Alex Pollier - this will go away, if we will recognize hypocrisy in action

Here are the facts:

Matt Fudge said it's true.

Alex Pollier refuses to comment.

Kerry didn't categorically deny it on Imus.

Any yet, the sentiment is that if he's not denying it, and she's not denying it, then it must be true. Can someone PLEASE tell me how you can prove a negative?

So there is no proof that he didn't do it, therefor he must be guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? Hello? I thought we were against the Patriot Act? Did I miss something, or is this hypocrisy in action???

Notes on Edit: Apparantly my writing skills suck, so I'll spell this out - I don't care if Kerry did or didn't (for the record, I don't think he did.) My point is, there is no proof that he did, yet people are assuming he did, and it's his downfall.

Guilty until proven innocent is the stuff Patriot does, not democrats.

After Imus his statement had more "no"'s, but one was enough for me.

The sentiment is that because Kerry said, "There is no story" that he was parsing words. Apparantly they wanted "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Kerry told an MSNBC radio station Friday: "There is nothing to report, nothing to talk about. There's nothing there. There's no story."

Later, on the campaign trail in Madison, Wis., Kerry told reporters: "I just deny it categorically. It's rumour. It's untrue. Period."

If it were true...so what? That issue would have to lay in the santicty of his marriage not yours.

This "scandal" is a piece of meat thrown to the fundies.

The masses are already conditioned to believe that the Dems like sex.

Bush is being attacked on the macho issue and that is a really serious problem for him because he intended to run on being a strong leader. If the public thinks he is a phony, he loses big time.

I haven't even seen any credible evidence that this story has a basis in fact. It ultimately may well be true, but there is no reason to believe it right now with a total lack of evidence. Those that are treating it as true are acting emotionally and unfairly.

are two things the Republicans are all about.

If they are so "anti-sex", then maybe they could stop having it, and wipe out the "race" of conservative bigots.

I thought they raided hyena litters to replenish their stock.

or lack thereof, but I can say that I remember calling my dad 12 years ago, and saying, "Dammit, Clinton's DONE" because of the Gennifer Flowers story. I thought that there was NO way a candidate could overcome that.

Now I understand that everything has changed because of the MonicaMess, but I look back on my discouragement at that time and realize that SO much can change in the months of a campaign. I'm going to hope that this all gets out of the way now, so we can focus on CONSTANTLY putting bush's record out for all to see - so he'll be out on his ass next January.

when reporters asked him about it in Wisconsin. He denial was unambiguous.

If they can focus on what goes on in the democrats bedrooms, nobody will pay attention to what is going on in theirs. Look at Newt and Guilliani, two adulterers. I am sure there are more, but as long as they stay focused on the dems bedrooms, voila! They think they are off the hook.

That is why they always try to frame the debate and get the candidate on the defensive and as long as they are asking the questions, they don't have to answer their own. I wish that would change because the rethugs have alot to answer to.

That makes anything anti-Kerry appealing to those who oppose him, even if the source is Drudge and even if there is nothing distantly related to proof involved.

The number of people on DU demanding that he drop out was unbelievable. Clinton's ratings went up post-Monica because the public's perception was that he was being persecuted. It's possible that this "story" will do the same for Kerry, and people will back him even more.

From what I gather, the stories are going to generate out of the foreign papers, because the US papers are hesitant to print this stuff.

This thread was rather fascinating:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=332788

I understand that the media in the UK is reporting more 20 something year old women talking. We have already seen that the 1st Kerry stories came out with much more detail in Europe and Australia than what was reported here. Expect to see more of the same.

<snip>

Asked about the report by Internet Web site operator Matt Drudge, Kerry told reporters on his campaign: "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. Period."

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040213/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_denial_dc_1

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7914584.htm

Two plastic surgeons studied the pictures at the request of the New York Daily News and concluded that Kerry had, indeed, subjected himself to Botox.

Kerry scoffed at the notion. "Never heard of it," he said, even though his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, admits to getting the shots now and then.

When are the DEMS going to stop doing the GOP's work for them?

Botox is not a campaign issue.