Tip o’ the bloggy hat to FranIAm for bringing up this From the Left post about Hillary Clinton and the rumor that she is lesbian. Reading Christopher's original post, I couldn’t help but think that there was something not quite right going on. Let me try to explain:
First, I have never thought Hillary Clinton was lesbian; I just don’t get that feel from her. Much as I’d love to have her on my team, I just don’t think the lady’s got it in her to explore whatever -um- urges she might (or might not) have had. The woman is powerful and has women in key positions around her; to me, this bespeaks her feminism, not lesbianism.
I agree with Christopher that Clinton’s strong poll ratings so far have kept Gore from entering the race. I’d be willing to bet that Gore has considered it, but he knows that Bill and Hillary would likely smash him into bits if he seriously hinted at getting into the race. Right now, Clinton seems unstoppable, but Gore would be a massive distraction. God knows dems don’t need that to happen again. (Nader, party of green?) Gore knows this better than anyone, so he takes the convenient out: he’s more powerful now as a regular citizen than he could be as a politician, and thus why would he get back into politics and take the media’s abuse again? Best to take his Nobel Prize and keep on truckin'. Leave the White House to Bill and Hillary again.
Second, I just can’t help but wonder if all these rumors of an L.A. Times story and all the gossip it’s inciting are merely a more subtle Swift-Boat campaign. Think about it; in its bare essence, the idea of Clinton as a lesbian just sounds like something Rove and his ilk would use to sabotage her campaign. But it wouldn’t be enough to just start the tongues wagging; that’s junior high stuff. No, to be in the Rove/Swift-Boat leagues, you’d have to stir in the idea that the truth is indeed out there, at the L.A. Times, and it’s only a matter of time before the facts come to light. Whether the story ever even materializes would be beside the point; the damage would be done. Because let’s face it – the easiest way to bring down a politician these days is by playing the gay/not-gay card. Card-carrying sicko David Vitter can run around in diapers with female prostitutes, and nothing happens. But closet-case Larry Craig taps his toes and maybe makes a veiled pass at a male cop, and he’s out in the cold faster than he can shout “I’m not gay!” Sadly, DC’s—and America’s—homophobia knows no bounds. Shit, to the radical reich and many religious nutwing voters, gays and lesbians are simply evil. I'm sure the reich are spreading this rumor with a frenzy.
Little wonder that Clinton’s poll numbers are already taking a downturn, which of course some people are claiming is evidence that the rumors are true and already affecting the Clinton campaign. I think that's falling prey to “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” or “After this; therefore, because of this;” just because the rumors came before a small drop in her poll numbers does not mean that one caused the other.
Further, combine all this with the (I’m sure) intentionally salacious-sounding hits you get when you google Huma Abedin’s name:
and it just seems to me like this is all too orchestrated, too convenient. In a race where Clinton has been the big favorite for quite some time, carefully protecting her centrist image and saying all the right things, it just seems very unlikely that this kind of thing could surface unless it were orchestrated by someone. Which leads me to ask: who would orchestrate such a thing? Answer: anyone on the republican side who’s worried about losing the ridiculously excessive power the repubs gained under the BushCo dictatorship.
So those are my thoughts on this issue; what do you think?