Even the right wingnuts who pay any attention to this story are likely to suspect it of being the work of the Clinton Slime-O-Matic[tm].
It wouldn’t improve Sinclair’s credibility in the slightest. Polygraphs are bullshit. There’s a reason they aren’t admissable in court.
[QUOTE=TWDuke]
What if they thought this wouldn’t stop Obama once he was the party’s candidate, but it could help tip the nomination to the more-beatable Hillary?
(Just playing along here. I support the Lone Nutjob theory, myself.)
[/QUOTE]
Well, (per my previous comment) they might figure that the voters would see it as a dirty trick from the Clinton camp, thus weakening Hillary’s support from her own party in the general election.
(Ditto the just-playing-along part.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It wouldn’t improve Sinclair’s credibility in the slightest. Polygraphs are bullshit. There’s a reason they aren’t admissable in court.
[/QUOTE]
Not in your eyes obviously, but how would the average American voter take the news?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
On Tuesday February 26, 2006 Larry Craig will submit to a polygraph test in New York. The test, sponsored by Whitehouse.com will be conducted by a renowned expert and verified by a second renowned expert before being made public. There will be a video of the polygraph test .
[/QUOTE]
The Typo That Would Not Die…
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Yeah, but the South reconsidered a few years later and came around, but to let the North save pride we “threw the game” at Appomattox.
[/QUOTE]
Durham Station, suh! Don’t believe those uppity Virginians that they were the sole defense of the South! When Marse Robert threw in the towel at Appomattox Court House, Joe Johnston still had an army in the field, and moving northwest. Heck, at the rate he was going ad the vector he had, he’d have been in Montana by 1872! 
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Not in your eyes obviously, but how would the average American voter take the news?
[/QUOTE]
What news?
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Anyway, given the question in the title of this thread and the event taking place before the next big primaries, if Sinclair passes then that would most certainly magnify Sinclair’s credibility and the mainstream media would have to report it.
[/QUOTE]
Not only would they not “have to,” they probably will not. The mainstream media didn’t report the story about Kerry and the intern, remember, because the accusations were unsupported and not credible- and that was more believable than this.
UPDATE:
No shock there, but if the comments on that site are any indication, it makes no difference to the knuckledraggers.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
UPDATE:
No shock there, but if the comments on that site are any indication, it makes no difference to the knuckledraggers.
[/QUOTE]
Polygraphs are bullshit. There’s a reason they aren’t admissable in court.
To prevent accusations of plagerism I submit that these words are borrowed from Dio
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Polygraphs are bullshit. There’s a reason they aren’t admissable in court.
To prevent accusations of plagerism I submit that these words are borrowed from Dio
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are still bullshit. But this doesn’t exactly add any credibility, does it?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yes, they are still bullshit. But this doesn’t exactly add any credibility, does it?
[/QUOTE]
Nah. This myth is totally busted.
Nothing about the video clip seems like ‘obvious bullshit’ to me. The fact that he looks like “Larry the Cable Guy” is supposed to imply what? That Obama would only have gay sex with an attractive man that DOESN’T look like a “constipated whale”? Only blow jobs that we can believe in?
Now, unsubstantiated? Yes, seems so thus far and I assume that’s why it hasn’t gotten traction on major news networks. But the fact that something is unsubstantiated doesn’t make it false (or true, obviously).
I’d like to see what the details are if any news organization looks into it but if nobody does then I’d have to assume that it’s either not true or there’s no credible way to verify it.
As for whether or not he’d have done crack, the fact that he admitted doing cocaine leans me towards thinking that is more believable than if someone hadn’t admitted that.
As for being gay or bisexual, there’s no credible way I know of to ‘gaydar’ someone accurately but there’s nothing about him that makes it hard for me to imagine if one were to be stereotypical about it (he probably has the most feminine mannerisms of anyone I’ve ever seen run for office). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. 
In any case, given that the Dems are considering dumping Hillary because they want more than anything to win the general and not have someone with baggage or that is polarizing, they should hesitate somewhat with Obama. Nothing like half a dozen gay men coming forwards after/if Obama wins the nomination.
Like Bill, if it’s one person claiming they had sex or an affair with you that’s one thing. But when it’s person after person after person then it’s a little harder to dismiss. If that were to happen to Obama, how many gay men coming forward would it take for you to believe that he’s gay or bisexual? 2? 6? 12? 25? Obviously, with multiple people coming forward there would then reasonably be more evidence and if not then it doesn’t matter if it’s a million.
Personally, I’d find it karmically amusing – given that the Obama campaign has brazenly used Bill Clinton’s stump speech in an advertisement for Obama and therefore is seeking to benefit from the words of Bill Clinton – to hear Obama have to say (in these words, please): “I did…not…have…sexual relations with that man, Mr. Sinclair…” ROFL
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
UPDATE:
No shock there, but if the comments on that site are any indication, it makes no difference to the knuckledraggers.
[/QUOTE]
By the way, where’s the article for that in that link? I don’t see it where it says he failed.
Oh wait…you mean Larry Craig and not Larry Sinclair?