UPDATE: 05-28-08 Page Six/New York Post...
"REP. Anthony Weiner had a reason for accompanying Hillary Clinton to Puerto Rico over the weekend besides currying the Latino vote for a mayoral run and besides his abiding loyalty to the hapless presidential candidate: his romance with Huma Abedin, Hillary's "body woman," who is always at her side anticipating her needs. Asked by the AP what he was doing in Puerto Rico, Weiner admitted: "I'm doing a lot, but it's largely because I'm dating Huma." Page Six has reported on their furtive meetings and intimate dinners for several months."
The primaries are almost over (June 3, 2008) and not a peep from the opposition.
UPDATE: 01-27-08 Page Six/New York Post...
"HUMA Abedin, the traveling aide who is rarely out of Hillary Rodham Clinton's sight, has been seen with bachelor Rep. Anthony Weiner on the campaign trail. Shortly before Clinton arrived for a fund-raiser Thursday night at the Hiro club in the Meatpacking District, Abedin was spotted going into the Maritime Hotel around the corner with Weiner. If they were trying to keep their affair a secret, you'd think they'd find someplace where political reporters wouldn't be walking by."
Decoy Beard? Still no word from either the Los Angeles Times or Larry Flynt. Perhaps they are waiting until after the primaries to unleash their political venom?
Original Story...
In politics where perception is almost always better than reality, the rumor mill continues to heat up. Drive-time talk radio and the blogosphere is currently claiming that the Los Angeles Times has an article to go -- already written, edited and press-ready -- that allegedly details the sexual peccadilloes of a front-running candidate. Depending on the version, one related to a Senator. Add to that, the erstwhile Larry Flynt (and his $1,000,000 offer) allegedly has the goods on a sitting Senator.
So what is the actual rumor scenario being discussed? Is it the old standard about Hillary being outed as a Lesbian and thereby materially impacting her candidacy? To be replaced in 2008 by a Gore-Bloomberg Ticket that will save the day? Ostensibly because it is bipartisan. Gore, the democrat and Bloomberg the Republican?
So why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on the story? The theory goes that "journalistic ethics" is weighing heavily on the timing of the disclosure. The Times does not want to appear to be influencing an election with their revelation. which is somewhat strange as "everybody" thinks that the elite Washington Press Corp already is "in the know."
"Current thinking" also indicates that the rumor probably concerns a democrat or the Los Angeles Times would not hesitate to release it. A sampling of two such blog entries.
From RonRosenbaum.com...
"Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma"
"So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate."
"Now, as I say it’s a rumor; I haven’t seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read."
From BigHeadDC...
"We’re still a bit incredulous on this one, but a top level U.S. Department of Justice official is telling Big Head DC that Michael Musto’s rumor about Hillary Clinton fooling around with one of her top female aides Huma Abedin is based in reality!"
“'I am close enough to Hillary and Huma to tell you that this ‘rumor’ is true,' the official says. 'It is well known inside her campaign that Hillary and Huma are an item."
“'If you call Hillary’s residence in DC first thing in the morning, Huma answers the phone,' the official continues. 'Same thing late at night and on the road. It’s a closely guarded secret that Hillary’s inner circle guards at all costs.'”
"Make of that what you will, kids. But know this: The official is someone who has proven highly credible in the past."
Who is Huma Abedin? ...
Perhaps one should require more information about one of the closest people to Hillary Clinton. According to Wikipedia...
"Huma Abedin is an aide to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Media sources describe her as one of Clinton's closest advisers, particularly on issues involving the Middle East, and often comment on her purportedly renowned competence, striking personal appearance, as well as the general confusion regarding details of her personal life.
"Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan to an Indian father and Pakistani mother, both Muslims. When she was two years old, the family relocated to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abedin returned to the United States to attend George Washington University."
As scary as Hillary appears to be...
No matter what you may think of Hillary Clinton and her sexual proclivities, it is far scarier to contemplate the consequences of a Gore-Bloomberg match-up.
First, you have Gore, the poster boy for deceitful science who has no compunction about standing up and lying to the American public. An effete limousine liberal who could irreparably harm the United States military, economy and well as the personal freedoms of all Americans as he pushes his cockamamie "global warming schemes. His backers, in all likelihood, would be the same far-left loonies who currently support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
And second you have New York Mayor Bloomberg, a man who has switched political parties for expediency, could write a personal check for $1 billion to finance the campaign and who is almost as liberal as Hillary Clinton. Although he appears to be a Republican, past actions mark him as a duplicitous RINO (Republican In Name Only). Whether he would once again switch back to being a democrat to enter the race is unknown.
Together, they represent a threat greater than Hillary Clinton because they do have a chance to take the Presidency. Whereas Hillary Clinton is so personally flawed, ethically challenged, and polarizing that, even if she secured the democrat party nomination, her ascension to the Presidency is not assured -- in fact, it remains gravely in doubt.
What can YOU do?
Let Hillary Clinton remain a Senator and Bill Clinton become the roving Ambassador to the world. He makes the bucks and has fun. She does whatever she does -- but only to New Yorkers who should have known better to throw-in with an interloper.
Forget the rumors, but do consider the possibility of either Gore or Bloomberg running for the highest office. Check out the known facts surrounding both men and decide if the United States can withstand four years of an ultra-liberal "tax and spend" government whose potential candidates have already announced that "you must sacrifice" to secure your children's future.
While many people regard Hillary Clinton as an avowed socialist, if not worse, remember that socialism is just a label -- it's the actions of the politicians that wish to implement pubic policy that counts. We have seen Gore dodge and control the media almost as well as Hillary as he propounds his "cure" for the world's ills. Bloomberg, given a choice, would likewise impose his social views on the population. In my opinion, neither man or their trusty cadre of inner-circle supporters can be trusted with the safety, security, sovereignty and economy of the United States.
Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.
-- steve
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Like most conservatives, you are one of three things; (1) an idiot, (2) a racist or (3) greedy pig. You appear to be all three.
=====================================
Thank you very much for reading my blog and taking the time to respond. It is much appreciated that you have provided me with a real-life, unsolicited, example of the far left: labeling people and shouting loudly, while being totally bereft of ideas or arguments. Mike, I think I would have more respect for you and your ilk if you told me that I was blind and stupid and provided examples, factual assertions, or even stated why I made you mad enough to respond in this manner. I do not regard myself as a racist or a greedy pig considering the range of my friends and my contributions to the welfare of others. As for being an idiot, that is somewhat subjective. If you mean that I do not agree with your positions, I can't judge these for myself as you have failed to state exactly what your position may be. If you have the time, and are so-inclined, may I invite you to do a guest blog on your factual assertions and why my ideas are so different from yours. But I do appreciate at least your attention to what I am saying. I would have sent you a personal thank you, as is my custom, but the e-mail address you have provided appears to be bogus. So, if you read this, thank you for assisting me in making my point about the difference between those who hold a serious difference of opinion and those who appear simply to be "haters." -- steve
Posted by: Mike | December 12, 2007 at 09:44 PM