If there was a possible scandal involving a Democratic frontrunner..

Would you rather hear it now and from Greg Palast, or from Rove after they won the Democratic Nomination?

I'm not even going to try to summarize the story because I want to avoid any possible appearances of bias for or against the candidate.

Before you read the article, would you rather know the story now or hear it right before the election?

I personally would want to know ahead of time so that we could hear the other side of the story and develope a defense for the crazy Rove-machine attack that is almost certain.

Here is the link to Greg Palast's website.
http://www.gregpalast.com/hillarys-mother-fing-tour-business/#more-1717

I'd rather get to information now, so that both sides of it can be given consideration.

is a lying POS, as witnessed when this article surfaced last week.

:popcorn:

everyone that I hear on AAR treats him like the 13th Apostle. I try to be sceptical of everything, but thanks for the heads up.

waiting to hear her response to his article. So far, nothing.

This piece is shrill with loathing. It calls his interpretation of facts into question.

There were a lot a ways to present that material, oozing with contempt and loathing was probably not the most effective.

Here's the thing: the Republicans wanted to get the Clintons in the worst way. And they didn't use this. You really think it was because they didn't know?

I'd think the R's are waiting to hit Hillary with this kind of thing post nomination. Not too many people are paying attention at this point and when the R's start pointing out skeletons later in the game the MSM and more Americans will be more apt to spread it around.

Just MHO.

Why didn't the Repugs use it last year when she ran for reelection to her Senate seat?

the right wing came up with during the 90s. They printed and investigated (in that order) every minor rumor any political opponent of the Clintons ever dreamed up. If they missed it, it doesn't exist.

What's Palast on about? Land deals? Influence peddling? More on the sweetheart stock deals Hillary got? Affairs with Vincent Foster? That she's a lesbian? That she has a temper? Some other variation of "She's a woman so she shouldn't do what men do all the time?" :shrug:

Which is that we've seen it all before.

The reason Palast could never get a job in the US wasn't because of the conservative bias of the media, though that exists. It was because he was and is a bad journalist, and a bad investigator. He stumbled upon some truths in Florida in 2000 (although others wrote the articles pointing the way for him), but his lack of critical thinking and his propensity to lunge straight for whatever he wants to prove rather than for the truth destroyed the chance that the mainstream would never take those stories seriously.

If he's done something other than regurgitate another Republican smear attempt on the Clintons, wake me up. It would be kind of amusing if he found something that they overlooked that could actually bring her down. More than likely, though, he's got another candidate he likes better, so he's just doing what Ted Olson and the others did.

with the vast left wing conspiracy; what a team.

or false dichotomy, whichever.

After we have our nominee, there will be a scandal. If they have to dredge up old crap to present in a new light or manufacture something new, there will be another attempt to swift boat our nominee - whomever that will be.