Assuming Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, do you think the scandal involving Jeff Epstein will hurt her candidacy?
No, it has nothing to do with her. I’d never heard of the guy before. It’d reflect very poorly on any candidate who brought it up. I’m sure Fox and talk radio will try, though.
So, you don’t think public opinion - unjustly or not - won’t be impacted by the story?
I think it’s a safe bet that the righties will try to paint her with it, and the rest of us won’t give a damn. See Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers.
Who? And the Daily Mail is going with Bill Clinton instead of Randy Andy?
This just demonstrates Hillary Clinton’s biggest advantage in 2016: the right wing has already used all its A material on her - and the B and C material. They’re reduced to the scrapings down at the bottom of the barrel to find something they can claim is a shocking new revelation.
Benghazi, no. I fully Benghazi expect the Benghazi Republicans to totally Benghazi focus their entire Benghazi campaign on something Benghazi else.
If Bill’s scandals wouldn’t hurt her chances, this other guy is nothing.
THe scandals have hurt her but it’s baked into the cake already so to speak. I don’t think even her biggest supporters would ever try to sell her as an honest upstanding straight talking reformer. Now THAT’s an absurdity that would reflect badly on anyone trying to sell it.
That’s why I don’t like the idea of Jeb as her opponent. The Republicans have to counter her with a young, scandal-free reformer who uses plain language rather than being fluent in the politicalese that Clinton bores us all with.
Did everyone else miss the fact that the underlying source (for the OP’s article) is the National Enquirer?
Hey, even a blind pig finds a truffle every once in a while.
I feel like you’re trying to tell me something, but I can’t put my finger on it. Spit it out, man! 
No way is this story going to lose Hillary a single vote that might otherwise have gone to her. The only people who care about it are those who would sooner vote for a rotting dog carcass than a Democrat, less said of them the better.
Exactly. They’ll surely try to resurrect the not-quite-scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, but (excepting people who will vote GOP regardless), nobody will do anything but yawn if the GOP brings up Whitewater or Filegate or Vince Foster.
And they will of course bring up Benghazi, but same thing there: the shit’s already been beaten out of this dead horse, beyond any hopes of resurrection in time for 2016. Bengyawnzi is more like it.
And after that, yep, the D-list material, the stuff that will grab voters’ imaginations the way references to Bill Ayers did in 2008.
First, the GOP would have to have some reformers of any sort where the word didn’t belong in scare quotes, i.e. ‘reformers’ who are just grifters under another name.
Didn’t they break the John Edwards “love child” story?
Does the rotting dog carcass have a plan for dealing with the situation in Crimea?
Yes, but as it mostly involves weaponized maggots I don’t think it will work.
Well, there’s definitely no name that says “young, scandal-free reformer” better than “Bush”, now is there?
I’m thinking Jindal, or at least Christie.