Well considering how politics are in America, I would also doubt the credibility of this.Lone_C said:I doubt anything will become of this. Drudge isn't exactly accurate on most of his 'stories.' And Hilary is not going to hop in with someone who has as much support from Dems as Kerry does.
I think you need to improve your conspiracy theory. Wouldn't it be much better for H. Clinton if the Democrats lost this election, then she could run in 2008 after Bush has had time to COMPLETELY screw everything up? :clap:Smeg Head said:You'd be suprised how many people would rather vote for Sen. Clinton than Sen. Kerry.
Only if you discount the falling approval numbers of Pres. Bush and the National Guard issue. Right now Pres. Bush looks weak enough to be defeated. And since Gen. Clark doens't do anything without the Clinton's approval first, they're pulling the strings here. Why? Because with Pres. Bush looking weak, Sen Kerry looked like he just might win. That woul dmean Sen. Clinton would have to wait until 2012 to run. By then she'll be 65. Her star would have been diminished by time. And she'll be unelectable. So with an opening, she's taking it.Oldnik said:I think you need to improve your conspiracy theory. Wouldn't it be much better for H. Clinton if the Democrats lost this election, then she could run in 2008 after Bush has had time to COMPLETELY screw everything up? :clap:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1000251,00.htmlGeneral Clark's campaign called the report "utter rubbish", and let it be known that he was expected to endorse Mr Kerry's campaign when the two men meet today.
Drudge, notorious for running gossip spurned by the mainstream media, has a mixed record. It broke the story of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but had to apologise to one of Mr Clinton's top aides for alleging that he beat his wife.
Drudge claimed that half a dozen news outlets were investigating the allegations against Mr Kerry, but most of them denied doing so last night.
Leonard Downie, executive editor of The Washington Post, mentioned by Drudge, said: "This is the first we've heard that we're working on a story that we're not working on."
A reporter with Time magazine, also cited by Drudge, said that the weekly magazine was as puzzled by the story as the rest of the world.
The mainstream media in the US has so far not reported on the claims.
Sources within the Clark campaign blamed Republican "dirty tricks", and gave warning that it was a taste of things to come. "They are just throwing mud," he said.
... and this is why, despite my strong 2nd amendment views, I'm not involved with a militia or the NRA. Too many Koresh-ish fruitcakes.Smeg Head said:mac, I've bet my avatar that she's running and I'm sticking by it.
And no, the Republicans aren't going to benefit if Sen. Clinton gets the nomination. She's the only one that would stand the slightest chance of beating him.
You have no idea how much she's hated and feared. I fear that she'd use an executive order (under the guise of fighting terrorism) to ban all guns. It'd be a civil war, and the military won't support her.
And if you think I'm being a kook, I've seen the militia propaganda. I've seen the Militia of Montana's video they released in Dec. 1995. They were ready then. And they fear Hillary more than they ever feared Pres. Clinton.
Wow, I'll have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Steve.Steve_Kow said:Hell, if I had interns, I'd be screwing them too. I wouldn't want a man in the oval office who's too much of a prude not to.
I don't see why our society treats both as being perfectly fine unless you're a politician, or why our society treats one single rumored instance of indescretion as a lifetime of lying and skullduggery.ScanMan said:First off, I don't understand why our society treats promiscuous males as "manly" and promiscuous females as "sluts".
Good thing you're not electing a husband.Second off, as a husband, I have no respect for someone who cheats on their spouse.
How do you know what vows he took?If they have this little respect for their marriage vows, how can you trust them on anything else?
I thought about not replying to this, but I just wanted to let you know I actually agree here. I'd qualify it as if Clark released it though, anyone releasing something like that is definitely of questionable character, whether the story turns out to be true or not.That aside, IF this report is true (big IF), why would Clark feel the need to release this info? I think this says as much about Clark's character as it does Kerry's.
more likely, he'll say kerry's just been able to cover it up. or the media, which "wouldn't publish a story like this if it had pictures to prove it", covered it up for him.maccool said:So, anyone think Smeg will say, 'my fault' or just sweep this under the rug? I've got a broom.