Bye-Bye for Bi Hillary?

The National Enquirer (yeah, I know, but often they’re right, remember John Edwards) claims that Hillary Clinton will disclose that she is bisexual in her $25 million memoir expected to be published in 2014.

The idea is to put it out there herself, ahead of 2016.  There have been rumors about her sexuality throughout the Clintons’ public life.  I always believed them because she hung out with lesbians at Wellesley.  If you weren’t one, you weren’t welcome in their inner circle.

Voting for a female president is a big deal for a lot of Americans.  It’s a leap we’ve never made before.  I just don’t know if adding bisexuality to that mix makes it too big a leap, if we can have our first woman and first openly gay president simultaneously.

13 comments on “Bye-Bye for Bi Hillary?

  1. quinersdiner says:

    Interesting question, assuming this turns out to be the case. Not sure it would affect rank and file Democrats. Probably won’t affect Republicans who are unlikely to vote for her anyway. I suppose some swing voters (no pun intended) could be affected either way. This revelation, though, would call into question the nature of her marriage: was it all done for show to enhance their respective political careers? That might bother even more voters. I think her role in the Benghazi affair may be an even bigger issue than her sexuality.

    • Benghazi could well knock her out, and then the lesbian stuff won’t matter. I always thought she got married to advance her ambitions. And for someone like Bill, who couldn’t/wouldn’t be faithful, it was a perfect choice. She really couldn’t complain about his chasing women if she was too! I think the real story of their marriage and life together, weird and shocking as we already know it to be, is even more weird and shocking. I could never stand either one of them (and I’ve known her since 1967), and I hope we don’t have another Clinton in the White House.

  2. Patti Kuche says:

    Wow, have to love the National Enquirer for the nuggets they put out there for the rest of the press to run with. OK, so she might be bi but will Benghazi blow her out of the race before then?

  3. I think there were people to send, I think they were just trying to keep all the CIA stuff (targeted hits on terrorists) under wraps. Remember the old Mission Impossible show — the Secretary will disavow knowledge…

  4. danielfee says:

    Benghazi is nothing more than Whitewater redux. Even though the initial investigation show nothing was done improperly by the Clinton’s in a failed land deal from 20 years earlier the Republicans kept it alive until Monica finally surfaced. They will keep Benghazi alive and try to morph it into something else. Maybe they will look into the Vince Foster death again. Also, don’t forget the Citizens United decisions was about a hit piece on Hillary in the 2008 election. That will also surface again very soon. The Republicans are looking at her approval numbers so they will plant stories, investigate anything and everything and make the most outlandish accusations with nothing to back it up all in an effort to bring down that favorable number. Also, it will recreate the anti-Clinton hatred with their base to motivate them for 2016.

    • Prez needs to do a Benghazi speech, lay it all out.

      • danielfee says:

        Absolutely Not!! Continuing to engage in a debate on this issue only serves to reinforce the Republican’s attempt to reframe the topic. You should read some of George Lakeoff’s books on language and moral framing. Even when you make attempts to rebut the accusations (which are constantly changing as is the target of the their charges) you only serve to reinforce their framing. The Democrats made a mistake in attending the hearing and they make additional mistakes each time they go on TV or radio and say that we need to investigate this further to get to the facts. We have the facts! There was an independent investigation lead by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullens. The Democrats should have said and should continue to say whenever Benghazi is raised that it was thoroughly investigated by a non-partisan commission, led by two men they highly respect and that we should be implementing their recommendation to make sure that we minimize the chances this ever happens again. They should add that they refuse to participate in political witch hunts. The entire purpose of the Republican’s effort is to turn “Benghazi” into a one-word negative smear (think Watergate) against Obama, Clinton, Susan Rice or whoever else they decide to go after. Since most people do not pay attention to the actually details, the more that Benghazi is mentioned by them in a derisive way or in response to whatever ridiculous statements are made the Republicans, the general public will associate it with some nefarious political act without knowing why. Or to put it in a way more people will understand, if you wrestle with a pig you are going to get muddy and the pig is going to enjoy it. Then when people look at you all they will see is that you are dirty.

      • I have read Lakoff.
        Susan Rice shouldn’t have gone on the talk shows at all, better to say nothing than to lie. What she said wasn’t true, and they knew it.

      • danielfee says:

        So then you are aware that you are reinforcing their framing? It also sounds like you have internalized the Republican’s first lie, that Susan Rice was lying. She was given the talking points that had been cleared by the intelligence agencies. DNI Clapper testified to that fact, and CIA Director Petraeus also confirmed their modifications to the statement she was given. She started her statement with “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present …” and she ended with “We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present.” If you want to argue that the intelligence agencies were withholding some information, I would agree. But who thinks they should go on the Sunday shows and spill the beans on their intelligence to those clowns?

      • They shouldn’t have sent her on. There was no spontaneous demonstration, there was nothing to do with the video, they knew it was terrorists — and Al Qaeda related terrorists — from the beginning. If you don’t want to spill the beans, don’t go on the shows.
        The GOP is exaggerating this and creating issues that don’t exist, but the Administration is under-playing it and not addressing the legitimate issues. They have created a vacuum that the GOP is filling.

      • danielfee says:

        If no one from the administration had gone on the Sunday shows that week it would have been all Republicans like McCain, Graham etc. saying what is the Obama Administration hiding? It seems you have absorbed the right-wing framing so deeply that you sound just like the pundits on Fox prior to the election. Making definitive statements like “they knew from the beginning” was exactly the line they were all pushing. Now you are repeating it. A year from now, will the blog debate be about definitive statements that Hillary was watching the video in real time?
        Yes, the GOP exaggerates and they make things up out of whole cloth. But they do this to direct the discussion and frame the issue for political purposes. The “legitimate issues” were addressed ARB report, of which we only saw the unclassified version. But instead the GOP with their endless hearings and accusations have redirected the discussion to an argument over the Sunday morning talking points, not the real issues. There is not a vacuum, there is a definitive report with recommendations for security improvements. But if people continue to respond to the Benghazi BS coming from the GOP then they will be sucked further down the right-wing rabbit.

      • So you have someone — a Dem congressman — say we’re still investigating. They should have listened to Petraeus, not Victoria Nuland.
        I sat there watching Rice thinking, “Oh, this is going to come back and bite them on the tush.” She sounded like a fool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s