Hillary Clinton claims she’s not homosexual.
Heh… Not that there’s anything WRONG with that….
[1]During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine’s news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, “How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you’re a lesbian?”
“People say a lot of things about me, so I really don’t pay any attention to it,” Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied.
“It’s not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say.”
McQ [2] notes the story and says:
American politics. At least he didn’t ask “boxers or briefs”?
I keep hearing two rumors. One is, the answer is boxers.
The other answer I keep hearing is “commando” and I don’t think it has anything to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Joyner, meanwhile: [3]
For what it’s worth, I guess. I’ve always presumed she was straight but her denial doesn’t provide any meaningful additional evidence. As Larry Craig and others have shown, it’s possible for a high profile public figure to be gay, pretend to be straight, and even to deny being gay despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Countdown to condemnation from gay activist groups for not loudly proclaiming that she’d be proud to be gay 5, 4, 3 . . .
They’re both correct, of course. I expect that she knows, and the interviewer does, as well, that such an admission would be a kiss of death for both her presidential possibilities, and for her erstwhile husband’s legacy. Which in turn would also hurt her own chances.
Addendum: (David L ) Well this story solves one question, is Mrs. Clinton smart. The Clinton are well renowned as liars, by both the left and the right. Thus, Mrs. Clinton’s denial has no credibility. The Clintons simply do not tell the truth when it comes to sex.
Mrs. Clinton’s denial does make her sexuality, or lack thereof, an open issue for discussion. Would the MSM ever ask, Fred, Rudy or Mitt about their sexuality?