. . . die so stark in Bestehen sich wähnen.

This new Kerry scandal allegation just hit my ears. My first thought is that it doesn't matter, we've been through presidential candidate sex scandals before and we're beyond that now.

On the other hand, since we've been through it already, why would we want to go through it again? No matter what side of the Starr/Clinton fight you were on, you have to agree that it hamstrung the former president during his second term, making him largely innefective in office. That's arguably not good no matter what party you are from.

The Kerry news is cited as the reason Clark stepped back from endorsing Kerry and why Dean has not yet pulled out.

. . . Fast schäm' ich mich, mit ihnen zu schaffen.

i also heard on Medved's show that the new Kerry scandal arose from an investigation done by former Gore and Clark advisor Chris Lehane. i suggested earlier that Lehane's backbiting tactics would come back to haunt the Democrats, and that appears to now be the case. Although i'm skeptical whether this scandal will have legs, i'm also hopeful that it will indeed hasten them to their end.

Update: So far, outside the blogosphere, nobody but Drudge and talk radio will touch this story yet.

Update 2: It's simply hilarious how the old media refuses to mention this story. Do they really think they can ignore the blogosphere? Their arrogance is amazing.

On CNN, Aaron Brown went through tomorrow's newspaper front pages from around the world. He skipped the National Enquirer's, of course, even though i seem to remember him holding up the Weekly World News in the past.

It's not that CNN is reluctant to go with the story because they don't want to publish unconfirmed scurrilous rumors. No, it can't be that, because while i was watching and waiting for someone to mention the Kerry story, i saw them promote an upcoming interview segment dealing with the scurrilous and unsubstantiated rumor that Bush paid for some chick's abortion.

It reminds me of how the L.A. Times published every thin rumor they could about Schwarzenegger, while ignoring the story about Davis's physical and verbal abuse of his female staffers. It all depends on who's side the subject of the rumor is on.

Lou Dobbs pointed to the following curiously timed poll question for tonight's audience: "Do you believe that personal and private matters should be left entirely out of presidential politics?" ("No" is winning by almost two to one.) It's interesting that this sort of subtle push poll question would come out tonight.

Even Bill O'Reilly wouldn't discuss the story, although he made mention of certain "rumors circulating on the internet," in order to instruct his guest not to talk about them. Well, we all know how Bill feels about the blogosphere. His Talking Points was a plea to leave the past alone in presidential campaigning. Presumably, that would leave Bill open to talk about Kerry's present affair, if and when he and the rest of the old media deign to pronounce the subject "newsworthy."

Update 3: Question to the old media: If we don't deserve to know about Kerry's sexual habits because it's just about sex and it's irrelevant, then why the 24 hour wall to wall coverage of Janet's boob? Last i heard, Janet was not trying to be elected leader of the free world.

Posted by: annika at 01:50 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.