down to it, you just care which side of the aisle they’re on.
    Most people serve their sentence when their case is under appeal — because the first time around they were found guilty — and seeing as almost everyone with money appeals a loss, you can’t just let people run around for 5 years while the appeals process works itself out…
    btw – wilson wasn’t lying — but that’s a whole other discussion…
    Sorry people – didn’t mean to get too off topic, just wanted to point out some more hypocrisy… maybe someday we’ll all see it!

  52. Slick Willie should have been removed from the Presidency for moral turpitude, which is grounds for removal from any position, and I believe would have been included amongst the ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ contemplated by the Founders.
    Perjury and obstruction of justice were just icing on the cake.
    /Mr Lynn

  53. OK, if this is going to turn into a speculation game, I’ll put in my (salacious)$.02. Here’s how I reached this conclusion: if it were a Republican the LATimes would not sit on it. There’s nothing left to say about Edwards anyway, so it’s not him. If it’s Richardson, who would care? That leaves Hillary or Obama. I don’t think there’s anything Hillary could do that would appear scandalous, even lesbian, with animals, whatever. That leaves Obama. So I thought what could Obama have done that would be scandalous? Have a love child with someone other than his wife? Maybe. But then it hit home: the LATimes is sitting on it because it’s a lot bigger than any of us could have dreamed: its a threesome with Hillary, Obama and Giuliani in the same tryst. Ugly is it sounds, it would probably offend just about every bloc out there. Yep, that’s my bet: Hillary, Obama and Giuliani caught in flagrante delicto, with pictures at ten. Watch for it. F

  54. “… but run of the mill unfaithfulness should be an issue between the spouses, and not for public consumption.”

    The problem is that unfaithfulness among politicians is rarely “run of the mill”. It’s highly correlated with other behavior that is very relevant and is usually part of a pattern.
    For better or worse, the presidency is a package deal with the spouse being part of the package. Bill and Hillary may have an open marriage arrangement, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it along with all the messiness that would come along with it. If a spouse is a little weird or sleezy that has to be considered along with the candidate. Hillary’s not alone here – Judith Giuliani (from what I know about her) is a negative for Rudy.

  55. ck said:
    “btw – wilson wasn’t lying — but that’s a whole other discussion… ”
    Gee, the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission concluded he WAS lying. Please get your talking points right.

  56. Hillary is muff diving her persoanl assistant. Thats the rumor.
    Take a look at any picture of the two of them together.
    You can just picture them arm and arm swilling Pinot Gregio at one of Rosies BBQs.
    Whenever one of your neighbors gets outted the response is always. ” Oh yeah! How could I NOT have seen that coming? Of COURSE he/she is gay”!
    Watch Drudge drop the bomb…..not about the story but about the LAT coverup. Just like Monica and Newsweek sitting on the story.

  57. Google this: Huma Abedin, lesbian, Hillary.
    The A bomb is about to drop.
    Rumor is that Hillary is getting more pus*y than Bill. Now THAT is a story.

  58. I’ve seen Hillary’s personal assistant, therefore I give Hillary a pass.
    Smokin’ hot.

  59. Del Dolemonte – As I said, it’s a whole other discussion. I’m confident in what I said, though.

  60. You can guarantee that a scandal is targeted at a Republican when it comes to light the Thursday or Friday before Election Day. Never fails!

  61. You people are all nuts (with respect, I love you all), or at least you look nuts after a good drink of red wine on an empty stomach. I say it’s a head fake, designed to cause some Republican to admit to a skeleton that hasn’t been found yet. There is no affair, there is no scandal, but the media needs one. We have these issues facing us: Islamo-Nazis, Social Security, Illegal immigration, National Debt, Healthcare, and fill in the blank with your personal favorite. But no candidate will give a straight answer about any of those, so we get UFO questions at presidential debates. It’s a creation folks, that’s all.

  62. Hillary’s lover is her top aid who happens to be a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.
    This is gonna be fun!

  63. If this report is correct, it will come out, no matter what the preposterous LA Times wishes. It will certainly be a Democrat, otherwise there absolutely, positively would be no hesitation. It will clearly be one of the top three!

  64. It’s amazing the excuses people will make for partisan purposes.
    As to sex with interns, in virtually every corporation in the US it would grounds for immediate dismissal for any senior executive. The military has strict rules for sex amongst different ranks.
    So please stop with the BS excuses for deplorable behavior. A person with an ounce of decency would have resigned when faced with the shame of their actions. Not Bill, instead he decided to drag his wife, daughter and us through his dirty laundry.
    I’m not sure what is worse, his pathetic supporters or his misogynist life.

  65. Slick was also disbarred in part for his attempts to suborn perjury of Monica Lewinsky which is why the Leftoid press had to smear Linda Tripp. Tripp was advising Lewinsky not to perjure herself as part of Slick’s requested defense strategy (by obstruction of justice) against Paula Jones.
    One would hope that angry Hillary would have enough sense to keep any present day trysts under wraps with her pantsuits in the upright and locked position. That makes it more likely to be something like toe-tapping (not to music) during her years at Wellesley. A more politely phrased off camera description of Hillary than stated earlier is that she’s slept with more women than Bill.
    As someone has already suggested it is always possible that the LA Times could be musing over dirt fed by them by Clintoon friend and fellow pervert Larry Flynt. In light of various back firings of recent mudslinging by old media, and politicians like dingy Harry “The Falsetto” Reid against Petraeus and Limbaugh etc. the LA Times would be wise to consider how the Lefty mud has been ricocheting lately. Those magically disappearing Congressional popularity polls may be suggestive.

  66. Captain Ed and ck,
    Libby was ordered by Bush to cooperate with the investigation. If he had refused to do so or if he had taken the 5th before the Grand Jury, Plame/Wilson would have gotten away with a political fraud on the public- a fraud which undermined the war in Iraq.
    It’s important to never lose sight of the essential facts of the Wilson/Plame affair, which are as follows.
    1. Plame suggested her husband, Democratic operative Joe Wilson, be hired by the CIA to go to Niger for the ostensible purpose of investigating whether Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger.
    2. Amazingly, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger but did not require that he provide either a written, or indeed a confidential report.
    3. Wilson went to Niger and was told that Iraq had spoken to Niger about opening trade relations. Although uranium was not mentioned the Nigerians assumed this is what Iraq was talking about since they had nothing else to trade to Iraq.
    4. Wilson returned to the U.S. and issued an oral report stating the information set out above.
    5. Wilson then went to the NYT and on a speaking tour dishonestly claiming that what he had learned in Niger was inconsistent with what the President said in his SOTU address.
    6. In order to lend verisimilitude to what was then obviously a political endeavor Wilson lied and said he was sent to Niger by the Office of the Vice President.
    7. In order to counteract Wilson’s lies the administration put out the story that he was sent to Iraq by his wife, a CIA employee (and inferentially a Democrat).
    Once ordered to testify Libby essentially had no choice. If he had refused he would have lent credence to much publicized and MSM- supported lies that undermined support for the war. His actions, in testifying about a matter in which he personally had nothing to gain and much to lose, were those of a selfless patriot.
    Captain Ed,, I am not much impressed with the seriousness of Libby’s crime. It seems to me that all of us could be accused of lying if we tried to recall what we said to someone on a particular occasion. This is hardly the same as not remembering whether we had sex with someone-at least in my case.
    Secondly, one of Libby’s jurors said “it should have been Rove in the docket”. This supports my view that that it was a very political trial.
    ck, in the unlikely event that a Democrat found himself in trouble for doing something patriotic I would defend him as well.

  67. Couple of points.
    The PJ author says it is NOT related to the current Edwards rumors.
    Then he says he has not heard of it “in this form before”.
    So maybe had bits before but this is a new take.
    From a purely pragmatic view an Obama issue would be the most politically /socially explosive and generate rage/backlash and political crossfire from every direction you could think of.
    If you go with the premise that it is now so near the surface it could break soon, then this puts some focus on the debate question last night from Brian Williams to Obama relating to swift boat attacks as potentially being related.
    Could Williams be providing cover for damage control for Obama to enable deflection by jumping on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy bus?

  68. Walk very softly on this. But…it would explain so much.
    Bill & Hill — one kid; forgive Bill for his “adventures”; forced (or phony) affection for the press; marriage of convenience; gays in the military first thing out of the barrel in Bill’s presidency; heavy gay support for both Bill & Hill; reluctance of LA Times to release despite beating up on Hill (large gay population in California)… Yea, you could make a speculative case for it. I doubt it myself, but you never know, especially with the Clintons.

  69. This is especially troubling when the elected representative continually spouts moral imperatives at us, then to be found in a hotel room with a goat, a football, and a blow up doll.
    Or a 28,000 square foot home and a lucrative hedge fund job?

  70. Interesting suggestion of it possibly being about Obama. Things could get suddenly violent in the Democrat party should that happen followed by Obama playing a race card against Hillary. The first black co-president versus Obama. Hatfields meet the McCoys.
    There’s also those lingering questions about Bubba’s sterility since childhood illness. That would make, er, manufacture of descendants rather difficult for Bubba. Of itself that would be sufficient reason (besides the psychiatric parts, obviously) for Slick to hoard his medical records like Kerry does his military records. Why the press would withhold such about Chelsea’s dubious lineage might equal the mystery of, say, Chelsea’s visitor’s degree from Stanford. It seems doubtful the LA Times would consider, present or deny such a story to increase paper sales.
    My vote stays with it being the LA Times protecting Hillary from her… persuasions. Unless it involves animals or children the LA Times can probably be trusted to keep carrying the torch for her. Unless Hillary loses the nomination and then she’s probably fair game. If the money’s good.

  71. Hey this is a career opening for the next Matt Drudge — it’s how he made it big…scooping the MSM on BJ Clinton.
    IIRC, the MSM was well aware of Clinton’s sexual escapades, they just refused to cover it. Was it Isikoff that specifically had the Lewinsky story before Drudge?

  72. News:
    They asked Hillary when she thinks there will be a women in the White House.
    She said ” The first night Bill is out of town”
    That sound quite suspicious.

  73. Um. I doubt it.
    If it’s a “Hillary is a lesbian” story; she’d need dames stretching all the way back to Arkansas. It’s not like knitting. It’s not a “hobby” you pick up on, later in life.
    But let’s say “this is it.”
    WHat? They ran out of White water?
    What about her role as a mom? You know? Chelsea. That wouldn’t enter her mind?
    I think people are just jumping to conclusions; which is an excercise guaranteed to keep your weight on.
    For people who are republicans, how come there’s so much attention spent on Hillary?

  74. If it is Hllary and her pal you can say goodbye to the white house.
    It will be awhile before the country is ready for a stone cold lesbo president.

  75. My recollection is that Drudge was made aware through some working at Newsweek questioning the the Isikoff report having been scuttled by management. It certainly true that it rocketed Drudge to fame for going after the brutal facts a sycophant press was trying their best to hide behind specious “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” diversions soon to be followed by the “let’s blame Ken Starr” old media diversions.
    Clintoon’s escapades were well known in Little Rock per his Arkansas State Trooper security detail having ‘fessed up about running the pickup and delivery service. That was partially sugar coated for national consumption by his memorably phony “I’m a changed man” 60 minutes interview with toady Steve “Dr. Phil” Kroft back in early 1992. The gist of the Kroft cheer-leading episode however was to deflect yet another subordinate employee Slick was boinking named Gennifer Flowers.

  76. Matt Welch of the LAT categorically denies they know of any rumor and Michael J Totten vouches for his character.

  77. Actually, Viking 01, Tom DeLay (who wrote a book about his years in the HOUSE); talks about his decision to go for the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, as his worst political mistake. (He couches what he did as one that was moral. But Tom admits, when he got to Congress … He came in in 1980 … on Reagan’s coat tails, that he was known as “Hot Tub, Tom.”) No man is a saint! Not in politics, mind you.
    And, then, to show you that this was a political blunder (Clinton’s Impeachment hearings, in the HOUSE), he says that came the election of 1998; and the damage was obvious. Republicans who participated, lost their seats.
    James Rogan, from my district in California was one. So, I know what DeLay said was true.
    I guess we can keep rehashing Monica; but as I’ve said, this isn’t a very big deal as a scandal.
    Now, when I was young? An, actress, named Ingrid Bergman had sex with an Italian director. Producing twins. And, a scandal. Her career left America. Until she made Anastasia; her comeback film. In the 1960’s.
    It’s not a smart move, for Reublicans to keep reiterating that they’re Blue Noses.
    While Larry Craig stays in the senate. (Where, yes, the kind of toilet sex he does comes without words. Men have learned to signal. He’s saying that’s his “free speech.) Ah. And, he’s paying a very expensive DC lawyer, straight out of his campaign funds.
    Oh, there’s enough scandal to go around.
    And, in these days? It’s so quiet. People don’t tell you off. They just go vote opposite of what you’d like to see them do.
    Aren’t those are the chances you take?

  78. The pants suits…………the close cropped hair……….the white pearl necklace……the 5,000 dykes that attend every event she ever has………….its all starting to come into focus

  79. I said
    “ck said:
    “btw – wilson wasn’t lying — but that’s a whole other discussion… ”
    Gee, the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission concluded he WAS lying. Please get your talking points right.”
    ck responds:
    “Del Dolemonte – As I said, it’s a whole other discussion. I’m confident in what I said, though.”
    LOL! Jason Leopold and David Shuster also were “confident” that the evil Karl Rove would be indicted in the next 24 business hours. They’re still standing by their story over a year later.
    Please give us credible and multi-sourced evidence that Wilson was telling the truth. That’s all we ask for.

  80. Captain, it seems I’ve stumbled upon another of those 4% or so of topics I disagree with you wholeheartedly on.
    In most circumstances, infidelity (if that’s what this is about) or sexual orientation (if that) or sexual taste are in my view nobody’s business besides those directly involved. I’m guessing your experience with Marriage Encounter might influence your views stated here. My wife and I preceded our marriage with a fantastic “Engaged Encounter” and learned a lot about privacy and communication in a marriage relationship. However, I feel that when someone is running for an office, asking for my vote, they are entering into a relationship with the people, and that requires a level of honesty as well. I’d personally like to know the good and the bad, the for better or for worse. I’m an adult and don’t expect anyone to be without sin. But I do hope that when you ask for my trust and vote, you are without secrets. If Mitt is cheating on his wife or keeps a few wives on the side, this would obviosly impact people’s decision to vote for him. If Huckabee preaches one thing and does another, it would impact his chance at V.P. or Pres. If the LAT writes about Kucinich and the words “UFO” and “probe”; well, you get the picture.
    Sex isn’t off limits just because it’s sex. It involves honesty and character, at least to some people it does, and those people have a right to know. If a candidate ran a business unethically, I’d like to know. If he/she likes kicking puppies, I’d like to know that. If he/she likes to live a second life and lie to the person they supposedly committed to, I’d like to know.
    As an aside, I spent a week in June sharing a room with a pretty high level guy from the Dept of the Interior who is part of the whole D.C. social circle. For context, we were in an orphanage in Malawi, Africa and after a few nights of little sleep he let slip some D.C. gossip. One rumor, which seems to be about to burst here the comments section (guess which one!) was alluded to back then. He said something to the effect that “everyone in Washington knew and he couldn’t believe it wasn’t out in the Press” but once it got out he didn’t thing this person had a chance of being elected. Is it nobody’s business if it is something being purposely kept hidden, specifically because they know if it ever came out it would destroy their credibility with those who voted for them under false conditions? Isn’t it the job of the Press to give the people the Truth?

  81. Hmm, so the the following phrases in the story are leaping out to me;
    the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it
    I never heard [the rumor] in this specific form before.
    By the way, [i]t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.

    So…could it be something else to do with Edwards? Just imagine for a moment if Ann Coulter’s slur ended up being true – and it would explain Edwards’ abject terror of her…

  82. Carol:
    I think the reason Hillary becomes the center of this discussion is because she like her husband most fears facts she or he can’t spin or have their press brown-nosers spin to their favor. That’s why they float conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory or the sad “piling on” excuse after her debate gaffes. Some of it probably extends from people merely trying to figure what exactly it is which makes the Clintons so screwed up.
    Then one wonders for whom the LA Times, in bad times for newspapers, would dare bypass a chance at boosting paltry circulation were it not a member of the political “family” being the topic.
    My comments regarding Drudge were to supplement essucht’s earlier comment and to allude how 60 minutes damage control for the Clintons seems little different from, say, debate damage control for the Clintons by various networks today or by the John Kerry fan aka Nedra Pickler writing today (Wednesday) for the Associated Press.
    IMO What Tom Delay did for impeachment may have been politically dangerous though remained his duty having known what would eventually disbar Clinton. The same for Henry Hyde. He probably never expected wife beater Alec Baldwin to go on Letterman and call for Hyde’s assault and attacks on Hyde’s family. That certainly wouldn’t surprise nowadays given that tiresome Letterman probably sends the Clintons Valentine’s Day cards but it does show how the Clintons lowered the bar when headlines weren’t under their control.
    Perhaps if Congress no longer were tempted by the prospects of a lifetime career in Washington more politicians would consider duty more important than re-election. Perhaps Senators like Reid would see less temptation in smearing Limbaugh. I doubt it because I can’t imagine Harry Reid evoking the Peter Principle in any vocation besides politics.

  83. Matt Welch of the LA Times has flatly denied the existence of any such story, and Michael J Totten vouches for him.

  84. Captain —
    Here is why you are wrong. Is it important what kind of men Rudy appoints and who his cronies are? Yes. Because it offers insight into his judgment and likely appointees, also his method of appointing people. Moreover voters have a right to know who the candidate is sleeping with because of conflict of interest. Will Hillary have different policies because her g/f is a Muslim, or her g/f’s mom ties in Saudi? If it’s true? So too who Bill sleeps with, it’s important to know what sort of favors-tradeoffs will be asked for.

  85. It seems pretty clear to me after 20 minutes of searching on the matter, that the rumor seems to be about Hillary and her sultry Pakistani Aide-de-Camping In the Same House – Huma Abedin having become an “item”. It is widely suspected that the Hill rolls both ways which is one reason why she has let Bill get away with his indiscretions for so long. (See Gennifer Flowers autobiography (you have to hear what Gennifer claims Bill Clinton shared about Hillary in this regard. Very funny.), FBI and Secret Service reports, etc)
    So who steps up for the Dems? Obama?
    Yipes. He’s not quite ready for prime time now is he? Boy ol’ Evan Bayh will have cast his pearls a bit too soon.
    Perhaps it would be better to leave such matters out of our political discourse but to suppress it for the Dems after using a sex story to flip the 06 election with the carefully held and placed Foley story seems rather unfair and one sided don’t you think?

  86. Wrong, Captain. Character counts.
    How can anyone suggest that a person without strength of character should be president of the United States?
    Let’s get the story out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

  87. Sorry, Captain.
    “Informed Consent”.
    I’m continually amazed that people think a little thing like adultery shouldn’t impact our opinion of another person’s character or ability to perform their job with fiduciary responsibility, integrity, and full accountability.
    I would never ever ever again trust a media outlet that let me vote for a person for Public Servant’s Office while they withheld information they know would impact my vote, just because they think it would be an unfair assessment on my part to deem such conduct of any weight.
    Sorta like a friend letting me hire a jewel thief as my security chief.
    As a voting citizen of a democratic republic, with my own accountability for who I vote for to help steer the Ship of State, I am entitled to know anything that imacts a fair evaluation of someone else’s capacity to do the job right.
    Scandal-mongering is bad – but scandalously-behavng politicians aren’t BETTER.
    This is like demonizing a doctor for telling you that you have Cancer. “Shame on him for “SAYING SO” “???
    Ignorance isn’t bliss!
    And don’t try to tell me it is a “coincidence” that the same lack of character responsible for “cigar play” in the oval office with interns is the same lack of character responsible for “Vacuum Cleaner Nose” scandals, for Chinagate scandals, “Bimbo Eruption Committee” scandals, and for Rhodes scholarship-sponsored London riots against American policy in Vietnam.
    If I’m supposed to have an intelligent VOTE for these poeple, I have a right to information. And it is a fact – the higher the office the higher the accountability, the higher the demand for scrutiny.
    They are asking for our sanction, and they are asking for a most inordinate amount of power FROM US, OVER US – the amount of scrutiny isn’t one bit overboard.
    If they want some areas of privacy, they shoudl give us some areas of INTEGRITY THAT EARN THAT PRIVACY!
    They have not. They think NOTHING of humiliating the nation before the world, in front of our little old grannies and granddads, and our small children but how DARE we inquire into the state of their CHARACTER??????????????????
    If we cannot ask, they cannot put themselves forward for the position.
    With great PRIVILEGE comes great ACCOUNTABILITY.

  88. I have to add my voice to the list of dissenters. IF the LAT has such a story, and IF the story is solid, then not printing the story is only doing a disservice to the public. Whether or not you consider the adultery itself important should have no bearing on whether you want the story run or not. The basis of democracy is knowledge, and so voters need to know what they consider important about their candidate.
    Gah, I write this and I find myself chanting about the public’s “right to know” like a muckraker, yet when I try to argue it the other way I find myself sliding down a slippery slope towards the Fahrenheit 451 method of “election” by looks because there’s no other information to go on. I’d rather be on the muckraker’s side of the line.

  89. Posted by Captain Ed | October 31, 2007 7:50 PM
    Sorry, Capt. – simply not so!
    It’s a Public Office, and the rammifications are felt and suffered, and carried by the Public, by the collection of private citizens.
    We aren’t the only ones to feel this way – it goes back thousands of years.
    Even in the Old Testament, Esther – what is that? 4,000 yrs ago???: the men all told the king that when his wife the queen dishonored him, all the other wives would begin to do the same if they saw it was tolerated, and they made him put her aside and choose a new queen.
    Tell us you haven’t sxeen a strong degradation in American culture since Clinton got away with his perjury for Adultery, etc. – both legally, and socially.
    Our culture is suffering for it – painfully.
    We are all hurt when a person in a high place does something wrong and gets by with it.
    That is why, anytime the people had a voice in their leadership – throughout ALL of history, if a leader then did a great wrong, the people demanded they be removed from power for it. EVEN IF it were a wrong committed in their personal life and not in their public life.
    Henry VIII, thank you.
    It isn’t a light thing.
    And the fact is that the weight of power brings pressure that reveals the various facets of a man’s character, and if they are flawed, the pressure of great authority will destroy the person wearing the mantle of authority.
    It then becomes a curse upon a flawed person to gain that mantle.
    By “flawed”, I am not saying we can find a “PERFECT” human being for this office, but we can find one FITTED FOR IT.
    Look, you have Billy Graham on one side, and Jimmy Swaggart on the other!
    It matters and it isn’t private.
    The office is elective and nobody is drafted to it. And there is no such thing, once in that office, as a private life.
    And we are electing someone to the White House – not the Playboy Mansion!
    When they put their own name in the ring, they surrendered to us the right to examine them for fitness to the office, to represent us.

  90. Posted by Captain Ed | October 31, 2007 8:27 PM
    Gee, all I’ve seen Libby be convicted off, so far, is of disagreeing with some Liberal Journalists, who were themselves challenged by some inconvenient FACTS.
    However, even though they testified contrary to certain FACTS in the case, they themselves were never vcharged with Perjury…
    So Libby shouldn’t have told the Feds what he felt to be true, because it was challenged by (fact-challenged) Liberal Journalists??????????????
    And because he did, anyway, and was thus very “NOT PC”, he really deserved JAIL TIME?
    Just because all we Conservatives think Clinton deserved jail time for his internationally aired Perjury for trying to protect the ROYAL INTERESTS of himself as a Public Servant????????????????

  91. It continues to be ridiculous that many, many people believe a candidate’s sex life is relevant in a presidential race.

    It continues being ridiculous that one of our political parties believes the sex lives of individuals is relevant to national policy and the writing of amendments and the occupation of the legislature’s time when there are important issues left unresolved.
    Yeah, I know. “That’s DIFFerent!”

  92. Media matters strikes again? On second thoughts the MSM would have released the info already.

  93. The press has demonstrated that if the subject is a Republican, they will run story first, corroborate facts second.
    Any soul-searching by LAT means they’re afraid of submarining a favorite Democrat.
    It’s Hillary.

  94. I have to repeat, the chances of the LA Times having a story “everybody knows about” and sitting on it are virtually impossible.
    Someone, part of the “everybody”, would have dropped a dime to Drudge or some such a long time ago.

  95. Two points:
    The first has already been made. Yup. Sure. I’m all for keeping a lid on this kind of yellow journalism – just as soon as the press starts being as solicitous of Republican privacy as it is of Democrat.
    If it’s true that Hillary is indeed a lesbian, then this is big news. I mean, if we found out that she was secretly a conservative Catholic Republican, that would be news, no? Like it or not, sexual orientation has become a *political* stance.

  96. I don’t know, a tawdry sex scandal might spice up an otherwise boring race. And I don’t really care what side it’s on.
    I saw Dennis Miller last night on Bill O. Bill asked him about Kucinich seeing a UFO. Miller said he had no doubt of it, Kucinich probably saw it from the inside in the driver’s seat.

  97. The MSM continually refuses to report (write) stories that don’t fit within their agenda parimeters; we have watched this dynamic for years. The MSM has been guilty of fabricating documents, fabricating actual news stories (remember the flood story that was staged by a prime time news cast; the one that captured footage of the cast getting out of the boat in knee high water), leaking classified (top secret) programs despite the potential harm (death) that leaking such programs would likely cause.
    To think that the LAT would hesitate to break this story because of ethical concerns; well, that just doesn’t fit the mold we have witnessed through the years of this Presidency & or this war. The person must have a “D” following their name. The LAT seems to lean towards Obama, as does Hollywood. My “best guess” is that this story is about Obama.
    I do feel that the subject of “who our president is sleeping with” is of important value to all of us, providing that the president is sleeping with someone other than his/her partner in marriage. Sex can compromise the position, thus compromising the country; sexual behavior by a person in the position of “role model for our children” does have influence. President Clinton’s sexual behavior brought new meaning to “blow jobs” throughout our country; like it or not, Clinton glorified oral sex with our youth “oral sex is not real sex”…
    ck, why did you feel it necessary to change the topic of this thread to Plamegate?

  98. This seems to be the story:
    If Hillary Clinton is a practicing lesbian, what difference does that make? The religious right won’t vote for her anyway, and Bill’s been cheating on her for decades. Won’t she garner sympathy from many quarters for having found the “love of her life”?
    Isn’t this the ultimate “mainstreaming” of the homosexual community? Isn’t this the culmination of the “sex wars” of the past twenty years? Many, many young people here in New York say that the “gay” issue doesn’t matter to them anymore.
    And most important, doesn’t exposure of this story take the wind out of GOP sails entirely? It’s all anyone will talk about, not whether she’s strong on national security, or whether she’s been bought, lock, stock , and barrel, by the Chinese or the Arabs. It’s the kiss of death to the GOP presidential race, isn’t it?
    Leaking this story is a brilliant move on the part of Hillary’s campaign. How can the Republicans possibly respond?

  99. Well I kind of agree – if it turns out that she is a lesbo, we would all feel so sad for poor billy, no wonder he had to turn to others. She/he would get the sympathy vote from all the lefties, who are children and grandchildren of the 60’s and have no problem with what either of them have (maybe/perhaps) done.
    G-d help us all.

  100. Republican candidates will respond that her policy positions alone are enough to disqualify her from the presidency.
    Clergymen all over the country will be talking about her lifestyle.
    Suddenly, Bill’s behavior becomes comprehensible.
    Lastly, the KGB kept Arafat in line by threatening to expose his homosexuality. If the allegations are proven, questions will be raised about possible blackmail of Hillary by other countries or by anti-American organizations.

  101. I’ve read about this from a couple of sources including the one you showed the excerpt from and I am increasingly convinced that somebody should break the story soon. Who are the mainstream media to decide what to report and when? Wasn’t the whole point of the new media (including the blogs that I have read about this) on to be honest and fair? How is it being fair and honest when you guys are letting the mainstream media decide what they want to show us when it is clear that many bloggers have information about it and could break it themselves. To truly be the new media you have to do things that the old media doesn’t do. Your success is due to your new audience and your new audience deserves the truth on this story. Some blogger needs to break the story to show that the new media is not just carrying the water for the mainstreams.

  102. Regarding politicians and sex scandals.
    As someone else once said, If they’ll cheat on their wives, who else will they cheat on.
    Or as the Bible puts it, If they can’t be trusted with small things, how can they be trusted with large things.

  103. There are rumors that Eisenhower had a mistress. It’s never been proven and the evidence for it is weak.
    As to FDR having a mistress, given the way he mishandled the depression, that’s not much of a defense of the attitude that we shouldn’t know about a candidates lack of virtue.

  104. Edwards dropping out would help Obama more than Hillary.
    On the other hand, I think there are many in the media who are hoping that Obama can be Hillary’s running mate.

  105. Libby said one thing. A reporter said another.
    A far left DC jury decided to believe the reporter.
    Hardly the same thing.

  106. This looks like a chess move by the media to me. By ‘talking’ about it without naming the person, the media is giving a signal to the National Enquirer and others to break the story.
    Then the media can report on the breaking news without being the ones to release the story.
    It’s the old non-release release.
    They can’t wait for the story to leak.
    Another possibility is for the story to be dropped on the Thursday before election day. That’s usually the day for the biggest scandal to break whether it’s real or not. The Bush drunk driving story broke that day.

  107. Teresa says:
    “This fascination that you guys have with Hillary as a lesbian really confirms my feeling that most Republicans are closeted homosexuals”
    Yes, that would explain why the bluest of all states is the only state that has legalized gay marriage…

  108. Teresa’s point was a bit retarded… the male desire to see p*ssies and associated female bodies in quantity indicates said males are homosexual. Brilliant logic.

  109. “Let’s stick with qualifications and policy positions…”
    As with all personal behavior, sexuality should not be exempt from ethical and moral consideration. A person’s behavior, whether it be sexual or not, is a reflection of their character. We should judge someone’s character based on past behavior, especially those we entrust with political power.
    One of the qualifications for any public position is moral character and ethics. That is, the personal behavior of the candidate. Since ethics is based on personal behavior, it is important for people to understand how a particular candidate has behaved in the past so we may be able to judge for ourselves how the character of that candidate will affect their performance while in office.
    Simply stating that “it’s just sex and therefor unimportant” is belittling the fact that public positions require a commitment to ethics and a higher standard of moral character than positions that do not affect the public at as a whole. A janitor, for example, doesn’t make decisions that affect millions of people every day.
    A President, on the other hand, does. Since a lot of policy decisions are based on moral and ethical considerations, a President’s past moral and ethical behavior will affect the policy decisions he or she makes. We, the voters, make the final decision as to who will hold public office, therefor the personal behavior of all candidates should be made public. We need to know what the personal character of the candidate is in order to make the determination of how that candidate will decide policy and if such policy decisions are right for us.
    No one should “sit on” a story that reflects the personal behavior of a candidate if such information is both credible and demonstrable. In other words, if there is actually proof of this behavior (The Blue Dress, for example). By not allowing the public to understand and judge the character of a particular candidate, the people hiding this type information is doing the people a great disservice. They are denying the people knowledge about a candidate that may affect the people’s decisions as to who should hold public office.
    Of course, we don’t know if the story is true or not or if this is all just rumors, but that doesn’t mean someone’s past behavior should be hidden or ignored simply because it is of a sexual nature.

  110. This whole story as it is now is wrong and here’s why: If it is true there is one guilty party and at least 5 non-guilty parties who are being smeared with wild speculation which is WRONG on every level and terribly unfair. If it is not true then there are 6 people who are being smeared and that is just as bad. This story if true should have come out with names named or should have never been mentioned if not true. When the story about the Royal blackmail came out and the speculation began then it was inevitable that the guilty party be named quickly to save the reputation of the innocent.
    As for the Eisenhower allegation I believe that should be put as he allegedly had an affair. I don’t believe it was ever proved.
    And as for the Clinton affair there were many reasons why it mattered not the least of which was the sexual harassment issues and the way the women of NOW were promoting the punishment of men who had allegedly harassed women-it was going great guns until Clinton, their hero, became caught in their web. Also there was the personal destruction of the women (including Linda Tripp) who knew about his proclivities and I could go own and own and own but it just comes down to a character issue and he was and is a low-life. IMO

  111. Re: Terry Gain at 10:18pm on 10/31/07
    You’ve got some of it right — I’ll correct what you have wrong…
    1. Plame did suggest, but do not get that confused with actually having a say in anything. I imagine you have worked at places with suggestion boxes before? Do all the suggestions that are put in get put in action? No! Why? Because the people higher up actually have to look at it and see if it makes sense. Sending Joe Wilson made sense to the CIA based on his experience over there, not because Plame mentioned him. Plame mentioning him has NOTHING to do with this whole affair – it was thrown in there to cast doubt with people who didn’t know much about the case.
    2. Wilson did submit a report
    3. Even if the Nigerians believed Iraq had come down to talk about Uranium or “yellowcake”, Wilson pointed out that it was completely infeasible for Iraq to get any. He mentioned one of the mines was flooded and the other was guarded by many nations interests and not just niger. He concluded there was almost no basis for worrying about Iraq getting yellowcake from there. And he also mentioned that Iraq had plenty of yellowcake themselves, so there really was no valid reason they would be looking for more (Please explain that one away terry)
    Wilson said that the Office of the Vice President had requested a report about this… He was not lying. He did not say they personally sent him.
    And I still don’t quite understand why Plame suggesting her husband after being requested by her boss to do so, would enable this administration to “out” her? I really think you have on thick republican glasses when you state something like that….
    You end up saying you would stick up for a patriotic democrat too…
    That’s funny, because it’s hard to think of a more patriotic person than a CIA agent working on counter terrorism (Plame)… Yet you surely aren’t sticking up for her… instead you’re sticking up for the people who outed her… funny way you think terry…
    Keemo — You wonder why I changed the subject? It was because I noticed that Terry said something that contradicted what I thought she had said earlier. Being that it was this thread she said it in, I mentioned it… Sorry!

  112. One thing you can say for this story is that in spite of all the lesbian speculation Hillary is the current beneficiary of the story-it will wipe her Tuesday debate missteps right out of the news and then she can deny this story and call it a vast-right wing conspiracy.

  113. Maybe that’s the plan, RD. Because in the post Girls Gone Wild age I’m not really sure the thought of an American President dyking out is really such a vote loser.

  114. LA Times Sitting On Explosive Exposé

    Capt Ed says he’s not interested in pecadillos. But he says there is a story out there and it’s being sat on.
    Some interesting things have been reported recently.
    *A poll showing half of America will never vote for Hillary.
    *The Washington…

  115. I’d love to see a running poll here tracking who we think the adulterer/ess is.
    At first I was sure it had to be Obama. The media are his biggest supporters, so his case is obvious. In addition, accusations of racism toward the revealer would inevitably follow.
    Then I considered Edwards. He simply seems more LIKELY to me. His adultery would throw support to Obama and put Hillary’s election into question.
    Then I considered Hillary. Given marital hell on earth for all these years because of Bill’s sexual addictions, she might have found some form of love with another man. Her adultery would indeed put her election into serious jeopardy.
    I won’t address the homosexuality question. That’s so unlikely as to be ridiculous. It’s effect would of course be much wider.
    The candidate clearly is not a Republican. The media would never hold back.
    I reject the idea that the media is holding back out of prudence, or the idea that a sexual peccadillo has no place in national affairs. That consideration died out long, long, ago, and is utterly dead. It’s not the reason they’re holding back. The chance is so close to zero that it is zero (in a calculus limit-approaching zero equals zero sense, that is).
    Very fascinating rumor! Don’t you love how the media has to consider election fears for “their” Democrat candidate, and also how it has to consider fears of PC-based retribution? Rather than reporting on something they would otherwise report on, treating it simply as a given fact?

  116. You want a real scandal? Okay, I’ll give you one.
    Sources tell me that there are actual candidates running for President of the United States who are unwilling to bomb the snot out of Iran…they would rather talk to the messianic nut job.
    Mind you, the nutjob widened the streets of his city while he was mayor to enable the long dead 12th Imam to make an easy return.
    The same nutjob has promised to destroy both the US and Israel, that Israel is the little Satan while the US is the great Satan.
    The nutjob’s military has tested firing Shahab-3 missiles off of freighters and detonated the missiles successfully at higher elevations. The sole purpose of those tests would be to unleash Electro-Magnetic Pulse nukes over the US, to instantly destroy our nation’s electrical grid, with the purpose of bringing the Continental US to its knees.
    The nutjob does not care if the US retaliates, because his mission is a mystical revival in which the earth is cleansed of its sins with Islam remaining as the sole religion for any survivors. All Muslims who would be killed in retaliation would merely be purified by Allah.
    But some candidates want to talk to this guy. They have shamelessly admitted their desire to do so.
    Now THAT is a scandal of the first order!

Comments are closed.