Comments on: L.A. Times Editor Denies Having Heard About the Sex Scandal Story — And I Believe Him

By: voiceofreason

voiceofreason — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:00:32 +0000

Patterico,

Your commenters at HA really went over the cliff on this one. “Its about Chelsea, and who is her father .. maybe Webb Hubbel” “Flower’s alleged conversation with Bill about Hillary”

Highbrow stuff like that is what makes it so easy for the Dems to portray the GOP as a bunch of goofs.

By: huey

huey — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:45:02 +0000

There are some things that I really don’t want to think about. This is one.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:56:57 +0000

Banjo, more than 90%? I would suspect it’s nearer the other way around, and at least a solid 75% don’t care if Hillary Clinton is gay or not.

It’s her stated policies and words that ensure I will never vote for her, but if I were undecided on the matter and she turned out to be gay that would enter precisely 0% into my decision.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:58:43 +0000

Matt Welch, thanks for your insight and your last comment. I believe you. My own position is if there’s significant evidence, it’s a real story and should be published. If there isn’t, then don’t.

By: nk

nk — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:52:24 +0000

I cross-posted with Matt Welch. Allow me to amend my comment #9 to whatever extent is consistent with Mr. Welch’s comment #8.

By: nk

nk — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:48:23 +0000

G. Gordon Liddy was “outing” Hillary before Al Gore invented the internets. Even if this is the story, and I believe Matt Welch that there is no such story, it ain’t got legs. No reputable news source will touch it without sworn admissions from Hillary herself … and they shouldn’t.

By: Matt Welch

Matt Welch — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:46:11 +0000

While I appreciate PCD’s skepticism (for entertainment value, mostly), those who are genuinely interested in media literacy might consider two points:

1) I do not have a dog in the hunt of whether there’s an ongoing (or quashed) investigation into some presidential candidate’s naughty bits; or even whether there’s a legitimate journalism-ethics brouhaha brewing somewhere in my building. In fact, on both counts, I lean toward hoping it’s true.

2) The only thing I’ve denied is ever hearing anything about it. It’s amusing and informative to watch this relatively comprehensible statement be misconstrued in some places as me claiming there’s “no sex scandal.” It’s entirely possible that there *is* one. But if so, “everyone” does not, in fact “know” about it.

By: Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:37:09 +0000

Banjo,
You are making assumptions on rumor only. What’s the point in getting all spun up about something that may not even be the alleged scandal in this story?
If giving one the benefit of the doubt is “lofty” I plead guilty!

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:20:49 +0000

The L.A. Times for all its many faults would never publish a piece of sheer unadulterated gossip — which is what this “scandal” meme plainly is. “Hillary is a Dyke!” is older than the proverbial hills. Unless Ms. Clinto and Ms. Abedin are working for Al Queda (there I go again, giving Drudge a “scoop”) their rleationship (if any other than professional) will not gwet past the copy desk. Meanwhile, as is screamingly obvious, the Republican party has more than enough sex scandals to deal with — all of them making the papers far and wide.

By: Banjo

Banjo — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:02:51 +0000

The lofty Voiceofreason may not care if Hillary is gay, but I expect more than 90 percent of the rest of us would consider her ineligible for the highest office in the land.