Sound Politics Public Blog: The Buzz is: Is Hillary going to be outed soon or will the vast left wing conspirators protect her?

November 01, 2007

The Buzz is: Is Hillary going to be outed soon or will the vast left wing conspirators protect her?

Remember all of those rumors of Hill's sexual orientation we used to hear about during the Clinton occupation? Well, they maybe coming home to roost if the LA Times actually behaves like the neutral reporters they claim to be!

Apparently, the Times is sitting on a story that will prove Hillary's lust for the ladies. Right now the Times is claiming that they find themselves in a moral (?) dilemma. They are wondering how they will look if they were to print what they know to be factual. Isn't that interesting? Reporting the facts! Hmm, what a concept.

Aahh, heck! What does it matter if Hill gets outed by a gay sex scandal? The Modern Progressives don't care about that. It's only scandalous if you're a Republican gay, so the Times have nothing to concern their empty heads about!

To read more on what could possibly be, or rather I hope to be, the biggest story in a long time click here

Posted by TracyOetting at November 01, 2007 12:44 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Tracy, while I shudder thinking what this country may become if it elects Hillary I really don't think it's neccesary to resort to ad hominem attacks. That's what the left does. We're above that and when we engage in speculation with little proof about something that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (Hillary does enough evil that I could care less whether she's gay or not and most on the left REALLY don't care). Let's focus on the issues.

Posted by: WarmFuzzyPuppies on November 1, 2007 08:57 AM

2. Family life has been made an issue by Frank Rich and others of the liberal left when they attacked Rudy.

HRC claims her marriage to the slicker is great.

This next year, she is going to play the Stand By Her Man theme as she woos the female vote. She is good at it.

If this is true, it will add the twist that she, too, has been unfaithful.

Should it be a campaign issue? No, and in that, I agree. However, it is.

And Tracy, how can you fault Clinton for falling for that babe? She is gorgeous. Thanks for the article. I have been reading all the hubbub and couldn't figure it out. Reporting on it seems pretty innocuous and shouldn't have much effect on the outcome of the primary, but would bring out in the open the TRUTH of the Clinton mystique.

Posted by: swatter on November 1, 2007 09:37 AM

3. I"ve never put too much stock in the rumors about Hillary because I hadn't seen any proof. But if it's true, then the public has a right to know about it. The public has a right to know about pretty much anything about someone who wants to be president. Thus, all the grilling of candidates who want to put themselves out there.

Posted by: Michele on November 1, 2007 01:31 PM

4. Say what you will about our right to know absolutely everything about presidential candidates/presidents but I think the nation was a lot better off when the media didn't flood the front page with JFK's affairs with Marilyn and everyone else.

Posted by: WarmFuzzyPuppies on November 2, 2007 09:55 AM

5. You are so right, WFP.

But what if the big scoop ain't this one? This has been around since way before last March. And it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, except she claims she has this wonderful marriage to Slick.

Posted by: swatter on November 2, 2007 01:48 PM

6. Why should anyone believe anything Hillary says during her campaign ? First off, she purposely makes it difficult to pin her down on a stand - anything but courage. Then if things don't go her way, she plays the victim role. I'd put money on her being bisexual...

Posted by: KS on November 2, 2007 06:18 PM

7. Depends on what the definition of is is.

Posted by: KS on November 2, 2007 06:20 PM

8. This whole thread is sickening.

Posted by: SeattleR on November 4, 2007 12:57 PM

9. Sorry, chump, but when this stuff subs as political discourse and people thrive on the salacious details of the 'celebrity', the details of one Clinton is fair game. And why, if it is okay for liberals to go after the foibles of the Rs, why isn't it the same vice-versa?

There is a hypocrisy there and it starts, ends and continues with one Clinton who claims to be something she is not.

Posted by: swatter on November 5, 2007 08:32 AM

10. It does matter what kind of characters these candidates possess. It does matter if they are on their fifth marriage, if their children hate them, if they've gone belly up. It does matter! It matters because they represent our Nation thus they represent you and me!

As far as Hillary is concerned her private business IS NOT her own business if she is elected president of this country.

It certainly mattered to the Dems when Gary Hart was outed for his adultery, and it matters if Hillary had sexual relations with that woman, or any other woman, and okay, if she had adulterous relations with a man!

Why is it that this stuff never matters when it's a presidential race, but it seems to matter if it was your spouse doing it?

G-d forbid!

Posted by: TracyOetting on November 5, 2007 10:13 AM

11. It's news that Hillary Rodham is a lesbian? Hmmm .. I thought that was established a long time ago.

What appears not to be news, and should be, are the ramifications of her brand of gender feminism. Underlying that is a general disdain for men and fathers. And you can see the results in actual policies and laws started during Slick's presidency. The best example is the Violence Against Women Act. The gender feminist ideology that underlies VAWA has been widely discredited. Meanwhile, the most basic Constitutional rights of men and fathers have been destroyed.

This is what you get from a lesbian that harbors such misandrist anger. That should be the real story here.

Posted by: BananaLand on November 5, 2007 02:12 PM