NYT will run piece on supposed Dem concern with Clinton marriage

[ruggerson]

From Sludge, so take it for what it's worth:

NYT: STATE OF CLINTON MARRIAGE A QUESTION FOR DEMS
Mon May 22 2006 19:44:45 ET

When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is their marriage, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report in a Tuesday Page One Lead Story.

"Democrats say it is inevitable that, in a campaign that could return the former president to the White House, some voters would be concerned and even distracted by the Bill Clinton's political role and his potential for the kind of episodes that led the House to vote for his impeachment in 1998."

NYT reporter Pat Healy is filing a report this evening, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

[Mass]

1. Drudge again? I would not put too much stock in this. This said,

I could see Patrick Healy writing something like that. Unfortunately, he liked articles full of insinuations when he was at the Globe and is probably not different when his boss is Nagourney.

[mike_c]

2. LOL-- has anyone ever impeached a "first spouse"...

...for chasing WH interns? :rofl:

You can't make this up, folks.

[NWHarkness]

3. Why Bring That Crap Here?

In the last two days Drudge has had to retract two smears against leading Democrats, Howard Dean and Al Gore.

Why give him any credence?

[Mass]

4. Raw story has the same thing.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Times_plans_page_one_story_on_0522.html

[ruggerson]

6. The NY Times about to run a possible smear piece on the Clintons

and you want to stick your head in the sand?

Lots of us don't.

[blm]

15. NYT actually PAYS Nagourney to do the GOP's work for them.

.

[chelsea0011]

5. And the story is that they are still married? I can't believe the NYT

has this lined up as a story.

[Mass]

8. Nagourney is political editor - What do you expect?

Another of these articles with unnamed sources. The NYtimes is the gossip paper when it comes to politics.

[saltpoint]

7. I think we should all just go over to the Clintons' house and peek

through the windows.

I certainly insist on knowing EVERY DAMN THING that goes on in their marriage.

Thank god Drudge is providing this useful service for those of us who can't make the transcontinental journey to eavesdrop and window-peep on the Clintons.

We simply MUST know every last detail about their private lives.

____

It's a sexist model that suggests that Senator Clinton, if elected, would not be her own woman. What is she supposed to tell Bill in that circumstance -- to go live out of the White House and in another city like Franklin Pierce's wife? I have a feeling she'd do alright standing on her own two feet.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No doubt the NSA already has all the dirt...

[saltpoint]

14. LOL! That's true. Maybe they could just send us an email bulletin

now and then.

[Nite Owl]

9. At this point if it did come up

most people would say 'Thank god he's screwing an intern and not us!'

[treestar]

11. Remember "I hate the President and her husband too?"

The idiots. They thought Hillary was President before, just because she was a woman who had a career. If the reverse took place, suddenly, they reverse their problem.

Insincere bastards.

:argh:

[jaxx]

12. Looks like the swift boaters are getting warmed up for the Nov

elections. I'm already sick of them and the bullshit they splat out of their mouths about any dem who remotely might get a seat somewhere. This is going to be uglier than 2004.

[Alamom]

13. BS...potential for what?

"Democrats say it is inevitable that, in a campaign that could return the former president to the White House, some voters would be concerned and even distracted by the Bill Clinton's political role and his potential for the kind of episodes that led the House to vote for his impeachment in 1998."

Bullshit & a load of it, too.

All the current adminstration and their cronies have done in the last 10-20-30 years that has lead the US to being invaders and (almost) a cesspool and they're worried Bill Clinton would be a potential problem for episodes of "WHAT ?"

He's doing a lot of good all around lately and people love him all over the world......

Maybe that's the cause for worry....he's done too much good around the world and is (still) too well liked.


Ken Starr created a gigantic episode where there was not one.....an episode that was a married couple's business.



Someone is awfully scared of the Clintons, IMHO.

[Bjorn Against]

16. If this is true then the NYT is even dumber than I thought...

I don't like the Clinton's a whole lot, they are too close to the DLC for my tastes. I know many others on the left who are not too fond of the idea of Hillary getting the nomination either, and not a single one of them has said the reason they were opposed to that nomination is because of her marriage.

No it has to do with the fact that she seems more concerned with the fake violence in video games than she is with the real violence in Iraq, it has to do with her ties to big money donors and the DLC, it has to do with how divisive she can be both within and outside of the Democratic Party, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has a good sex life with Bill. If the New York Times suggests otherwise then they are in the same league as Drudge and the National Enquirer.

[Doctor_J]

17. Dumb? No. Evil? Yes

Just doing the GOP yeoman work for them, like they have been for years.

[Doctor_J]

18. Cross-posts from Drudge

:cry: