Return of the big LA Times sex scandal?

posted at 12:19 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

Depressing. The big scoop that’s going to shock the world is that the Clenis has a little somethin’ somethin’ on the side? On the shock-value seismograph, that’s like finding out a Republican congressman is gay. I’m not even sure it would help us politically.

Well … I guess it would. Hillary would play the wronged woman for awhile, which would help her with this year’s target demographic, but she couldn’t overplay it lest it feed into gender stereotypes of “weakness.” On balance it ends up hurting her for the same reason that BJ’s Iraq revisionism is hurting her this morning: It promises another four years of his same old crap. The whole point of Obama’s prattling on about “change” is to leverage voters’ Clinton fatigue; the Iraq thing plays right into his hands, as would this.

Dan Riehl notes an old Telegraph report suggesting this scoop was months in the making. Coming soon to a Democratic primary campaign commercial near you: “The audacity of monogamy”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’ll repeat my comment from the headlines here:

I have no doubt whatsoever that Bill is/has been/always will be fooling around. And, despite what people say about it not hurting Hillary because she garners sympathy for it, I think Bill’s shenanigans will hurt her if it’s proven once again that Bill is chronically unfaithful to her. It’s too easy to ask questions like:

If she can’t even control Bill, how can she control the most powerful military and economy in the world?

If she can’t even inspire her own husband’s love and respect, why does she deserve ours?

If even her own husband doesn’t choose her, why should we?

If she’s willing to be repeatedly walked on and abused and neglected and betrayed by her husband, how can she possibly be a strong president?

If she’s willing to accept outright betrayal by the person closest to her in the world, what will she be willing to take from other world leaders?

Too easy. Of course, the comments at HuffPo show that many, many Hillary supporters are completely willing to overlook such implications. They just firmly plant their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut, and chant, “Lalalala not listening not listening not listening.”

aero on November 28, 2007 at 11:51 AM

aero on November 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Well … I guess it would. Hillary would play the wronged woman for awhile, which would help her with this year’s target demographic, but she couldn’t overplay it lest it feed into gender stereotypes of “weakness.”

You’ve got to think there’s a tipping point on this one where women are just going to wonder why, if her husband keeps doing this, Hillary Clinton sticks with him. Eventually, that highlights her naked ambition above all else, and that hurts her.

I think, anyway. Clintonian politics are a topsy-turvy sort of thing.

Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM

“The audacity of monogamy”?

Lol, nice line.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Allahpundit for the love of Christopher Hitchens surely you are brighter than this…If Norman Hsu and Peter Paul haven’t hurt slowed the progress of the glacier how in the name of Christopher Hitchens is something as unimportant as Clenis marital indiscretions going to have any impact at all? Remember his past were viewed by the democrats as a virtue, surly they will again be viewed thusly..

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 12:27 PM

how in the name of Christopher Hitchens is something as unimportant as Clenis marital indiscretions going to have any impact at all?

Simple: The Hsu and Paul scandals are too complicated for people to follow day to day. What was it that got Billy Jeff impeached?

People don’t want another round of Clinton drama circa 1998. To the extent that it looks they’re in store for it, Obama benefits.

Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I don’t get it. 2 days ago drudge went with the “Hillary’s a lesbian” thing from UK Times and the ENTIRE MSM and Blogosphere went DEAF and BLIND.

“did you hear anything about Hillary?” “who me, hel* no. You?” “no no nothing here” “what Hillary” “hel*, who’s Hillary? don’t know no Hillary.”

NOW EVERYBODY sees this headline. What up with the conspiracy of silence?

Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Oh, yeah–and then there’s “If she has such poor judgment as to choose this lying philanderer as her life partner and then continues to display poor judgment by standing by him after repeated offenses, why would we want a person with such poor judgment as president? What other poor decisions and bad policies will she stubbornly and/or ignorantly stand by?” Or, “If she’s so easy to fool, wouldn’t she make a colossally bad president?”

The questions go on and on. I think Bill’s fooling around can really hurt Hillary’s “strong woman” image. Of course, it depends on the MSM asking such questions, or even just giving critics a little air time to ask such questions, which I suppose is unlikely to happen. But even some diehard Dems at HuffPo are already asking similar questions, so maybe the story could gain some traction. If it does, it will hurt her, not help her.

aero on November 28, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I’ll believe the “Clinton fatigue” crap when I see it. Heads she wins, tails we lose.

Your daily pessimism brought to you by….

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Wow. My crystal ball is usually pretty hazy, but I pegged this one on Oct 31 at 10 am (from the ‘shock the world’ link). Admittedly, it wasn’t much of a stretch. In fact, probably even odds.

Matticus Finch on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM

What up with the conspiracy of silence?

No conspiracy, just didn’t think it was fair to hit Hillary with something like that when she has no proven record of it. The rumors around Clinton are eternal, as you can see from the Telegraph piece.

Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I think that’s the way it should be Allah. But it seems that ugly rumors only git ignored if they’re about the Democrats. You know the one that’s all over the place today.

Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Oh great,so when I’m surfing the news channel’s,
the Liberal babe achorette’s will have that little
smirk on their faces!

canopfor on November 28, 2007 at 12:42 PM

But it seems that ugly rumors only git ignored if they’re about the Democrats.

You mean the one about Lott? Yeah, the left loves itself a good sex smear. Oh well.

Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM

But it seems that ugly rumors only git ignored if they’re about the Democrats.

You didn’t see the Trent Lott-man love story here either.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM

What would Oprah say?

Kini on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I’ll believe the “Clinton fatigue” crap when I see it. Heads she wins, tails we lose.

Amen. To add my bleak 2 cents, I think there is a sizeable portion of the electorate that enjoys these little drama’s between Glacier and the Clenis; I think a lot of women want to be one of his groupies and a lot of the men wish they could live their lives like him, ie. screw anything that moves and your wife stays with you. We’re going to be stuck with this pair and it’s going to be 10 times worse than when he was President.

austinnelly on November 28, 2007 at 12:45 PM

The Johnny Appleseed of adultery.

This makes his wife look like a big loser as far as relationships, and reminds his following that he’s a man-whore.

Nothing new here.

Hening on November 28, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Return of the big LA Times sex scandal?

Quote of the day: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The country WON’T care.

Limerick on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Simple: The Hsu and Paul scandals are too complicated for people to follow day to day. What was it that got Billy Jeff impeached?

People don’t want another round of Clinton drama circa 1998. To the extent that it looks they’re in store for it, Obama benefits.

Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 12:30 PM

ROTFLMAO……….Yer killing me AP…The democrats still havent forgiven the entire rest of the country for being offended that Clenis was a serial rapist who abused his power as POTUS to cloak himself from criminal prosecution for multiple acts of sexual misconduct and for committing perjury jury tampering and obstruction of justice.

The only people who will be affected by Clenis’ indiscretions are those who already have no intention of voting for the Anti-Christ herself.

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM

austinnelly on November 28, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Yep. Watching American politics during a Hillary presidency will be like daytime TV on steroids. People love that juicy scandalous crap.

aero on November 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I wonder if he is intentionally trying to submarine her…

TheBigOldDog on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Isn’t it interesting, that back when the Clintons were in the White House… Whitehouse.com was a Porno site?

Now its about politics…

If Bill’s back in… will it revert?

Romeo13 on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM

one concern I have is that the shenanigans of the American Caligula is something many Americans MISS. (oh, hey, not me.) Lies, corruption, deviance both proven and hinted at…they’re like our own Royal Family.

It throws us back to a simpler time, the Holiday from History where we were endlessly entertained by our slick-talking, pants-dropping, intern-shtupping, finger-wagging, “sin”-confessing Drama Queens in Chief.

Unserious leaders for an unserious party, the perfect executive branch complements to Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi. Building a bridge to the 17th century of palace intrigue.

sulla on November 28, 2007 at 12:51 PM

I wonder if he is intentionally trying to submarine her…

TheBigOldDog on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM

I’ll bite. Why?

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

….Clinton fatigue

The gift that keeps on giving.

I agree with AP. Obama should be playing the “Do we really want another 4 years of this” card to the hilt. What surprises me is he hasn’t done it in a big way yet.

Everytime Hillary attacks him he should be screaming “So much for the politics of kindness”, or whatever tag line Hill’s camp uses when she gets attacked.

Alot of folks I talk to, even most Democrats, are just tired of the same old, same old and are afraid Hill and Bill will renew the 90′s bickering all over again.

As such, the fatigue factor could possibly play a big part in Hillary’s support or lack thereof. Especially if Billy-Boy keeps himself front and center the next few months.

BacaDog on November 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

I thought the Clintoon was cured of his addiction to sex.

I think it needs to be appended. He was cured of his addiction to sex with Hillary. About 20 years ago.

Nethicus on November 28, 2007 at 1:05 PM

I wonder if he is intentionally trying to submarine her…

TheBigOldDog on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM

I’ll bite. Why?

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Because she might upstage him in the history books?

aero on November 28, 2007 at 1:08 PM

This Bill Robinson piece is an attempt at the old “move along nothing to see here” tripe.
It’s not Mr. Robinson place to decide what is or isn’t relevant. Give the voters the information and let them decide. His fear is that most will conclude that 8 years of the Bill and Hilary freak show is quite enough.

RMR on November 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I’ll bite. Why?

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Because at heart he is a competitive politician who would really rather not share the glory of having once been POTUS with his wife…

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 1:17 PM

aero on November 28, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Interesting. He’s certainly upstaging her on the campaign trail; whether or not that’s what she intended for him to do is not yet clear. Maybe she’s hoping for a shadow presidency; she is president in name, and she puts this grinning baboon out to baby talk her horrible policies into terms that won’t send the masses screaming into the night.
He’s always been the better liked of the two; if she didn’t have his name, she wouldn’t even be in the race. Ugly marxists with horrible personalities only become famous when they kill a bunch of people in the name of revolutions; they get put on t-shirts, not elected President. Maybe she wants to fool the electorate by putting him out front; ignore the dumpy woman in the pantsuit that looks like she swallowed a horseapple sandwich; just watch the happy old guy groping the secretary in the front row. He’s your leader.

austinnelly on November 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM

What concerns me is that this story has nothing to do with Hillary, her policy positions, her record, or her presidential potential. The “big story” everyone is sitting on apparently has to do with the many current affairs of Bill Clinton, whom, they will allege, has a gal in every port.

She has no policy positions or record or presidential potential. How would it be possible for any story to have anything to do with these non-existent fatasms?

peski on November 28, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Ron Fournier via Drudge. Funny stuff.

In the next 10 minutes, he used the word “I” a total of 94 times and mentioned “Hillary” just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife’s candidacy.

He told the crowd where he bought coffee that morning and where he ate breakfast.

He detailed his Thanksgiving Day guest list, and menu.

He defended his record as president, rewriting history along the way.

And he explained why his endorsement of a certain senator from New York should matter to people.

“I know what it takes to be president,” he said, “and because of the life I’ve led since I’ve left office.”

I, me and my. Oh, my.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

thegreatbeast on November 28, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

He may not want to play second fiddle to her.

He may like his life right now and not want to climb back into the fishbowl.

Could be any number of reasons. It seems like he;s trying to undermine her to me. Say what you will, but he is no fool so I have to believe he knows exactly what he’s doing.

TheBigOldDog on November 28, 2007 at 1:43 PM

The Johnny Appleseed of adultery.

Hening on November 28, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Unbidden ‘seed-spreading’ mental image noted with much disgust.

James on November 28, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Of course, like the Writers Guild strike, I blame the whole thing on Ronald Reagan de-regulating everything, but that’s another blog.

Bill Robinson had to find someone to blame all of this on – I guess he thought Bush had been blamed enough, so why not Reagan.

Rick on November 28, 2007 at 3:17 PM

I said it in the Headlines, and I’ll say it here: if Hillary is really having a lez affair with her top aide Huma Abedin as rumored, I pledge to vote for her. That chick is smoking hot.

RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 4:39 PM