John Kerry (Will the Dems please stop haivng sex with interns!)

[Dooby]

Since the other Kerry topic got derailed, I thought today's story deserved its own thread.

[quote]
frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

MORE

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]

The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.Q]

[u2sarajevo]

Another vast Right Wing conspiracy?

[madape]

Marrying millionaires and bangin' floozies. I guess Kerry gets the best of both worlds.

We can't really be considering letting this scum run our country...can we?

[Dooby]

Sure. Another vast rightwing conspiracy.

For those that don't recall, here is how the Lewinsky story broke. A writer at Newsweek got the story, researched it and wrote it. He took it to his editors and they said, "No way." Even though it was true, their position was that they would not put their neck on the line to break the story. So what they did was leak it to Drudge who ran it-not the story but the story that Newsweek would not run the story. And then the Enquirer ran the story. And then Newsweek ran it and cited the Drudge report running the story citing them.

No one thinks Drudge makes this stuff up. He just runs stuff he is given. This is the real deal.

[madape]

It really doesn't matter where this story came from. If it is true, and it is something that people would want to know about, then it should be reported. We know people would want to know about this... the only question is whether it is true or not. If it is, I you can pretty much count Kerry out. But Kerry was a questionable character to begin with. He was a turd and Drudge just flushed the toilet.

[Dooby]

Kerry will be knocked off message for a least a week. All momentum has stalled. He only has 1/4 of the delegates needed to win. He can be caught.

[MavKikiNYC]

Kerry has to think that he can withstand this, manage this story well enough to survive as a candidate. Surely, surely he didn't think that this story would stay buried. That would be lethally bad judgment.

And if Clalk knew that this story would break, why did he withdraw?

[Dooby]

Clark had no traction, no money, no victories and no support. Clark was going to get beat by Kerry or Edwards or Dean either way.

[MavKikiNYC]

I await with breathless.......anticipaton ...Kerry's next pronouncements on the definition of and sanctity of marriage.

[madape]

Originally posted by: Dooby
Kerry will be knocked off message for a least a week. All momentum has stalled. He only has 1/4 of the delegates needed to win. He can be caught.

And just because he might have the right number of delegates doesn't mean the party will nominate him. Remember Torricelli from New Jersey? He was on the freakin' ballot already before the dems yanked him off.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
I await with breathless.......anticipaton ...Kerry's next pronouncements on the definition of and sanctity of marriage.

Excellent point. This does make his history of nonsupport for the sanctity of marriage standout even more. Likely to show where a corrupt view of marriage leads us.

[sturm und drang]

"Corrupt view of marriage"?

Since Mr. Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, I'm a tad confused as to what you're referring to.

It's just common courtesy to do your homework before you blindly bash someone, Jacktruth.

[madape]

It looks like this rumor came from the DEMOCRATS.

FROM CONRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD: 'Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time -- it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice -- their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time -- and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it'...

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
"Corrupt view of marriage"?

Since Mr. Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, I'm a tad confused as to what you're referring to.

It's just common courtesy to do your homework before you blindly bash someone, Jacktruth.

For the record, if Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, it is a recent developement. In 2002, he was a signatory on a letter to the Massachusettes legislature supporting gay "marriage". Not passing judgment on the position, just stating the facts. This is what Ape is referring to.

[sturm und drang]

It wasn't Ape who said it, it was Jacktruth.

And Kerry is definitely opposed to gay marriage; he has said so repeatedly and verbatim. Check out hrc.org for links to the various and sundry times he has proclaimed that stance this year.

Kucinich was the only mainstream - debatable choice of words there - Democratic candidate who supported gay marriage.

Let's not sully the discussion of Kerry's supposed infidelities by trying to draw some contrived connection with his stance on gay marriage. Red herring.

[Dooby]

I posted a link to an article that discusses his previous support for gay marriage as recent as 2002. Now, when he runs for President, he is opposed to it. I am just pointing it out. It is called "inconsistency."

And if someone wants to make the argument that a person with no respect for his own marriage vows should have no business commenting on the sanctity of marriage at all, then it seems relevant to me.

[madape]

For the record, it was jacktruth who called Kerry's view on gay marriage "corrupt".

But the truth is that no one can tell on which side of ANY issue Kerry stands. One day he votes for gay marriage, the next day against it. One day he supports regime change in Iraq, the next day he decries it. His opinions drift wherever the winds of the day takes him. He's a classic poll-watching, opportunistic democrat. He has no conviction, no moral guide, no leadership ability. He's proving himself to be more and more like Clinton every day. Too bad he's not nearly as good looking as big Bill, or else I think he actually might have a chance oif winning this election. But the sad news for Dems this year is that there is no way the tabloid-reading supermarket moms who propelled Clinton into office for eight years going to vote for this buzzard-looking bastard.

[MavKikiNYC]

Let's not sully the discussion of Kerry's supposed infidelities by trying to draw some contrived connection with his stance on gay marriage. Red herring.

I brought the point up, S&D, because, IMO, it reflects a hypocritical political opportunism on Kerry's part. Apparently I've heard/seen the same interviews that you have where Kerry states his opinion that "marriage" should be defined as between a man and a woman-- he may have to rethink this to include interns.

The revelation of his alleged infidelities doesn't directly support the case for same sex marriage, but it does highlight the hypocrisy of those who, on the one hand, give lip service (no pun intended) to the sanctity of marriage argument, while on the other hand (again no pun intended) practice to a rather different personal standard.

I think that things would actually have been worse for supporters of same-sex marriage had Kerry been a supporter, and then had these issues come to light. As it stands, it just highlights the hypocrisy between those who would deny same sex partners the right to marry, and then violate the sanctity of the institution themselves.

[sturm und drang]

And if someone wants to make the argument that a person with no respect for his own marriage vows should have no business commenting on the sanctity of marriage at all, then it seems relevant to me.

Ah, but we're muddying the waters here, aren't we? Just because his marriage has not been perfect doesn't mean his opinion of who should be able to marry isn't relevant.

By that token, Bush's opinion of anti-drug and -alcohol laws and legislation is moot because he once had a problem with both. Now I dislike Bush as much as anyone, but I'm not about to say that his struggles on that front invalidate his political opinion in related matters.

It will be interesting to see how these rumours, if true, play out. Schwarzenegger - remember, degrading behaviour is bipartisan! - admitted to harrassing a bevy of women throughout his career, and California collectively shrugged its shoulders.

[Evilmav2]

And Kerry is definitely opposed to gay marriage; he has said so repeatedly and verbatim. Check out hrc.org for links to the various and sundry times he has proclaimed that stance this year.

I don't know if it is completely accurate to say that Kerry is "definitely opposed to gay marriage". From what I have read, it sounds like his position on the issue is a bit more ambivalent than that...

John Kerry has gone on the record as saying, "I have the same position that Vice President Dick Cheney has", but that sound bite is a little bit misleading. I imagine that most folks would imagine that Cheney would be firmly opposed to the extension of marriage rights to gay couples, but Kerry is actually referring to a statement that Cheney made back in 2000 saying that the issue of rights for gay couples (an issue that hits close to home, since Cheney's daughter is an open lesbian) should be, "decided by the states. I [Cheney] think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate.".

Although Cheney has since restated his position as being one of unconditional support for whatever position the president takes, Kerry's misleading statement clearly refers to Cheney's earlier held position. That is to say, that Kerry holds to the belief that the issue of same-sex marriage should be conferred or not conferred on a state by state basis, much as it has been in his home state of Massachusetts.

He may be tap-dancing right now, trying to keep this issue from blowing up in his face now or during the Boston Dem convention, but his past record on this subject clearly shows that he is not, and has never been a firm opponent of the legitimization of non-traditional marriage. Not only has he recently equivocated and flip-flopped in his public statements referring to this issue, but back in 1996 Kerry was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law, signed by Bill Clinton, that obstructs the automatic extension of Kerry's home state's embrace of gay marriage throughout the Union.

Kerry may be trying to side-step this landmine of a home-state political issue, but I think that regardless of what flip-flopping statements he has recently made in trying to distance himself from the issue of gay marriage in MA, his past voting record and publicly held stances on the issue show him to be a less than firm foe to an extended definition of marriage rights...

[Dooby]

That is a very bizaare correlation. Filled with so much cocktail party logic that it requires a response.

Someone with a <u>current</u> marriage infidelity problem should not be moralizing on the sanctity of marriage. And that is what opposing gay marriage is (if you believe the rhetoric)-preservation of the sanctity of marriage. Again I am not stating a position on the issue.

Someone with a past (more than 10 years sober) alcohol problem (the drug thing is nothing more than conjecture), has every right and equal moral authority to discuss the evils of alcohol, arguably more so because of his first hand experience. To use that logic, a former smoker can never tell someone not to smoke; a recovering alcoholic can never tell someone not to drink; a former drug user can never tell someone not to do drugs.

I like how the Bush haters continue to latch onto the drug and the AWOL issues. Bush was opposed by extermely negative and well-funded campaigns in both 1994 and 2000. Despite the best efforts of an "unbeatable" Ann Richards and Al Gore, none of those allegations were ever substantiated. At some point, there is just nothing there. It really is like the nuts that still think there is something to the Vince Foster suicide. At some point, you just have to let it go.

[sturm und drang]

Per Evil's post, I think semantics are at the root of the misunderstanding here.

Kerry has always supported the notion of same-sex unions (separate but unequal) decided on a state-by-state basis. He has, to my knowledge, always been opposed to gay marriage. From what I've read, Kunicich is the only Dem who has come out (no pun intended) in favor of marriage for homosexuals.

To Kiki's point, I think Kerry's reputed infidelity, if true, actually helps the same-sex cause. I totally agree with your synopsis.

[sturm und drang]

Originally posted by: Dooby
That is a very bizaare correlation. Filled with so much cocktail party logic that it requires a response.

Someone with a <u>current</u> marriage infidelity problem should not be moralizing on the sanctity of marriage. And that is what opposing gay marriage is (if you believe the rhetoric)-preservation of the sanctity of marriage. Again I am not stating a position on the issue.

First of all, do we know the problem is current? If that's true, I was unaware. I'm waiting, as I'm sure we all are, on news sites to pick up the news and detail further.

The point I was trying to make is that infidelity does not invalidate your opinion. As you know, Kerry is opposed to gay marriages. Personally, I disagree with him. However, his opinion of the matter is still legitimate. And his support of the "sanctity of marriage" - vis-a-vis his own personal issues - forces one to really question the exclusion of an entire group of people on those grounds. Hypocricy abounds when it comes to this issue, don't you think?

And isn't the very point of politics to never, ever let something drop? Look at all the Hanoi Jane pictures of Kerry they've been dredging up! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Per Evil's post, I think semantics are at the root of the misunderstanding here.

Kerry has always supported the notion of same-sex unions (separate but unequal) decided on a state-by-state basis. He has, to my knowledge, always been opposed to gay marriage. From what I've read, Kunicich is the only Dem who has come out (no pun intended) in favor of marriage for homosexuals.

To Kiki's point, I think Kerry's reputed infidelity, if true, actually helps the same-sex cause. I totally agree with your synopsis.

Kerry's non-position position on same-sex unions is identical to the stated position of about every single politician that is anti-abortion. For example, using your language and replacing the words "same-sex unions" and "gay marriage" with the word "abortion", you have the following: "[Senator X] has always supported the notion of [abortion] decided on a state-by-state basis. He has, to my knowledge, always been opposed to [abortion]."&lt;-that was the law pre-Roe v. Wade.

And the pro-abortion groups would absolutely crucify any politician that held that position.

As a democrat, to argue a federalist/states rights position on any subject is tantamount to opposing the Democratic party line, except on this one issue (regardless of the fact that same-sex unions and gay marriage are fundamentally different because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution). I, months ago wrote a long post on why this is the case. Regardless, to argue for states rights on civil unions is to support civil unions. To argue for states rights on abortion issues is to be opposed to abortion.

[madape]

If I were John Kerry, losing the election would be the last thing I'd be worried about.

Check out what his wife claims she'll do to him if he's caught cheating...



Her views on marital fidelity: "I don't think I could have coped so well" with a mate's philandering as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has. "I used to say to my husband, my late husband, 'If you ever get something I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you.' "

[FishForLunch]

Ok guys calm down there isnt a snowballs chance in hell this story will every hit ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCPBS. Like all other uncomfortable stories to the left it will be burried or spun around to implicate dirty tricks by the Bush Administration.

Another prediction Mrs.Ketchup will stand by her man.

[madape]

This is from John Kerry's Website..

It's never too early to change the world -- women interns are our future!

[madape]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Ok guys calm down there isnt a snowballs chance in hell this story will every hit ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCPBS. Like all other uncomfortable stories to the left it will be burried or spun around to implicate dirty tricks by the Bush Administration.

Another prediction Mrs.Ketchup will stand by her man.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Here's a link to where this story is being covered by the WALL STREET JOURNAL

[Usually Lurkin]

Sturm, I need some clarification. Are you saying that Kerry's violation of his marriage vows should not affect people's acceptance of Kerry's views, but that it will (regardless of his actual stance on the issue? Otherwise, I cannot make sense out of the following statements:

Let's not sully the discussion of Kerry's supposed infidelities by trying to draw some contrived connection with his stance on gay marriage. Red herring.
. . .
Just because his marriage has not been perfect doesn't mean his opinion of who should be able to marry isn't relevant.
. . .
And his support of the "sanctity of marriage" - vis-a-vis his own personal issues - forces one to really question the exclusion of an entire group of people on those grounds. Hypocricy abounds when it comes to this issue, don't you think?
. . .
To Kiki's point, I think Kerry's reputed infidelity, if true, actually helps the same-sex cause.

It seems that to suggest Kerry is pro gay marriage means his infidelities should be left out. But since he is anti gay marriage, it suggests he is a hypocrite.


from MavsKiki

As it stands, it just highlights the hypocrisy between those who would deny same sex partners the right to marry, and then violate the sanctity of the institution themselves.

As it stands, the side of the argument that suffers will be the side of the argument on which Kerry stands. And there seems to be some debate as to which side that is. Whatever side he is on, though, will benefit if he comes out and claims that his own behavior is a violation of that sanctity (assuming his own views can be pinned down). If he does that, then as people did with Arnold's sexual activities, and as people did with Bush's alcohol abuse, and as people did not do with Clinton's sexual activity, the public will be willing to forgive, having a justification (Kerry's remorse) that will alleviate what might otherwise be a detrimental level of dissonance.

[jacktruth]

original post already covered.

[FishForLunch]

Here is another example of Kerry's scatter brain thinking

Kerry's position is that he voted against a war(91) he was really for and voted for a war(03) he was really against. But the war he was really for he never said he was for at the time. Except when he was writing to voters to say that he was. And that he wasn't.

So I see why you people are confused on where Kerry stands on Same sex marriages, anybody will.


Kerry is basically all things to all people. That is a trait that most Democrats value.

God help us if he becomes the President and we are hit by another terrorist attack, by the time he takes a stand his term in office will be over.

[MavKikiNYC]

from MavsKiki

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it stands, it just highlights the hypocrisy between those who would deny same sex partners the right to marry, and then violate the sanctity of the institution themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As it stands, the side of the argument that suffers will be the side of the argument on which Kerry stands. And there seems to be some debate as to which side that is. Whatever side he is on, though, will benefit if he comes out and claims that his own behavior is a violation of that sanctity (assuming his own views can be pinned down). If he does that, then as people did with Arnold's sexual activities, and as people did with Bush's alcohol abuse, and as people did not do with Clinton's sexual activity, the public will be willing to forgive, having a justification (Kerry's remorse) that will alleviate what might otherwise be a detrimental level of dissonance.

I view the hypocrisy here in absolute not relative (or contingent) terms.

I have never seen Kerry voice an opinion in support of equal rights for same-sex marriages. At the most, he has stated his belief that states should decide the issue for themselves, along with a personal inclination to recognize some level of civil standing on same-sex relationships. (Supporters of same-sex unions would argue that such a position, intentionally or not, would confer second-class status on such relationships.)

I HAVE, however, seen televised interviews with Kerry in which he stated his belief that 'marriage' should be, by definition, between a man and a woman, the presumed justification for such a distinction being the 'sanctity of marriage' argument. (I can allow for the possibility that the interview segment in question was taken out of context, but based on what I saw, his position was unequivocal.)

Whether Kerry eventually flips to say that same-sex marriages should be fully recognized by the state; or flops (to save his political life) by saying that such marriages could never be considered the equivalent of a marriage between a man and a woman doesn't really matter at this point. He has already made a 'sanctity of marriage' distinction, and the reports of his infidelity, if true, would put him in flagrante contradiciton to this position. Ergo, the hypocrisy.

Regardless of how Kerry's campaign spins the story, and regardless of how voters respond to the story--whether they punish him for his hypocrisy and nominate another candidate, or whether they overlook the hypocrisy and nominate him as the Democratic candidate for President (and perhaps, though unlikely, as President)--the American public has another high-profile example of a public figure (in this case a politician running for the highest office in the land and in a position to influence the issue on a national level) acting in a way that is inconsistent with the basis he uses for denying same-sex partners equal recognition, and therein lies the most glaring dissonance.

Beyond that, there lies the question of how long the American public and electorate will able to ignore or deny such dissonance, and indeed how long they will employ similar hypocrisy to justify the denial of equal rights to same-sex marriages.

[FishForLunch]

John Kerry's shifting stands

By Jeff Jacoby, 2/12/2004

IN THE 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view. His name is John Kerry.


Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be "all things to all people," but few have taken the practice of expedience and shifty opportunism to Kerry's level. Massachusetts residents have known this about their junior senator for a long time. Now the rest of the country is going to find out.

Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."

But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."

What does Kerry really think? Who knows? He seems to have conveniently switched his stance after Sept. 11, 2001, but he insists that politics had nothing to do with his reversal. Either way, one thing is clear: His willingness to swing both ways fits a longstanding pattern of coming down firmly on both sides of controversial issues.

Take the Patriot Act. Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a "knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire! Kerry voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. He singled out its money-laundering sections for particular praise but declared that he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation as a whole."

Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely.

The hottest issue in Kerry's home state at the moment is same-sex marriage. Most Massachusetts citizens take only one position on this scorchingly controversial topic, but Kerry doesn't like to limit himself that way.

So on the one hand, he voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, calling the law "fundamentally ugly" and "legislative gay-bashing." On the other hand, he says he's against same-sex marriage and refused to condemn a DOMA-like amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. (At one point last week, he left open the possibility of endorsing it.) On the other other hand, he supports civil unions -- same-sex marriage in all but name. And on yet another other hand, he claims to "have the same position Vice President Dick Cheney has." (Cheney's view is that "different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate.")

Where Kerry will ultimately come down on this issue is anybody's guess. But it's safe to say that wherever you come down, he'll be able to claim he was there all along.

Then there's the war. Many observers have remarked on Kerry's dual stand on the military campaign that liberated Iraq -- he voted for it but vehemently condemns it. In 1991, by contrast, he did the opposite: He voted against using force to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait yet he claims it was an operation he firmly supported. "I believed we should kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait," Kerry told The Washington Post last month. So why did he vote no? Because he wanted the first President Bush "to take a couple more months to build the support of the nation."

Or so he says now. What Kerry actually said in 1991 was that there was a "rush to war" that might lead to "another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims." He blasted the elder Bush for being too "unilateral" -- hmm, that sounds familiar -- and demanded: "Is the liberation of Kuwait so imperative that all those risks are worthwhile at this moment?" Eleven days later he wrote to a constituent that he opposed the war and had wanted to give economic sanctions "more time to work." Nine days after that he wrote to the same constituent and said that he "strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis."

Reviewing the bidding, then, Kerry's position is that he voted against a war he was really for and voted for a war he was really against. But the war he was really for he never said he was for at the time. Except when he was writing to voters to say that he was. And that he wasn't.

Confused? Don't feel bad. Trying to keep up with Kerry's shifting stands can be baffling even to those of us who have followed his career for decades. You'll be hearing a lot more about them before this campaign is over.

[veruca salt]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC


And if Clalk knew that this story would break, why did he withdraw?

And why did he endorse him today?

[XERXES]

Madape-Thanks for posting the pics of all the interns! WHICH ONE DO Y'ALL THINK IT IS?

My guess?

Second Pic from the bottom. Far right.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: veruca salt

And why did he endorse him today?

OUT OF AFRICA: KERRY PREPARES RESPONSE TO MEDIA PROBE OF RELATIONSHIP

**Exclusive**

Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry is planning a response to a DRUDGE REPORT exclusive which first revealed the frantic behind-the-scenes drama surrounding a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry!

The nature and details of a claimed two-year relationship, beginning in the Spring of 2001, between a young woman and Kerry is at the center of serious investigations at several media outlets.

After being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challange to reporters investigating the claims.

"There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]," a top source said Thursday night. "It is hard to prove."

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head.

Kerry is scheduled to appear on IMUS IN THE MORNING on Friday. Later he is scheduled to join General Wesley Clark, who, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Reporters who witnessed Clark making the stunning comments marvel at the General's reluctance to later confirm they were spoken -- only to later endorse Kerry for the nomination!

Developing...

[Usually Lurkin]

I view the hypocrisy here in absolute not relative (or contingent) terms.

Of course. He broke his marriage vows (presumably he vowed to stay monogomous). That is hypocritic. For him at this point to claim that he knows how marriages should work (whether same-sex or not) is also hypocritical. The public debate will suffer because of that hypocrisy. The side of that debate that will suffer depends on what side of the debate Kerry is perceieved to hold. He may (as some do) argue that allowing same-sex marriage is actually upholding the sanctity of marriage. You obviously think Kerry is against gay-marriage. So you think that side of the debate suffers. Others in this thread think Kerry holds different positions. So they would necessarily conclude that those positions suffer.

I think it's funny that no one here seems to be claiming that Kerry takes the same position in the marriage debate that they do (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

Beyond that, there lies the question of how long the American public and electorate will able to ignore or deny such dissonance, and indeed how long they will employ similar hypocrisy to justify the denial of equal rights to same-sex marriages.

Or to argue for the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. But again, sincere remorse alleviates the negative impact of hypocritical behavior.

[Dooby]

Alex Polie- 24 years old.

[OutletPass]

For whatever it's worth...he was on with Don Imus this morning and completely denied it.

A very straightforward...No, it never happened.

We'll see.

[Dooby]

Alex is currently in Kenya of all places.