Greg, a Texas teacher, links the Trent-Lott-gay-hooker rumor with the story about Huma and Hillary:
Sorry, folks, but you cannot have it both way. Stories like these, both of which are unsubstantiated, are either both out of bounds or both acceptable. Either a public figure’s sexual orientation is open to question, or it isn’t – and given rumors about Hillary and lesbianism dating back 15 years, I think the Clinton story is probably MORE important and appropriate than whether Trent Lott swings like a pendulum do, despite all the allegations of hypocrisy from the allegedly gay-friendly, effectively homophobic Left. After all, one is running for President, and so we have an absolute right to know, don’t you think – especially since it would give us the reason that Bill Clinton has had to resort to a pattern of abuse of office, sexual assault, and fellatio with fat chicks to satisfy his sexual needs, namely that his wife didn’t because of her urgent craving for some carpet with a side order of thighs.
And are you offended by the paragraph directly above this one? Intended as satire, it is no more outrageous than the comments made on a great many Democrat–leaning sites today.
So, denizens of the Left, you must decide. Are the sex lives of politicians — all politicians, not just the ones you hate, not just the ones who don’t vote the "straight" gay agenda — open for public scrutiny and commentary? Or does there exist a zone of privacy that must be respected, one which ought be pierced only in cases of flagrant extramarital affairs or criminal charges?
FYI — I vote for the latter, and therefore find both stories inappropriate.
