Posted on 10/30/2007 6:09:13 PM PDT by jimboster
this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before.
To me, that means that there has been some sort of speculation about this purported sexual issue in the past. Obama hasn't been the subject of scrutiny long enough for that to be true - most of the 'scandal' speculation about him has been related to the question of whether he was a Muslim at some point in his life. On the other hand, there have been rumors - especially on the right - about Hillary's lesbianism since the early 1990s. (Also about her alleged affair with Vince Foster, and that Web Hubbell is Chelsea's father, but I digress....)
To me, that strongly suggests this is about Hillary, and that it's a lesbian relationship.
If they’re sitting on it, you know it HAS to be a RAT.
What fascinates me about these things is not the scandal itself, but the hubris that makes a politician with big skeletons in his/her closet think that s/he can run for president and it will never come out.
I cannot understand that either. I am relatively decent person, but I have some situations that if a reporter reported it in a certain way it would not be good. (Mostly some crazy drinking) But even with everything seemingly innocent, I would never run for President even if the position was 1 trillion dollars a year. It is not worth it at all IMHO.
When all else fails, when you just can’t find some fascts, make up a long rambling tale about nothing.
It made Seinfield rich
Yes, they might. They might wait until after the primary. You see, if they eliminate the Republican candidate in question before the primary, another candidate will become the nominee and the Dems might still have a horse race for the general election. If they wait until after the primary, assuming the candidate in question is nominated, they can print the story then and the general election becomes a slam-dunk for the Dems.
The hints given are that it’s a leading candidate, it’s not Edwards, we could already see the pulling back of the candidate and sense of impending doom in the press coverage of him/her, and it’s only the specifics of this rumor that are new to the candidate.
“Leading” but not Edwards narrows it down to Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. Seeing signs of impending doom in campaigning and coverage I think rules out Clinton, Giuliani and Romney.
That leaves Obama and Thompson, both of whom have shown some sort of pulling back of asssertiveness, poll-standings, and media predictions. Of those two Thompson is the one I’m aware of as having old rumors floated (and recently). He’s also the one who has been in the free and easy Hollywood mix while his wife’s been home pregnant and/or with infants. (Hollywood is also where the LATimes would be most likely to get wind of it.)
Fred’s actually been my candidate, I hope it’s not him. The only other possibility I see is McCain, whom I eliminated from the ‘leading’ category up top. Still I am worried for Fred.
I disagree.
I think it may be a Republican and they are sitting on it until he either becomes the RNC nominee or gets a solid #1 position in the polls. That way, the LAT hopes it will be too late for the Republicans to regroup.
You know, even if if was an Edwards or Obama scandal, it could be damaging to Hillary in a roundabout way. Hillary needs Edwards and Obama in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote. If either Edwards or Obama dropped out, the other could consolidate support and possibly defeat Hillary in later primaries.
The problem if something's really juicy (which this allegedly is) is that a truly compromised Republican candidate could withdraw and someone stronger take the reins. As widely known as this scandal apparently is, someone who doesn't believe in 'last minute gotcha' reporting will leak it to Drudge. The circle is too big for a long term tight hold without massive pressure. To my mind, that leans to be a Democrat whom they wish to protect. Only if it were something that would never see the light of day, could people's competitive juices be calmed enough not to jump the gun.
It has to be Clinton. She is the only candidate that the MSM will go to the mat for.
Could be big. Generally speaking, the African-American community is against homosexuality.
This is probably going to be the most interesting election we have ever seen.
The only coverage that has seemed strange to me is the coverage of Fred Thompson, so he would be my guess. Being of the Hollywood crowd (at least somewhat) might make the LA Times hesitate to “go there.”
I'm thinking that if this rumor were true, Drudge would have reported on it by now.
“Journalists don’t encounter ethical or moral dilemmas.”
Except when it involves a Democrat and the possibility of a short walk in the park with a revolver.
No scandal there. Just auditioning replacements for whenever Liz takes the dirt nap.
>>>Being of the Hollywood crowd (at least somewhat) might make the LA Times hesitate to “go there.”
I was thinking that too.
If it’s the beltway press crowd who is in the know, then it may be assumable that the politician is DC based - and that leaves Rudy and Mitt out. Fred, as well.
McCain would fit the bill, as would Hillary or Obama.
heaven knows that to the DC press crowd, anyone outside the beltway is insignificant in their minds.
i was hoping someone would have figured this out by this AM. i wanna know!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.