John Kerry: A Bullet or a Bubble?

Remove all ads!

[checking Drudge report...]

Good heavens - who in their right mind would cheat on a wife with $350 MILLION?!? My plutocratic instincts tell me that this is a false rumor...no sensible man would gamble that much money on an affair.

But Ms. Kerry, if you dump him - I'm available!

Actually, come to think of it, now that Massachusetts has redefined marriage to include homosexual couplings, maybe the state will be the pioneer to redefine marriage to include the occasional adultery. Call it "marriage-plus".

 

The word so far is, this relationship, if it did occur, happened when Kerry was still single. Hence, no infidelity. People may still play the "intern" card here, but so far the story is pretty unfounded. Drudge isn't exactly known for his journalistic integrity. But unfortunately the damage is probably already done...

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

 

Well, actually DR, according to the newspaper article linked by Andrew Sullivan, it was alleged to occur in 1998 - while married to Heinz.

I'm also going to rib you a bit here, so, be prepared. Since you're quoting Andrew Sullivan, I'll quote this part as well:

Maybe we should combine this thread with the one on Bush's military service?

Edit - FYI for others, Lehane who is referred to by Sullivan is Clark's campaign manager and was fired by John Kerry.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear Laches - my first paragraph wasn't in reference to what I quoted below, but rather things I'd read in other places today but didn't feel like linking to. I quoted that because I thought it was interesting to the story. And thanks again for turning me on to Sullivan, by the way.

We'll see how this plays out in the next few days. My feeling is by tomorrow this story will be everywhere. Any hopes of this going unnoticed on Drudge were shattered when Hannity spent his entire 3-hour radio show discussing it tonight.

The Kerry camp says they're prepared for this revelation and are confident they can handle it. I hope they're right. We'll see.

 

I heard Kerry on Imus this morning saying it wasn't true. Period.

Regarding the origin of this story, it appears to come from Wesley Clark, not the Republicans.

 

Somehow I doubt it was really Wes Clark. If Kerry were about to "implode," and he knew it, why drop out of the race the day before? Why is he going to endorse Kerry later today? If Clark really did say it, either he's incredibly reckless or devilishly clever and has some kind of vicious agenda here...but I'm not about to toss in a conspiracy theory (I don't think there is one).

Since no mainstream news outlet is jumping on this story, I just have one thing to say:

Consider the source.

Another good article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/02/13/drudge/

[ February 13, 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Kerry needs to stick to his policy guns and (taking a trick from the Bush repertoire) leave the mud-slinging to underlings. When you consider the fact that Bush has mortgaged the country for at least the next two generations, wages preemptive war based on bad intelligence, sends troops to fight while cutting their pay, leaks NOC operatives' identities for alleged political disloyalty, and thinks it's feasible to have two wars, a lagging economy, massive tax cuts and a moon base all at the same time...I mean, let's face it, Bush is vulnerable.

Kerry has his work cut out for him, certainly. But he's since backed away from disparaging Bush's military record. (Thankfully the media has picked up the slack on that one.) And I don't think the administration is going to fool the American electorate again with its weapons of mass distraction.

I like Kerry in this race, though I admit that may be wishful thinking.

 

@DR

Because Clark doesn't stand a chance. He never did. He's the Clintons' stooge. In there to stir it up for them.

The theory that I have heard floated is that if Hillary wants to run in 2008, she needs Bush to win in 2004. (Do I need to explain why?)
Weakening Kerry furthers that agenda.

@Gonzaga

Kerry seems to be wise enough to stay above the slinging and let others do it. On Imus this morning, he was asked about both the Jane Fonda picture and the Bush National Guard "scandal". He refused to comment on both. Very wise.

Kerry is quite vulnerable. He doesn't need this "sex scandal".

I just want my country to have a real leader. For many reasons, I don't think that is Kerry or Bush.

 

Yeah Jack, I heard that theory too. From Hannity and Rush. It may be true, and I may be really naive. After all, I don't think of Hillery in the kind of devilishly ambitious terms that many seem too, but again - I am a youngun'. I guess we'll have to see.

Very well said, and I agree. Kerry isn't my first choice. Among the candidates, yes. But I feel so strongly about the damage the current administration has done that anyone else is a step in a better direction, IMO. And I mean ANYONE.

Sometimes I can't help but fantasize about a McCain White House. And who knows where we'd be today if all those mysterious "How do you feel about McCain's black baby?" phone calls had never been made during the 2000 campaign...

 

No, I pity the country because there may be four more years like the last four. And if you think that's a good thing, then I want some of the same stuff that you've been smoking.

And I thought this was going to be a serious debate, considering how much Bush has spent, and the conditions of things here in Texas.

 

Well..the affair rumors have been disproved. The woman herself has denied them and get this...she never even worked as a John Kerry intern. Even more disgusting, the right-wing was saying that her father had told a reporter how much of a "creep" he thought John Kerry was for chasing around and "stalking" his 24 year old daughter. The parents have phoned the legitimate press to absolutely deny any such statements or rumors.

I get the feeling this election is going to hit new lows.

 

It was Clark:

Boston Globe editorial (Thomas Oliphant no less)

 

Kerry has widened his lead in the polls. That is a little bit of a surprise, since the republicans have been fighting back pretty hard. I've seen quite a bit of them on TV lately, especially on the cable news channels, doing a lot of damage control. They might need some help from somewhere. Maybe they need to stage one of their trademark TV extravaganzas.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-18-poll_x.htm

 

Hearing the rants of Clinton conspiracy theorists never gets old.