There’s enough on the various blogs and news sites to where I won’t go over the whole thing, but in a nutshell, the NYT has run a piece that suggests Johnny Mac may have (1) been influenced by a special interest lobbyist (the kind he decries) and (2) may have had an affair with her. If you’re looking for proof in the article, good luck finding it. Hell, Dan Rather had more proof in the forged memo on Bush than the Old Gray Hag has here.
Anybody here heard of the name Huma Abedin? That’s Hilldawg’s lovely female personal assistant and confidante. There is a plethora of blog posts and columns, with far more sourcing, that suggest Huma and the Hildebeast have been bumping donuts for a while now. Has the NYT run with that angle? Of course not. There’s no “concrete proof” (nothing short of photos would constitute proof, I’m sure). Sure, there’s no proof that Juan McAmnesty is doing the horizontal hula with this lobbyist chick, but the NYT is showing that proof is only needed when the target of such an accusation is a Democrat. As expected, McLame is counterattacking the Slimes.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Well, I was having a perfectly nice breakfast, and then I read the phrase “Huma and the Hildebeast have been bumping donuts for a while now.” It’s going to take a fair amount of scotch tonight to erase that image…
Comment by PabloD — February 21, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
I hope McCain finally learns a lesson from this Times article. The Times was endorsing him when he was running against Thompson and Romney and even said he had the nomination sewn up. But now that it looks like McCain has the nomination the Times can show their true colors. You can’t trust Liberals! I even heard Rush say that a snake is a snake and a tiger is a tiger and the Times is the Times!
Comment by tnjack — February 21, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
And to think, journalists blast bloggers for publishing posts without sources! Pot, meet kettle.
Personally, I think the NYT just wants to morph McCain into Clinton, complete with his own bimbo eruption (I created a funny Photoshop image to match).
Comment by Reverse_Vampyr — February 21, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
As I have noted today on my site, I find the amount of coverage to be very interesting. A Google search of McCain + Iseman garnered 1,171 results with over 5,000 sub-results. In contrast, an almost month-old NYT story about Bill Clinton, Frank Giustra and good old-fashioned payola – with actual proof – finds much less press interest. The Google search for Clinton + Giustra finds a paltry 84 results, most of which are in defense of the former Hard-On-In-Chief.
No liberal bias here – nothing to see – these aren’t the droids you’re looking for – move along.
Comment by TheBad — February 21, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Mr. Bad, those results are indeed proof that there is NO liberal media bias!
(/sarcasm off)
Comment by crushliberalism — February 21, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
I know this is a “friend-of-a-friend” type story, but I believe my source to be rather believable.
A friend of mine works in federal law enforcement. He’s done some presidential / politician security in the past. He also spent about 3 months in training last summer with various other federal law enforcement entities. He knows several Secret Service agents.
As he tells it, he has heard story after personal story, especially from those who were part of the Secret Service during the Clinton Administration, about not only having to provide cover and diversion for Bill’s frequent and varied sexual encounters, but just about as much for Hildabeasts sexual trysts with women.
Now in general, I don’t care if her and Janet Reno dressed up as school girls and played Stanley Steamer on each other’s carpets, but it just shows that she will forever try to live a lie in an attempt to sate her thirst for power.
Comment by ManicNole — February 21, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Well I must say that if Hillary is bumping donuts with Huma Abedin, then she has much better taste in women than Bill ever had.
Comment by Ludwig Van Beethoven — February 23, 2008 @ 3:22 am