Coming soon, the National Enquirer will publish a story about an affair including Palin and her husband's business partner. The McCain camp has already issued a statement about it, and the National Enquirer responds as follows:
"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."
So, if it's true, and of course that's a big if, why would you accept McCain's offer with a skeleton THAT big in your closet?
5 comments:
This just gets better and better. And Democrat that I am, I can't say how VERY pleased I am about it all.
I just realized last night that I've have a low seething anger against the Republicans ever since Newtie ran for his first term in the House-against a woman of whom he said, and I'm quoting from memory here, her place is in the kitchen. And the poor fuckwits in my district voted him into office, thus leading to The Contract on (With) America, Reagan, Bush I and II, and now McCain and Palin, Iraq II, and the rest of the mess that Bushie has caused for the past 7 years.
My husband said to me last night, when was the last time your candidate won. I said, 1988. This should tell you I never voted for GWB. He said, you're gonna lose again this year. I said, yep, the prospects look grim. Bush never should have won in 2000, and not just because of Florida. Gore should have beaten him by a country mile, but folks were angry at Clinton. Even some (gasp) Democrats were mad at Clinton or Bush wouldn't have won. You may not agree with this assessment, but I have come to think if Clinton had been a more standup guy, Gore would have been president. And we would have been spared Bush. I don't have a seething anger against Democrats, just Clinton. He made comments during the primary campaign that were irresponsible at best- right up to just before the convention when he made his comment about who could deliver. It isn't just Republicans who can be idiots and shoot their mouths off when they should be quiet. Bill finally came around and gave a gracious speech for two reasons I think. Someone probably took him to the woodshed and brought him back to earth,, and two, he wanted a big audience and adulation again which speaking at the convention could give him. Otherwise he was gonna be cut dead out of the whole deal. I am just gonna be very interested to see how engaged the Clintons are in Obama's campaign. Bush was a backlash against Clinton just like Obama is gonna trounce McCain because of Bush. Hey, you all should know by now I am first and foremost a contrarian.
I agree that with Clinton's help, Gore would have beaten Bush, but as I recall, the Gore campaign went to great lengths to keep him away, probably assuming that throwing red meat (Clinton) to the R's was just to big a chance to take. This is how the D's loose. On the other hand, Clinton didn't exactly shine during Hillary's campaign and I was very disappointed in his remarks on several occasions. As for the Clinton's involvement in Obama's campaign, I dunno-faint praise is sometimes worse than effusive comments and with those two it's sometimes hard to predict what they'll say. However, I do think, if elected and has the chance for Obama to appoint Hillary to the Supremes would be grand-can't you just see those confirmation hearings? Unless the D's have a large majority, it should compare with the horror of Clarence Thomas'-shades of Whitewater, Rose Law Firm billings and the R's fav. pin-up-Monica!
After listening to Palin's speech last night-not much of it I admit, I can only wonder-what in god's name was McCain thinking? Her state record in Alaska just isn't something to be especially proud of if you dig deeply enough into the record and governing a state with the population less than that of Atlanta doesn't prove much, I don't think. Heck, we've got a Republican governor of our state and he sure can't figure out what to do.
It's gonna be a tough year for me. Again. The libertarians have that idjet Bob Barr who was an embarrassment as a Republican, I won't vote for Obama, Palin is too far right for me, I think that Paul fellow might be running as an independent, I don't know who is the candidate for the Green party. Hillary was the only one I could say I would support, and that was because of her position on providing health insurance for everyone. Obama and McCain are neither one up to speed on this issue which is most pressing on my list of priorities. I think my losing streak is gonna keep on :).
If the Libertarians had anyone, anyone else at the top of their ticket, I'd be inclined to vote for him/her. But Bob Barr? Along with Newtie, I'm afraid my state inflicted Barr on the country-I mean, who can forget how he dropped divorce papers on his wife while she was in the hospital after treatment for cancer? Apparently, everyone else. And the way he and Newt went after Clinton during the impeachment mess while their OWN actions were at least as bad as his..can we say hypocrites? Yes, I think we can. I suppose that all politicians think the American people have a memory similar to a gnat's. All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with all the parties. Bring on Ron Paul!
Post a Comment