In considering what tiny merit these rumors might possibly have, it might be important to remember something I wrote in comments yesterday:
One thing I just thought of, and should be addressed to either the media doofuses who pretend that Hillary Clinton is a blank slate, or that she has deep dark secrets hidden in a chest buried somewhere (maybe next to Vince Foster). She and her husband have been in the public eye for 15 years now; tens of millions of dollars have been wasted exploring every aspect of their lives, public and private. Her every sentence is parsed, prodded, deconstructed, and forced through an exegetical and hermeneutical spiral of idiocy to the point where she usually ends up saying the exact opposite of her actual words. To pretend, as some do, that there might be some tidbit of information so precious and important that has not come to light about her, at this point, is ridiculous. She is as well known a figure as we have in this country right now in active political life.
Even if none of this were true, let us back up just a tad, and consider the whole thing from something foreign to the right - rationality. Let us suppose, for the sake of supposing, that Sen. Clinton thought for one moment that there was not an aspect of her life that wasn't under constant scrutiny for failure. Let us suppose that Sen. Clinton actually was a lesbian. Let us still further assume that the young woman in question is also a lesbian (did I mention that Luke Ford apparently thinks she's hot?). Let us finally assume there was mutual attraction, and a desire to consummate this relationship.
Why does anyone care, other than to sit around and fantasize about it while typing with one hand?
In any event, this is another piece of evidence in my arsenal of reasons for not being too hard on Sen. Clinton.
To return to my discussion with DL, I think the following blurb from his initial comments, while true, misses something he should consider:
Of course it is ridiculous for MoDo and others to attack Clinton on her husband's affairs, or her cleavage, or her makeup or her choice of apparel, but that is the kind of claptrap that passes for political discourse in the mainstream media these days.
Our "elite discourse" is little different from the kind of nonsensical garbage idiots like Luke Ford put up on the internet. Since 1991, the Clinton's have been a Rorschach Test of America's attitudes towards baby-boomers. Everything the right hated about the sixties and seventies, from political, social, and cultural radicalism, to feminism, to the so-called sexual revolution (which was really more a revolution in the acceptability of discussing the reality of sexual behavior rather than mainstreaming what had been, up to then, considered deviant behavior) was tossed at them in an effort to portray them as all that was wrong from our era of social and political experimentation. This illness manifested itself most clearly in the Monica Lewinsky affair, but was present in questions about Bill Clinton's correspondence concerning his draft status, questions concerning the role of Hillary Clinton in a Clinton White House, and on and on.
If Democracy Lover thinks we can have a serious discussion on the merits, divorced from the on-going reality of political tabloid journalism, whether of the Luke Ford variety, or the Maureen Down variety, I do believe he is living in a fantasy world. That will be the essence of mainstream coverage of Sen. Clinton, should she win the nomination. In fact, I believe that will be the essence of the mainstream coverage of whomever the Democrats nominate, and I think we had all be ready for some serious shit-slinging along these lines for the next twelve months.
The kind of weird, obsessive, hyper-sexual soft-core porn offered by Luke Ford is only different in degree from the commentary of Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd, not different in kind.
Her staffer is hot, though.
ADDENDUM: Todd Gitlin weighs in.
ADDENDUM II: Jane Hamsher weighs in.
ADDENDUM III: While I did not watch the debate the other not (not having cable/satellite does have its rewards), apparently Russert doesn't understand what the role of a moderator is. The Blowhard from Buffalo is not the star, and should recuse himself in future from journalism. What a joke he is, as are all our pampered, overpaid, so-called journalists.
