MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Possible candidate sex scandal being squelched at the LA Times?

• Posted by Beth on October 31st, 2007 filed in 2008 election, Candidates, Funny, General, Journalism, Politics, Stupid, Video, WTF    

Ruh-roh…

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. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me (not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this.”

So, if he didn’t say “don’t write about it” and Ron Rosenbaum knows about it, why not write about it?

Yeah, you’re thinking John Edwards, right? Nope.

I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, it’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.

And when my source said “everyone in Washington” knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is/was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

Calling Matt Drudge…where are you? Dave in Texas sez at Ace’s,

In DC media circles, the phrase “everybody knows about it” is often code. Political Operatives with sketchy info try to get a credulous reporter to disseminate their dirt by enhancing it’s credibility with those 4 little words. Not only do the words obstensibly add credibility, but they also get the competitive juices flowing. Everyone wants to be first to break the STORY OF THE CENTURY!

And, in a post Drudge/Lewinsky-world, there are careers to be made by breaking a juicy sex story. Remember, Drudge’s initial story was about Newsweek spiking Isikoff’s story. And fewer people in DC knew about that then supposedly know about this story. (If I remember correctly, Isikoff leaked the info to Drudge out of frustration.)

So, who is it? Which candidate would “everyone” covering the campaign want to protect?

Hillary, yes–but I just don’t see it. She’s not stupid, especially after having lived the Lewinsky circus. And honestly, I just think women generally don’t lose their minds when given the opportunity to stray, at least to the extent a Presidential candidate would have to lose his or her mind.

I don’t see it being any of the Republicans, because someone would have reported “the rumor,” if nothing else (because of the HYPOCRISY!!!). It’s not like the story about John Edwards wasn’t reported, so why would they cover for a Republican? Maybe it’s one of the no-chance-of-winning Democrats; maybe they don’t want to report it because they figure the candidate isn’t going to win anyway.

Or maybe it is just that–a rumor, and nothing else.

Silly aside:

Not that I’m implying anything. :twisted:

UPDATE 1: Luke Ford thinks it is Hillary. Now that would be a scandal. (I seriously doubt that story, though. Smells like BS to me.)

UPDATE 2: Now this Clinton story, I can believe. Absolutely.