Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_secret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481" target="_blank">http://www.nationalenquirer.co...ty/65481</a> The National Enquirer was ahead of the John Edwards affair before the larger media picked up and reported on it. Is that the case with Sarah Palin? For the record, I'm less interested in the details of Palin's alleged affair than I am on the reliability of the Enquirer or the relevance of these kinds of stories during the campaign. I don't read the Enquirer so I don't know if they make these kinds of allegations all the time (perhaps they've already been made about Obama) and just managed to strike gold with Edwards, or if they are more careful than they used to be. Dabob2 tried for sometime to ask about the importance of McCain's extra-marital affair and really got no response from the same people who were all-too willing to crucify Bill Clinton. If you learned definitively that Palin had an affair in 1996, would it change how you felt? What about if you learned Obama had one 12 years ago?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney I have no clue any of that is true obviously, but BELIEVE ME, if it was the MSM are now combing every bit of her life trying to find the truth---especially after the ball was dropped with Edwards. And if they fan it out, then it will be something to talk about. But right now, its all just unconfirmed rumors nothing more. And your question about how people would still about Palin. Oddly, if it was ANY other Republican candidate, I would think they would be burned at the stake, but considering THESE stakes and they seem soooo for the woman regardless. When you look at her lack of experience and knowledge, her teenage daughter haveing a baby when mama is anti-sex until married and being investigated, all this learned the first WEEK of her being nominated and they still havent swayed, not sure nothing will sway them by now. Just as long as the affair wasnt a lesbian one lol.
Originally Posted By mawnck Lordy lordy, PLEASE don't let this story become the Big News. Not now of all times. PLEASE? Can't we just kind of ignore this one? Don't the Dems realize it will do nothing but harm them?
Originally Posted By ecdc Why do you think that is, mawnck? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just wondering what your reasoning is. I suspect it came out that Obama had an affair, the election would be over in a second; get used to President McCain. So why is it different with Palin?
Originally Posted By Mr X Same reason why if Obama had a pregnant teen daughter the election would be over in a second?
Originally Posted By mawnck Guys, what am I gonna DO with you? NOBODY CARES ABOUT PALIN'S MARRIAGE EXCEPT YOU. And you are NOT undecided. The Dems have stopped talking about Palin COMPLETELY, and if they have even an iota of sense, they'll keep it that way. She is the classic example of a "shiny object." When you're winning, and your opponent is making a fool of himself, you don't point to the shiny object! If this becomes the big story, you'll get the dispirited righties all fired up again, you'll get the media spending several days reporting on Palin and he said/she said and the reactions to the reactions and this spokesperson called that spokesperson a fat cow ... In other words, you're winning by 3 points with 45 seconds to go and you're making a foul that stops the clock. Heck, it would not surprise me IN THE SLIGHTEST if the GOP planted the story themselves. I give it about a 50% chance. I'm sure it'll work too. The Daily Koz people aren't real swift about stuff like this.
Originally Posted By ecdc Thanks for the explanation, and now I find I do disagree I think the longer Sarah Palin is in the news and people are talking about her, the better it is for the Democrats. Not necessarily on this topic, mind, but just about anything else. The Katie Couric interview - c'mon. The more people that see that, the better. And let's say the affair story did hit the mainstream, sure the diehards would back her up (hypocrites that they are), but undecideds might just feel less inclined to vote for her. Unfair as it is, we know in our culture that if a man has an affair, it's more forgivable than if a woman does.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think maw is right EC. People simply don't vote for VP. They should, but they don't. If they did, Dukakis would've won in 1988 by a landslide. And come on, we've now seen the best Palin has to offer, and yet McCain is NOT 30 points behind in the polls. If she really mattered, he would be. I'm not saying that's a good thing, it's just the reality of the VP issue (on the flip side, impressive VP candidates such as Bentson or Lieberman don't really factor in either..unfortunately).
Originally Posted By ecdc Fair points. I guess since I'm horrified at the prospect of Sarah Palin moving any farther east than Denver doesn't mean anyone else is. I just don't want her anywhere near the White House. I do think Obama should still be talking about her, however, in relation to McCain's reckless and poor judgment. He should go forward acting as if she's a complete disaster. Don't even make it a question.
Originally Posted By mele While I don't want to hear about any affairs any of them have had in the past...I do really worry what the rest of the world with think of us if we allow someone like Palin to be voted into the White House. She can't even face reporters...how is she supposed to deal with other world leaders? Absurd.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I guess since I'm horrified at the prospect of Sarah Palin moving any farther east than Denver doesn't mean anyone else is.*** What have you got against Denver? I say move her all the way up to the arctic circle and be done with it. That way, she can cling for dear life to the few remaining ice chunks and perhaps, for the first time, catch a clue about global warming.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>What have you got against Denver?<< Yes, I suppose poor Denver doesn't deserve that. But that's as close to the White House as I'm comfortable with her getting. If RT spots her in Missouri, he needs to take drastic action to get her out of there post haste!
Originally Posted By gadzuux Her big debate is coming up next week, so she's going to be part of the news cycle no matter what she does. I say 'keep her talking' - she can only do more harm to herself and the GOP ticket. I don't agree that Obama should be engaging in belittling her - save that for other people. As for the alleged affair, sex scandals are juicy fun, but honestly don't make much of a difference to me. But I also remember that it was the Star and the Enquirer that broke a lot of stories about Clinton. They pay handsomely for their exclusives, which the MSM won't do. And they get a lot of their stories with good old fashioned shoe leather reporters doggedly going after the story - with a checkbook. I do keep at least half an eye on the tabloids, especially when they start going high-profile with a story. Like they say, "you heard it here first". So yeah - it's entirely possible that Palin may have had an affair twelve years ago. And if she did, it's kind of fun in a "tee-hee" way, but I don't really care.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney I have to agree with most here. Like I said in my first post, I just dont think it will really matter all that much, the GOP seems too invested in her now and its obvious her personal life isnt going to make much of a difference at this point (as hypocritical as that would be for the GOP---but its the GOP we are all use to this by now ). And anyway, if she did have an affair, it WAS 12 years ago and not as recently as a few months like Edwards situation. If she was having one NOW, then yes, I think it would be a problem, a very big one. But, 12 years ago, they can simply spin it by saying it was a low point in their marriage, she ended it, they worked it out and now their marriage is even stronger yada, yada, yada!! People have to remember all the Congressman and other politicians having affairs in public bathrooms, paying $80,000 for high class hookers, having a gay lover and etc makes big news because those are all RECENT incidents, all while they are still in office. It makes bigger headlines that way. Something that happened a decade ago would still be news, but probably not enough to cause any damage to peoples political careers. Thats my take anyway.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Her big debate is coming up next week, so she's going to be part of the news cycle no matter what she does. I say 'keep her talking' - she can only do more harm to herself and the GOP ticket.<< Exactly. The biggest damage Palin can do to the McCain campaign right now is by opening her yap - which she's going to have to do Thursday if they don't wriggle her out of it. If everybody's talking about affairs from years ago, then nobody's talking about what an idiot she looks like trying to answer questions. From a Dem perspective, everything's fine on the Palin front as is. Don't lets stir the pot. That's why I suspect a GOP plot. This story will explode in the MSM Tuesday or Wednesday, and the debate is Thursday. I think that's a mighty intriguing co-inky-dink.
Originally Posted By dshyates I like how the McCain camp, instead of having her in "the spin room" after the debate, sent her to a Barbeque. I mean, is she really so bad that they can't let her near the press? If so when did McCain realize this and I would have loved to see his face upon the realization.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I mean, is she really so bad that they can't let her near the press?*** Clearly. Just watch the Couric interview for confirmation. She really is incoherent. A full on press conference would destroy her. ***If so when did McCain realize this and I would have loved to see his face upon the realization.*** Oh to be a fly on the wall in THAT meeting!
