Barack Obama | Bill O'Reilly | John McCain | News

Right Wing Readying Scandal Attack Against Democrats?

Now that the New York Times has published its McCain-Iseman lobbyist scandal story, what can Democrats expect in return, since we know the right-wing machine isn't one to take hits lying down? There were rumblings of what might come on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly seems positively unable to contain himself about another percolating scandal...

Says O'Reilly: "Easily done, in the same way the NYT did it. I could do it. I could do it tomorrow. Anonymous sources told me. This individual in America, again a prominent Democrat, was doing this. Everybody in the journalism business knows that story is in play — no one will report it.

Of course, the story that O'Reilly may be referring to is one I posted about some time ago. An update on that, AFTER THE JUMP...

I've been hesitant to report on the video again (if you missed it you can watch it here) but there have been developments in the story, and given the recent McCain piece and the Dem nomination approaching its crescendo, I thought I would offer an update.

Larry Sinclair allegedly filed suit against Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC claiming intimidation among other things. Full complaint here.

SinclairThe website (not affiliated with the U.S. Government) offered Sinclair the opportunity to take a polygraph test, and apparently Sinclair accepted.

"After communicating via email to work out the logistics of the challenge, we were able to reach an agreement. Now, the plan is to get together with Sinclair and one of the best polygraph experts in the country, and ask him some questions – with the camera rolling, of course. As more details are made available we will post it here."

The website claims that the polygraph test has been scheduled for February 26th in New York City: "We've picked a polygraph expert, too: a renowned expert who has been involved in quite a few high-profile cases who we're not going to name until the results are not only in, but have been verified by a second renowned expert. Then, we'll post the results, the names of both polygraph experts, and other relevant information, along with video and pictures..."

It all still seems very dubious to me, but there's no doubt pundits like O'Reilly are champing at the bit to bring it out into the open. I just hope the Democrats are ready because there's no doubt that once a candidate is anointed the race is going to get a lot dirtier. I just hope the Democrats are ready.

Gay Limo-Riding YouTube Loser Posts Slanderous Obama Smear [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Yeah, well, Hillary's camp has been saying pretty much since Day One, "Hillary has been fully vetted while Barack Obama has not." Let's hope this fact doesn't come back to bite us in the ass. Oh, don't get me wrong...I don't believe the allegations. But Republicans and some Independents surely will.

    Posted by: peterparker | Feb 22, 2008 10:59:47 AM

  2. Stuff like this is why you should never let a former cocaine addict run for President; It makes this smear story just slightly more believable.

    Disclaimer: I am a Hillary supporter, and will never in my life support Barack Obama, due to his previous life style and to some degree, his current one. (He is still fighting a cigarette addiction). Somebody who is susceptible to addictions does NOT make a good President, I'm sorry. And I apologize for having values. :)

    With that said, I still find this story hard to believe.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 22, 2008 11:15:32 AM

  3. Peter

    Thankfuly Senator Clinton and her politcal machine have now vetted Obama. The clinton political machine is inarguabl the best this decade.

    O'reilly, LOL. He had to apologize publicly for his "lynching" comment. A top notch news reporter he isn't.

    Posted by: Jimmboyo | Feb 22, 2008 11:24:26 AM

  4. Save us from faggots like Jon who "have values" and make veiled comments about other people's "life style" [sic].

    And BTW, Jon, you seem to have a very broad definition of "addict." I suspect it's covering up more than a little latent racism.

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 22, 2008 11:34:58 AM

  5. Cocaine addict? NO. Using cocaine for a few months, then stopping-- that's not an addict. And you'd have to shoot me full of heroine, give me crack and powered cocaine, a fifth of Old Grandad before I could go down on that trashy lookin' creature. He's the cocaine addict...trying to get money for more. The folks at Saturday Night Live couldn't have created a more absurdly comical video. Now, if he looked like Mario Lopez it'd be a different story--NOT FOR BARACK...I mean, for me.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 22, 2008 11:37:40 AM

  6. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Jon wasn't too concerned about Bill Clinton's addiction to sex.

    Just a hunch.

    Posted by: Morgan | Feb 22, 2008 11:37:40 AM

  7. Jon: Your comments are ridiculous.

    Bill Clinton obviously has what many would consider a sex-addiction, i.e., a chronic inability to keep his pants zipped. Yet I presume, based on your virulent support of Hillary, that you think that Bill Clinton did a fine job.

    Furthermore is there any evidence that Obama was addicted to cocaine? No. He admits to having used it, but there is a huge gulf between use and addiction.

    And what exactly about his current and past lifestyles is so abhorrent to you? The fact that he smokes cigarettes? Man - if that's the worst thing that you can accuse him of, I would say he's doing all right.

    Posted by: GM | Feb 22, 2008 11:39:22 AM

  8. Of course they are Rove and his ilk at Fox Noise have been planning an attack since the last inauguration day of the current dimwit in office.They will try to win and keep the WH under any means necessary, including making up lies that this public that is for the most part as dimwitted as Bush will take hook line and sinker as the truth.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 22, 2008 11:46:41 AM

  9. So in 1999 this guy looked like Brad Pitt and or Denzel Washington?

    Otherwise Im not seeing the possibilty of anyone having sex with him.


    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 22, 2008 11:46:56 AM

  10. Obvious trash, and that readers here would believe such trash without anymore than a trashy youtube thrown up on the net is amazing to me.

    Yeah, I can throw up a youtube today saying Hillary and me are long-time lovers and she gave me a half a million to shut up. You going to put that up on this site too?

    Where's the collaborating evidence?

    Posted by: Trey | Feb 22, 2008 11:55:27 AM

  11. Jon, based on your pearl-clutching attitude toward smokers, and willful inflation of minor drug use into a full-blown "addiction," I will never in my life support you for President.

    Posted by: Jeff | Feb 22, 2008 12:00:15 PM

  12. "And I apologize for having values. :)"

    yes, like the value voters who continually attack our lives and rights?

    Posted by: Trey | Feb 22, 2008 12:04:02 PM

  13. Regardless, what if the story is true?

    Posted by: Christopher | Feb 22, 2008 12:15:03 PM

  14. 24play,

    Your pathetic attempt to point out a misspelling FAILED.

    "lifestyle also life-style or life style"

    I also LOVE the replies to my comment. Admitting that I will never support a smoker and ex-addict equates to an attack on the rights of all U.S. Citizens??


    You Obamacrats are also hypocrites. I in no way attack ANYBODY (at that point in time), and suddenly I have a bunch of hoity toity fags jumping down my throat and trying to take away MY RIGHT TO SPEAK?

    LAUGHABLE, as well.

    I'd report you for calling me a faggot, 24play, but since I can't I may as well lower myself to your miserable level.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 22, 2008 12:42:53 PM

  15. I can't vote for conservative Republicans because they're addicted to power.

    Posted by: davitydave | Feb 22, 2008 12:55:13 PM

  16. If the Obama rumor was true or even had an inkling of truth to it, every major news network would be broadcasting it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You know how they LOVE going after the Dems while ignoring the fuck-ups and indescretions of Bush/Cheney and the rest of the Rethug criminals. So I DARE that fucking O'Reilly to start this smear campaign without any proof. I FUCKING DARE HIM! After that lynching comment, and his useless apology, I would love to see what FoxNoise will have to put up with. This is not a newspaper reporting on the close ties of John McCain to the lobbyist industry - a story that has to do with hypocrisy, not sex, because of McCain's constant claims of being against the lobbying industry. I would love to see Obama sue the fuck out of O'Reilly and Fox if he has the stupidity to say this on national TV - and after his lynching remark, he probably IS that stupid. But seeing how Obama is running his campaign he'd probably just call O'Reilly a lying idiot and move on, which is the same way Hillary would handle it if something like this happened to her. If the Rethugs honestly believe this would finish Obama off they'd be screaming it on every MSM outlet they could appear on, even St. McCain. Fox and O'Reilly know a change is coming, and it is not going to be good for Fox and their 127-year-old audience demographic. So go ahead, Bill. To paraphrase the words of another conservative Republican asshole: BRING IT ON!

    Posted by: Dom | Feb 22, 2008 12:58:15 PM

  17. Let me first qualify my statement by stating that I trust no one who wants to be President, I trust no mass media, and ain't that a bitch?

    Andy, your clip and take on O'Reilly's comment misses his intended point, which was a criticism of the New York Times' slipshod journalism and not a threat to release a story that most people already know about, but does not meet critical review. There has been criticism from the left and right regarding the lack of professional journalism demonstrated by the Times in regards to the McCain story and the story, as in the Obama story, should not have made it past a credible editor.

    Relieve yourself of the meta-narrative filter, and political discussion and pundits on the left and right will become a whole lot more interesting as the same standards are applied across the board.

    Posted by: KJ | Feb 22, 2008 12:58:38 PM

  18. Personally, I prefer Senator Clinton over Obama, but I do like both of them for different reasons.

    The cigarette thing that Jon mentions is just stupid. It just goes to show that idiots are found in every race, ethnic group, or subculture.

    Besides, to a certain extent, I believe most politicians have an addiction to either fame, recognition, or to a lesser extent, helping people.

    Values, my ass. My friend's cat has a better sense of "values" than poster Jon does. I think my friend's cat's box does too.

    Posted by: Rey | Feb 22, 2008 1:02:15 PM

  19. But, Jon, I said it with love! Clearly the best thing about you is that you're a faggot.

    Not that any of the rest of us would ever claim you, but....

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 22, 2008 1:03:30 PM

  20. No one will report this story because no one fucking believes it.

    O'Reilly is an unhinged, bloated toad blowing soap bubbles. If he ever does report this deeply stupid story he can fold up his tent, he's through.

    Posted by: FASTLAD | Feb 22, 2008 1:08:12 PM

  21. Jon, Obama kicked the cigarrette habit. And how is his admitted drug use any different from that of George Bush or Bill Clinton's. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that these are the only three elected officials to ever use drugs.

    Posted by: cadence | Feb 22, 2008 1:09:30 PM

  22. Regardless, what if the story is true?

    Posted by: Christopher | Feb 22, 2008 12:15:03 PM

    Well, what if the story of radioactive spider bites turning people into superheroes was true?

    Come on now. Your personal hard on for a tin foily hat brigade smear against Obama doesn't make this true.

    There is nothing the media likes more than a sex story. They would have jumped all over this a long time ago.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 22, 2008 1:17:16 PM

  23. Saying it isn't true because no one in the MSM will report it is a cop out. If true this would undo Obama. The key to this is the limo driver.

    The lawsuit, the possibility of a high profile attorney representing Sinclair (allegedly the same one supporting Jake Van der Sloot) and the impending polygraph test this coming week will get the MSM's attention I suppose.

    If this is true there is certainly something troubling with regard to Obama's hypocrisy and lying. Not that I care about the gay sex, but his lack of faith to his wife would also be troubling for many people.

    This will continue to grow legs over the weekend.

    Posted by: jb28 | Feb 22, 2008 1:32:08 PM

  24. Jimboyo, radioactive spiders? What if it is true, then what say you?

    Posted by: Christopher | Feb 22, 2008 1:34:38 PM

  25. Oh, please, Rey... Why do you feel the need to bring intelligence into this? The only smart thing you just said is that you prefer Clinton over Obama. That aside, if you feel arguing over comments on Towleroad necessitates an IQ contest, then be my guest and please do share.

    If you go to my original comment you'll notice it has NOTHING to do with cigarettes or cocaine. It's the fact that he has clearly dealt with addictions his entire life. Now, he may have been filling the void that his father left when he split, but at 46 years of age he should be over something like that.

    And before I receive any more criticism, I myself grew up without a father and experienced addictions in my family my entire life. Have I ever touched alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs? NO.

    You don't do cocaine for several months without some form of an addiction, so quit lying to yourselves, people. Or maybe I'll get my ex-addict Uncle to tell you all that himself.

    The point is that Obama resorting to drugs at ANY point in his life tells me something about his character. I don't care at what point in his life either. Nobody was forcing him to do cocaine over an extended period of time. (Which some of you somehow think doesn't equal an addiction).



    Do you have tangible proof that he's actually quit? There was this whole media hullabaloo last year, that's for sure. But does that prove he actually quit? No. It just tells me that they took it public for a reason, and that was to get anti-smokers off his back. Nothing else.

    As for your George/Bill comments, did I say it was any different? No.

    Have I "fooled myself" into thinking Obama is the only candidate to ever do drugs? Certainly not. Where are you getting this BS from? I haven't written anything of the sort.

    The fact of that matter is that THIS ELECTION is what matters right now. Why would I care if some other politician has done drugs?

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 22, 2008 1:50:21 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Last Night's Obama-Clinton Debate Killed the Plagiarism Meme« «