Hillary Clinton is bisexual, apparently.

[Benj]

I would bet if that were true she can kiss any Presidential aspirations, goodbye.  America can't go for a gay, yet.  

67% of Americans can as of the last poll IIRC.

Yea... they say that.  

Don't get me wrong, they'll go for a lesbo much quicker, what with that Ellen lady being so nice and all... but let's see gay, liberal Hillary Clinton get through an election cycle with the vicious crap that would be spewed her way.  

Oh... and the GOP will be desperate this time around.  

I refuse to believe that Americans in this day and age would vote against a candidate because he or she is gay.

You need a healthy dose of pessimism about your fellow man.

I would bet if that were true she can kiss any Presidential aspirations, goodbye.  America can't go for a gay, yet.  

67% of Americans can as of the last poll IIRC.

Yea... they say that.  

Don't get me wrong, they'll go for a lesbo much quicker, what with that Ellen lady being so nice and all... but let's see gay, liberal Hillary Clinton get through an election cycle with the vicious crap that would be spewed her way.  

Oh... and the GOP will be desperate this time around.  

I refuse to believe that Americans in this day and age would vote against a candidate because he or she is gay.

Well, some did cos of a black candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presidential_Elections_2004-2008_Swing_in_County_Margins.svg

A majority, then.

Don't need a majority for it to make a difference in the result. Even if most voters aren't voting on sexual orientation, there are plenty of people who vote Republican for other reasons that such a coalition would easily win.

Anyway, the Daily Fail is the Daily Fail. *Yawn*

[Benj]

Believe it or not the National Enquirer unlike the other rags of its ilk, is highly reliable and accurate, and has a team of lawyers that everything has to be vetted through, because without the goods, the risk of a libel action is just too great.

Isn't a successful libel suit concerning a public figure virtually impossible to win? You have to show actual malice. "Yeah, maybe there's no proof, but we believed it was true and didn't mean anything bad."

If you just make something up with no backup, and it turns out to be false, that's malice. And while Hillary is clearly a public figure, sometimes it is less clear. Anyway, the rag has a team of lawyers, which it uses, and it's  highly credible. They bagged John Edwards, and I can't ever recall an instance where they had to retract.

I don't think the lesbian thing will hurt Hillary much (folks are more tolerant of lesbians than gays for reasons I understand but find personally bizarre). The Libyan thing however might (at least it has more potential to do so). We shall see.

Why are you talking about this as if it were the National Enquirer?* They had nothing to do with this "story", which was reported briefly by the Daily Mail in Britain before they apparently retracted without notice by deleting the webpage. Yes, the Daily Mail claimed the National Enquirer was behind the story, but the Enquirer itself has not reported anything.


*Which is sometimes right but also makes stuff up a lot--though I don't think they care enough about politics to make stories up about politicians.