AIM's Kincaid on "Clinton's alleged lesbianism": "[A]s explosive as Senator Barack Obama's mysterious upbringing as a Muslim"
In his May 2007 "Cliff's Notes" report, Cliff Kincaid, editor and writer at right-wing media "watchdog" organization Accuracy in Media, wrote: "The sex scandal the media won't touch involves Senator Hillary Clinton's [D-NY] alleged lesbianism." Kincaid later added: "This matter is as explosive as Senator Barack Obama's [D-IL] mysterious upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia and his quick conversion to Christianity."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here), several right-wing media figures have attempted to advance rumors that Clinton is either bisexual or a lesbian. In suggesting that Clinton is a lesbian, Kincaid cited Edward Klein's widely discredited book, The Truth about Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005), and "[c]onservative writer Jack Wheeler [who] flatly asserted in a Washington Times column, based on his sources, that [Clinton] is bisexual." In his 2004 Times op-ed, Wheeler wrote:
One reason is that it's too blindingly obvious that Mr. Clinton's book should have been titled "My Lie." All of that stuff about Hillary being mad, making him sleep on the couch, going to marriage counselors for a year, yada yada, is all made up. They have had a pact for decades: He gets to fool around with women, and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man like Vince Foster).
Yes, she's bisexual -- I disclosed that in an infamous Strategic Investment column in January 1993, and Dick Morris publicly revealed it a few years ago. You knew that, right?
Moreover, despite Kincaid's statement regarding "Obama's mysterious upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia and his quick conversion to Christianity," the Chicago Tribune reported on March 25 that "[i]nterviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia":
Attention on U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's childhood in Indonesia has so far focused on whether he was a Muslim and whether one of his schools was a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa.
Although his campaign has denied that Obama was a practicing Muslim, the "Islam" issue is not likely to go away soon for the presidential candidate. Some Americans link the religion with terrorism and see Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as being an alien place, a world away from the White House.
But initial reports have distorted the reality of the four years Obama spent in Indonesia, from 1967 to 1971. In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic.
When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam.
Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors. And the school described as an Islamic madrassa in media reports actually was a public school, so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.
Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades.
At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.
The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.
In a January article -- anonymously authored and sourced -- InsightMag.com reported that "researchers connected to" Clinton had said that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The accusation about Clinton was unsubstantiated, and the underlying claim that Obama attended a madrassa has been debunked. Media Matters noted Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz' statement that "[t]he allegations got a big boost from Rupert Murdoch's media empire, with the New York Post running this headline: 'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama.' And Murdoch's Fox News Channel touted the claims on two programs."
Media Matters also noted that, on May 14, another anonymously authored InsightMag.com column recycled various Clinton myths and falsehoods, asking: "Did [Clinton] have an affair with Vince Foster -- as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years?"
Kincaid makes occasional appearances on television as a pundit, most recently on the April 4 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, during which he warned of "submersion of U.S. sovereignty to this emerging trilateral entity, the North American community," adding, "And that means here in the U.S., we would have to accept the more liberal laws such as acceptance of gay marriage in Canada."
It's amazing how many extreme-right-wing organizations choose titles that are directly opposite of what they portray. Accuracy in Media can't reveal its sources of innuendo of alleged sexual orientation.
Rumors and alleged personal conduct are newsworthy only in the minds of the extreme right. I guess what Stephen Colbert says is true: "Reality has a liberal bias."
Journalism should be about fact, not about what you want the facts to be. It should be about reporting to the public what is happening, not what you hope happened in order to destroy the lives and careers of people you don't like.
If the truth takes someone down, sobeit. But innuendo, rumors, unidentified accusers, all have no business being part of our news.
You obviously don't recognize what innuendo is when you see it. Innuendo is a veiled hint or suggestion. This Wheeler leveled an outright acuasation backed up by a reference to someone who has basis for knowledge.
MMFA has basis for knowledge. Look to the top of this MMFA piece. Look for this:
"(here, here, here, here, and here), "
Examine these links. MMFA is citing itself and its previous remarks as proof Hillary is not bisexual. This is not original source material. Good references cite as close to original source material as possible. MMFA doesn't know any more about whether or not Hillary is bisexual than you or I do. They have no basis for knowledge.
On the other hand, Dick Morris, who is cited by this Jack Wheeler as a source does have basis for knowledge as he is intimately aquainted with the Clintons.
No, it's not. Media Matters is citing to other examples of THE RUMORS. Rather than make this piece unwieldly and repeat itself, it simply has referred back to its prior reporting. Here - read the sentence again:
"As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here), several right-wing media figures have attempted to advance rumors that Clinton is either bisexual or a lesbian."
People who are intimately involved with me in a similar way as Morris was to the Clintons don't have the vaguest idea of what I do in the privacy of my bedroom, you numbskull!
Morris doesn't know what Hillary does in the bedroom, or anyplace else she chooses to express her sexuality! He is not an authoritative resource an almost any issue regarding the Clintons, but almost certainly not on this topic!
Absolutely correct!
Dick Morris has NO CREDIBILITY due to the fact that he has an AGENDA against the Clintons. Secondly I am wondering why this "rumor" means anything. Even if Hillary is Bisexual or Lesbian, that does not make her any less of a person(unless you are one of those crazy fundamentalists.) We as a nation must respect EVERYONE even those who we do not approve of; so any talk about Hillary's sexual orientation should be completly irrelevant.
How come it was so easy to find out what Dick Morris likes to do in the bedroom, while all anyone can come up with on Hillary is innuendo?
Not that it matters to me what either of them do... as usual, just sick of the hypocrisy of wingnuts and DINOs.
but they probably know if you're straight or not.
Even my wife might not know if I had homosexual tendencies if I chose to keep them from her! My friends and business associates surely wouldn't know that.
Dick Morris is not in a position, based upon his history as a President Clinton political advisor for a short period of time, to know Hillary's sexual preferences. The previous poster said that he would be a good resource. He's not. My friends would describe me as 100% heterosexual. I could be hiding lots of stuff that they would never see, nor ever imagine!
Morris isn't an authority on Hillary's sexuality.
No one is an authority on her sexuality except for Hillary Fricking Clinton.
If Hillary is a lesbian, where are her girlfriends? The wingnuts had no trouble digging up the women if Bill's life. If she was a practicing bisexual or lesbian, proof would be out there.
You can't prove a negative - that Hillary is not a lesbian. But in the case of this most investigated of couples, absence of evidence is evidence in itself.
The wingnuts had no trouble digging up the women in Bill's life (UnEasyOne)
Well Bill made it very easy. The guy was pretty careless. Horntoads usually are.
I'd figure Hillary to be a lot more discreet.
Have you been equally discreet with your kiddie porn?
Uneasyone,
While Taz can be a somewhat sarcastic poster at times, and his post certainly bordered on that, what he wrote was essentially correct. And your caustic reply to him was totally unreasonable.
Clinton did make it easy for the Right-Wing, including David Brock [author of American Spectator's Troopergate] to dig up the dirt on Clinton's sexual dalliances. Yes the Right went looking for dirt...but Bill Clinton had dirt to be found. Do you honestly believe both side don't have Opposition Researchers out there looking for smut on the current crop of candidates? Sadly, that's the way politics is these days. Maybe it's always been like this--but it does seem more prevalent now. Do you honestly believe if the Democrats found some sordid sexual info in the seemingly Mr. Clean past of Mitt Romney they wouldn't run with it?
And quite frankly just having observed Hillary Clinton for 15 plus years, one gets the impression that she is the more discreet of the 2 Clintons. That's not to say I believe any of these *rumors*...I don't. And you bring up a great point [in your earlier post] Where are her girlfriends? Surely someone would have stepped forward by now.
Those women were all lying....
Not true. Some were on their knees.
; )
"My friends would describe me as 100% heterosexual. I could be hiding lots of stuff that they would never see, nor ever imagine!" (NotThatGeorge)
Sounds as if George may be coming out of the closet.
Sounds as if you ain't got nothin', so you'll toss out an unfair smear.
'Cept it ain't true, because there'd be nothing wrong with me having those proclivities. Only in closed-minded people is another person's sexuality an issue. So long as what I do involves consenting adults, you ain't got nothin'.
Sounds like a bit of wishful thinking from you. Maybe YOUR closet is getting a bit claustrophobic.
That's a ggod point I guess. Plenty of examples of real life examples of what you say.
Man, news and gossip are for some people so difficult to seperate. By the way, are we experiencing sliming and smearing of democratic presidential hopeful again, while those of the republicans are certainly not clean. if these 'journalists' and opinionmakers want to do something interesting, let them look at what people ackomplished and how they did it and whether they lie about it.
It actually reminds me of one of those gossip magazines where employees suck everything out of their thumbs where they run a story for a few years that mr. and mrs. Bush are wanting to divorce each other and how bad their marriage is. Totally bull, but that does not appear in the national news or baing pushed by any organization.
I guess the Vince Foster reruns aren't getting much traction.
*tee- hee* Kincaid is a funny stupid-head...
Doh!! I just saw it.. this *news* organization is called Accuracy in Media- PRICELESS!!
Who is their intended audience? The Homophobic Republican base, of course...Liberals don't care if she's a lesbian. This is all about motivating the Troglodytes, and turning off a few misguided Southern Democrats who just can't get past the Gay issue.
Nerzog,
I seriously doubt that the "homophobic Republican base" would even consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances, so if this is their intended audience they are wasting their time.
This is a sleazy, classless piece that doesn't even deserve a dignified response, from anyone.
I disagree... if some one called you something you didn't like, would you be upset if a friend of yours called the name callers out? Ignoring things will not make them go away... in fact, responding to them doesn't make them go away either... at first. But the battle must be waged because SOMEDAY these sleazies will expire..
Then your suggestion is that Mrs. Clinton address this piece about her? Should she have a news conference to say "I am not a lesbian". I am sure she'll get right on that.
SHE doesn't need to respond if she wishes.. the point is OTHERS can 'stick up for her' and continue to call out the liars and scumbags...
Do you think she should be asked about this in an upcoming debate?
Astonishingly, YES! The level of discourse in the political arena in America has fallen to name calling, slurs, half-sentence talking points, and drivel...
opps!! I thought you said 'COULD" be asked- not 'should' be asked... Should she be? What would the answer either way have to do with anything..
little tommy don't care what it would matter, he just likes the smears and innuendo's. little tommy is just here to distract and demean everyone else, and to hi-jack threads to his own agenda.
I am glad you think, that with all the problems facing us today, that it should be incumbent upon a debate questioner to ask a candidate about a sleazy tabloid trashy report about her sexual orientation.
Let's get Jerry Springer to moderate that debate, OK?
No. A candidate's sexual orientation is NOT anyone's business. It's a personal issue. If the politician is homosexual and s/he decides to remain in the closet, that is her/his right. It is not the right of others to speculate on other peoples' sexual orientation in order to gain points with their intended audience. It's sophomoric and does nothing to address the REAL issues facing Americans today. Republicans use sexual orientation as some sort of distraction, either from the issues of the day, or to distract from their own (questionable) sexual orientation. Since Republicans don't have any real ideas, they have to resort to personal attacks speculating on someone's sexual orientation.
Again with the Republican meme...distract, lie, distract, lie, distract and lie again.
"Since Republicans don't have any real ideas"
Tell that to Newt Gingrich. He's written an entire book on new ideas to solve the problems we are facing now and will face in the future. It's basically a 2nd Contract with America. He would be a great Presidential candidate if he didn't have so much baggage to carry.
The perfect candidate for the Repugnant Party: a (belatedly) confessed adulterer, a liar, a cheat, and at least part-time bigot. Is there anyone else running for the Repugnants with a resume so full? Why, with "Neut" in the race, Mitt Romney could just pack it in!
All true, including that fact that Newt isn't even running.
"a (belatedly) confessed adulterer, a liar, a cheat"
Hmmm. If what you say is true then I guess Gingrich has all of the qualities necessary to become President. Just ask Bill Clinton.
We don't have to we have Chimpy McCokespoon as a current example
Besides, you left out part-time bigot . . .
Oh, that wouldn't have been true of Clinton, would it? Good to see this respect for the truth finally making its way to the ranks of the Repugnants! Now if only empathy were to accompany this stealthy infiltration . . .
I left out part time bigot because you have absolutely no evidence of that. You're simply an extremist who hates anybody on the right side of the political spectrum. Your hateful insults don't help your party or your ideology. You give liberals a bad name.
I would say that you give fundamentalists a bad name, but others have beat you to it.
I would say that you give open minded people a bad name, but many others also falsely claim to be open minded.
It is hilariously ironic to be "lectured" about supposedly not being openminded enough by an unabashed fundy.
Although I generally aspire to openmindedness, I occasionally happen upon such unfathomable examples of abject stupidity and lack of reason or logic, I simply cannot find any commonground with which to form an understanding. I guess everyone has a limit.
: )
You forget that it is those on the right who hate people.
Those on the left hate behaviors. We don't hate George Bush. We hate the things he has done. It's the right who hates Hillary, the person.
It should be noted that NEWT has already had his "at bats" to implement his myriad "grand ideas" for the nation. He put forward the FIRST "Contract with America", and was Speaker of the House in the best position to craft all that legislation.
We may recall the original contract called for a Balanced Budget Amendment (failed), "Loser Pays" tort reform (failed), a Presidential line-item veto (passed, only to be nullified as Unconstitutional), term limits (failed), "American Dream" savings accounts (failed), and a host of other radical rightwing "initiatives" that Gingrich failed to deliver.
Newt is not only a failure as a human being, but as a legislator. Not only is he deeply flawed morally, but his ideological agenda is deeply flawed as well. Anyone thinking as PRESIDENT he would be better for the nation than he proved to be as the leader of Congress ... well, they are dreaming of fantasies.
Newt Gingrich will forever be fit only for a college professorship, where his "theories" can remain theoretical and cannot hurt anybody. Plus, his personal failings will not matter. (It should be noted that rightwingers view college professors as "the enemy".)
Oh yeah, that first contract with America went so well, let's have ANOTHER one!!
Seriously, thanks for the laugh.
Yeah, Newt has all the ideas all right...
I thought that the 90s were a time of peace and prosperity? Or was that just a liberal talking point?
It appears you operating under the faulty premise that the Contract on America had anything to do with the prosperity.
Ah, yes. It was Clinton's great economic policy of tax and spend.
Actually Bill Clinton brought in some of the greatest revenues and surplus in our nation's history with The Balanced Budget Act.
Worked out, as I recall, with a Republican Congress.
Yeah, he even overcame that handicap.
To be fair, I think it was a combination of the two that ultimately led to the prosperity. I actually prefer the executive populated by a Democrat and the Senate and/or the House populated by Republicans. Gridlock is my favorite form of government.
Of course it is a bit too nuanced a view to discuss with a manichean mentality like Rino Hunter appears to posess, but I don't mind sharing my thoughts with you about it.
Which was so much more effective than the Raygun/Bush policy of BORROW and spend
" Newt Gingrich[has] written an entire book on new ideas to solve the problems we are facing now and will face in the future"
Ohhh, my sides! I've been receiving HUman Events emails lately from a weisenheimer friend who signed me up, and Newt's essays are pretty regular.
I've read a few of them. I can't imagine those "ideas" supporting an entire book. They usually self destruct within the paragraph.
How much more hypocritical can these fundies get? They don't want the gay lifestyle flaunted in their face, even so far as demanding that they keep it out of sight, out of mind, and then turn around and try to out Hillary (not that I believe she is, but if she was, and was keeping it to herself, why are these @sshats trying to expose her?)
"I seriously doubt that the "homophobic Republican base" would even consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances, so if this is their intended audience they are wasting their time."
Tommy, you miss the point. The purpose of the slander is to energize the "homophobic Republican base" to get out and vote against Hillary Clinton. The Republican talking head appear to have almost conceded the Democratic nomination to Hillary (although they didn't check with some of us first) and the Republican field of candidates is something less than exciting. So, the purpose is to begin energizing the Repub;lican base with negative depictions of the Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards.
I got the point, the base of the Republican party is energized at the mention of a Clinton........but you know that.
No, you either didn't get the point, or you refuse to get the point.
"Hillary need not deign to reply to this, or combat this misinformation, but that lack of a response from her would never demand that Media Matters ignore it. This is part of a pattern of activity, declaring that Hillary is not a heterosexual, trying to deter those for whom sexuality is an issue. This characterization might make some who would support her less likely to do so, and would also make some who are already against her more vociferous in that feeling, and therefore more vocal. It's calculated to diminish her chances."
This kind of misinformation affects both the Republicans whose resolve is strengthened against her and also those for whom sexuality is an issue who might have voted for her were it not for these kinds of allegations.
They're throwing mud, hoping that some sticks wherever possible.
Your comment implies that it really doesn't matter what people say about Senator Clinton as the type of voters that these types of comments cater to will never vote for her anyway. Your tying to rationalize why these comments don't matter. Since when doesn't the truth matter?
You either want our media and the people operating to influence our political dialog to stick to the issues, facts and things that matter or you don't.
Which is it?
Worse still is his obstinate way of viewing this - that it can only be intended for people for whom the information will not make a shred of difference!
For many of those already against Hillary, it will harden their resolve. They will be more vociferous in their opposition, and they'll have one more thing to throw out when they're throwing mud at her.
For some of those on the fence, it will tip the balance.
For those who might support her if they knew more, they might never try to learn more about her - for most voters, sexuality is not the main issue, but might be enough for some voters to sway them. If they learned more, they might support her regardless of her questionable sexuality, but if they're deterred from the start, that never will happen.
For those who support her, it might weaken the resolve of some of them. Less resolve, less vocal support.
This kind of attack has the potential to affect many tiers of voters, and that waterfall effect could greatly diminish her chances.
I am not a big Hillary fan, by the way. I think her negatives are already too great, and too many people will never vote for her whether a rumor about her sexuality gets publicized or not, but I still am strongly against this kind of smear, and I still applaud Media Matters for making this smear public.
I think the greatest potential harm is that it will energize the basest homophobes of the Christian Right, who might otherwise stay home out of apathy if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.
Do you think the homophobic base would still vote for Rudy a man who dressed in drag and lived with a homosexual couple after his seperation?
Yes, if their only alternative is Hillary, whom they consider the wife of the Anti Christ.
You mean people will vote for Mrs. Cheney? Even though her daughter is one of THEM people?
Do any of us know what the truth is? I don't really care if she is or isn't, I wouldn't vote for her either way, but it would speak to the impression that some have that she is a very fake and scripted politician and person. All that stuff about making Bill sleep on the couch, etc. would be nonsense.
I always liked Bill but Hilary just rubs me the wrong way. And if a video ever surfaces on the internet I'll have to cancel my broadband.
FWIW, I think she is as fake and scripted as all of them, but since she is entering politics late in life, she's really bad at playing it off. Her husband - who I like in a lot of ways - is pretty much the gold standard model of a lying sack of chit, but he comes across as extremely genuine. Seriously. I shook the man's hand at a rally, and I got a little frisson.
I don't like Hillary's politics, full stop. She is way too right wing for me. But, her fingernails-on-blackboard voice and pantsuits are neiter here nor there as far as I am concerned.
All politicians are insincere, calculating liars. It is pretty much the only qualification necessary for the job.
"This is a sleazy, classless piece that doesn't even deserve a dignified response, from anyone. "
This was said by you Tommy......
To whom are you speaking of:
Kincaid, for doing his peice based on inuendo, rumors, and his personal bias while attempting to report all this prejudice as fact.
or
MMFA, for pointing out that Kincaid is a lazy and useless so-called reporter that has a hard-on for the Clintons almost as big as Chris Matthews.
Hey! I'm a Southern Democrat and I don't care if she likes guys, gals or guinepigs. Or all three at the same time for that matter.
I have to admit, Chessguy, that I'd have a real problem with the guinea pig thing.
Her sexuality is none of our business.
How she behaves in bed has nothing to do with her fitness to rule the country.
Nothing. Nada.
Now, if she's lying about herself, then it calls into question, in a small degree, her fitness.
I say a small degree because given our culture, if she were bisexual it would hurt her unfairly, and so it would be perfectly okay with me for her to lie about that. She should not be hurt unfairly on a subject like this. Her sexuality has nothing to do with her fitness to lead the country.
If someone wants to allege that she's lying, and thereby call her character into question, they need more than simple allegations, and that's all they've got.
In a similar way, that's all that Bay Buchanan had last week. She read the DSM about Narcicist behavior, and using her own biased viewpoint, assigned all those bad characteristics to Hillary unfairly, and then concluded that Hillary suffered from that mental illness!
Don't make allegations of mental illness on such shoddy evidence, and don't say that she's bisexual based upon your beliefs that if she were 100% heterosexual she'd have more kids, or that she wouldn't stand for Bill's behavior, etc.
Also the liberal media won't touch the story about John Edwards being an alien from Jupiter sent to enslave the human race.
Edwards has a book called "How to Serve Man," doesn't he?
The first chapter leads with a picture of a pig with an apple in its mouth? Or did I pick up the wrong book?
Jon Edwards must have sent those dreaded monoliths to earth in Space Odessey:2001...lol. They did come from Jupiter after all...
This is just another example of the attempted smears on Senator Clinton. The right wingers are so worried about her becoming the next President they will say and do anything to prevent it.
Cliff Kincaid email:
info@aim.org
kincaid@comcast.net
Are you serious? Comcast?
Something wrong with using Comcast as an ISP?
No, I have comcast.
I am more interested in the mysterious scandal about the rumors that Kinkaid molests small furry animals and I think he ough to address this at length the next time I see him on TV.
Too late. I already disclosed that in an infamous IOU I wrote to Dick Morris in 1993 - lost a bet, didn't think that squirrel would let him put its feet in his mouth. But you knew that already.
Eeeeeewwwwww!
Thank you MMFA for exposing this hate speech.
These people always amaze me. Just when you think they can't sink any lower, they come at you with more lies and sleaze.
By the way, our "new" Dem majority just sold us down the river on Iraq. I think we should flood their offices with e-mails and phone calls telling them how low they sank. Right up King Georges ass. I'm disgusted with all politicians as of now. The hell with voting. None of them care anyway.
When King George has veto power and the Republican party refuses to see the American's people total distaste for this war, what can the Dems do besides just send the troops the money? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I just don't get what the plan was. I mean, who didn't see this coming four months ago? Who didn't think Bush would get the veto pen out if they sent him a bill with pullout language?
If you're going to play chicken, you have to be ready to do what Clinton did, and let the stalemate drag on. They should have gotten out front with "George Bush doesn't want to fund the troops" early on, and had every single Dem say it over and over again for four months straight.
The Dems played themselves on this one. Bush didn't beat them, he just sat back and let them step all over their own d!cks.
Rachel Maddow was fired up yesterday ripping the Dems for being weak on the Iraq war. She said, hey if you don't want to be portrayed as weak, then don't be weak!
Weren't they put in office to end this thing? Yeah right.
I agree. The interesting thing to me is that the administration won the war of rhetoric. Like you said, Congress passed spending bills, so it should have been easy for them to argue/spin their point that Bush was the one blocking the funding.
I can't help but wonder where the "liberal" media were all of this time helping to spread the obvious Democratic argument/spin? To the contrary, the media continued to frame this debate along the administration's argument/spin.
I agree 100% how easy was this one and they fumbled it. How bad do you have to be to have the popular sentiment on your side and not figure out how to use it to your advantage? These guys lately seem to never waste an opportunity to waste an opportunity
All of my contacts (2 Dem Senators, one Repugnant Rep) already have me on "ignore" on this subject. At least the Dems answer some of my other email, although not always satisfactorily.
Word. I get "Dear $#1thead" form letters from Dianne Feinstein's office...
I agree they're of equal importance - none!
One would think that if mr. potato head had proof it wouldn't be hard to bring forth a lesbian or two who would say they let Hillary eat at the Y.
Oh boy. Somebody lifted the rock up. Here come the scumbags again. I take it we won't be hearing calls for civility from the right for quite some while. At least our side has a way of mounting a counter attack to their B.S. when they try and pass their rumors from hate radio to the mainstream media this time. Thank god for Air America and Media Matters and the rest of the lefty blogs. The media's gonna hear from us this time if they try the character assasination game again.
You know if Hillary & Bill could do all the great things that they did and create a surplus all while she was doing Vince and who ever the woman they decide she was doing. Bill doing Monica, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and all the other things that they are accused of then I say bring them back They can multitask. That's so much more than we currently have.
Chimpy McChucklenuts can't eat a pretzel and watch TV at the same time. If he got a hummer he would probably have to have Cheney take over as Acting President...
Didn't Cliffie, who is gay I believe,write in the late '70's, for a gay newspaper in the Village? Anyone know?
Did anyone else catch the Colbert Report the other day with Bay Buchanan?
Was it just me or at the end the boo's were louder than the clapping?
ADMcCain, I just caught the rerun of that- yeah, a good round of boos.
Not the good kind of good round of boos.
I liked Bay's comment on illegal immigration, that the "amnesty" is bad, as it will increase wages and force immigrants to be "treated fairly".
HRCs (or is it now HCs) sexual orientation has as much relevence to the political debate as the question as to whether a certain R candidate had premarital sex with his wife. Oh wait, the second has already been asked at least twice in public, so I suppose the first is now fair game.
What are you talking about.. Are you trying to compare a rumor about Hillary with the fact about Gingrich? Or did you have something else in mind?
Could have been. Also could have been referring to a "60 Minutes" interview a couple of weeks ago by Mike Wallace (and one previous question to the same person the week or so before that) Also rumors (at best).
Now you appear to be talking in riddles. Do you know these people's names? Is it too much to ask you to share it with the rest of us? Please elucidate.
Mitt Romney was asked to reconcile his stated opinions about premarital sex with his own actual behavior with his wife. He was asked, after he brought up the restrictions on premaritial sex within the Mormon community, if he and his wife honored that restriction.
Apples and oranges in regard to this issue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/10/60minutes/main2787426_page2.shtml
Mitt and Ann fell in love in high school in Bloomfield Hills. She converted from Episcopal to Mormon while Mitt did missionary work in France for over two years. But later he joined her at Brigham Young University. And while he was away, Mitt says, he was terrified that he’d lose her to somebody else. "You get all these Mormons out there with strict prohibition against premarital sex. They’re young and they’re attractive, the hormones work very well and people decide it’s time to get married," Romney says. Asked if he had premarital sex with Ann, Romney tells Wallace, "No, I'm sorry. We don’t get into those things. The answer is no."
Violating vows is not equivalent to being of a different sexual persuasion.
If Hillary were gay or bisexual, she might have an agreement with Bill to allow that behavior. It's their relationship, not ours, to make the rules in. We know that the relationships that Gingrich, for example, had, violated his vows, since he divorced two wives to take up with his lovers. Bill and Hillary are still married, remember? There's never been any documentation of any rough patches in their relationship that were a result of her sexual indiscretions.
But we don't know that Hillary is gay. It's a wholly unsubstantiated rumor, versus Newt's admitted indiscretions. They aren't the same, but rightwingers try to make those unfair comparisons all the time. The false equivalencies get old.
And the other was an unsubstantiated rumor also (at least the one I'm referring to) of very personal nature to some people. I also stated above the two situations are much the same as far as relevence in the political spectrum. But Pandora's Box has been opened, so don't expect HC (or is it HRC? I keep getting confused over her personal preference for titles) to get a "free pass" from innuendos and rumors in the next 18 months or so, just as those from the other side (and her competitors) won't.
Your silly refusal to be specific is puzzling. It is impossible to take your argument seriously without the slightest details so we can make our own judgement. I suppose you would like to make pronouncements and do everyone's thinking for them.
Keep in mind that I said in my opening statement the the relevency of HRCs unsubtantiated sexual preferences is mundane to the political discourse. At the same time, I believe the questions regarding premarital sex addressed to Mitt Romney on at least two occasions fall into the same category.(Irrevelant to the political discourse) You and "NotthatGeorge" feel that Kincaid is a member of the VRW media (and his leanings are admittedly to the right), I feel that Mike Wallace is liberal in his leanings (although I find him, for the most part, a tough but fair journalist). Innuendos and rumors will come forth from both sides during the next 18 months, they may not come from top ranked officials of either party, but they will be out there. Neither side is lily-white in their conduct, especially during campaign seasons.
Thank goodness, he finally explained what he was talking about. I thought we were going to have to do "twenty questions..."
Romney brought up the premarital sex issue in that interview, it wasn't like Wallace pulled it out of his ass. While I wouldn't have asked such a personal question, I also don't get big bucks as a TV interviewer to bring in the ratings.
If Romney brought it up in the interview with Mike Wallace, it was only in the context of the previous interview. When Wallace asked the direct question, the answer was to the effect, "I'm not going there, no."
The whole issue I have here is that if Gingrich, July-Annie(to borrow a name first used by others, which I find humorous), McCain, etal are to be subjected to this type of scrutiny, we can expect the same type of scrutiny for those running on the D side. You all can express outrage at these types of rumors or innuendos, but they have been around since the first political campaign in history (covering the whole world) and will continue to be part of the political landscape. MMFA, MRC, AIM, FAIR can post all the threads about them they wish, but they will not go away.
Again, an uncomfortable or rude question is of a different nature than a rumour made up out of whole cloth to make a candidate look bad. I would put the HRC/lesbian smear on a par with the McCain-has-a-black-kid smear from 2000.
As far as the Romney interview goes, you can read it yourself. I know there is a right blogosphere storm over this, but I think it is unwarranted.
Assuming this is indeed from the first interview with Wallace, it appears that Romney brought it up first in the context of his marriage to Ann.
It was probably inappropriate and irrelevant for Wallace to ask Romney that, but to suggest that Romney himself had nothing to do with it being brought up appears to be ascertainably false from Val's link.
Expect those on the right to stop their unfair smears based upon innuendo? Why would I be so foolish as to do that?
Give me one example of an unfair smear based upon innuendo being alleged against someone on the right by those on the left. Remember, it was George Bush's people who smeared John McCain.
Hillary IMO, is a DINO. I am most emphaticly not one of her supporters. I am really sick of the DLC types who have taken control of my party. Having said that, I would have enthusiasticly supported a black lesbian woman (Barbara Jordan) for president and could care less if Hillary is or is not a lesbian.
But let's use just a little logic. If a horn dog like Bill had an attractive bisexual wife, is it at all imaginable that we wouldn't have seen a parade of women swearing they'd had (or had at least been asked to have) a three-way? Get serious! Can anyone imagine Bill marrying an out-and-out lesbian - or that he wouldn't demand his share of the action if she was bi? Where are Hillary's ex-girlfriends? How much would a scandalsheet pay for a well documented expose? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
The swiftboaters have already planned out their attack. They know that if allegations no matter how stupid and outrageous are made loud enough and long enough they will gain traction in the media if they are made against a Democrat. (Remember that when candidate G H W Bush was accused of having a long running affair with a secretary, he demanded that the media stop their investigation and they did!)
The trolls here and in the MSM will have a field day with this, because it is impossible to prove a negative and the echo chamber will amplify every bit of psuedo evidence until it attains the same psuedo credibility that the other swiftboaters got.
Just remember these arguments - reasonable people will accept them.
Just remember that one of the long-term rightwingers here said that this was something that didn't deserve a reply.
Too bad for him that Media Matters doesn't take their marching orders from him.
Is this going to take over these threads like the O'reilly Soros-MMFA crap?
Great. I'm looking forward to 250 post threads, 225 of which are "Why doesn't Hillary file a slander suit" and "She hasn't proven that she's not a lesbian".
I think we're all missing something in this thread.
Kincaid managed a fairly impressive 'twofer' in his little hit piece. Not only did he smear Sen. Clinton with his 'lesbian' rumor, but also managed to smear Barack Obama with a retread of the debunked Muslim accusation.
Holy sh*t. You've got to admire the child-like enthusiasm with which he manages to degrade himself & everyone else within splatter distance. When Kincaid gets down in the slime, he dives in head first.
This entire smear campaign and the Reps use of such ridiculous talking points reminds me of an old Lyndon Johnson story from the late '50s. When told by an aide that an opponent seemed to be gathering strength against him, the aide asked Johnson how they should respond. Lyndon pulled on one of his earlobes, thought a few seconds and responded: "Spread the rumor that he had sex with the livestock on his farm when he was a kid." The aide looked at him aghast and said "Lyndon, we can't use something like that! How could anyone believe it?" Lyndon smiled as he turned back to the papers on his desk and said, "Let him deny it!"
Dick Morris. It never ceases to amaze me when someone with no moral compass publicy criticizes someone elses morality. This sleaze was photographed on a hotel balcony sucking on the toes of a prostitute.
Humans are sexual beings. Why should anyone care about someone elses sexuality? What does that have to do with governing the nation?
Morris also has no ethics. When asked why he worked for the Clintons if he did not like them, his reply was: I was paid to do a job, I didn't have to like them. Thats o.k. for employees who are not in the public trying to promote the employer. That makes Morris a liar, not just an employee. So who is to say when he "confirmed" Hillary as a lesbian he was not lying and getting paid to do so?
He is paid to lie. And he will take anyones money to do it.
That is a truly excellent point, Suze.
I was hoping to see a retraction or apolgy posted as an update to this drivel, alas, the perps see no reason to admit thier sleaziness.