OMG - I feel so bad asking this.....

[Birdie]

I think it is terrible that bloggers are pointing to Ron Paul's campaign as being the "source" of the Larry Sinclair story. Obviously, a "dirty trick" of this kind is just not Ron Paul's style (although it may be Hillary's style.) The only common thread of interest in Ron Paul supporters and Larry Sinclair is the demand for truth from our elected representatives, including the President.

This is why Larry Sinclair's claims are important. It goes toward Barack Obama's credibility as a Presidential candidate if he is lying about past drug use and if he has been unfaithful to his family. We don't need another liar sitting in the White House - we have that right now!

Larry Sinclair came across as extremely credible in his Rense interview. Larry Sinclair's claims should be thoroughly investigated. It may not make any difference in Obama's "electability," because Gennifer Flowers didn't stop Bill Clinton from being elected, but it absolutely should be investigated. If the Obama supporters can so easily accept Ron Paul as a "racist" based upon flimsy accusations, then why no similar examination of Obama's character? Since when is illegal drug use and illicit sex "okay" and not a factor in one's ability to hold the highest office in the country and make decisions that affect millions?

It is true that the MSM is studiously ignoring the story for the moment. Sinclair himself said in his radio interview last week on Rense that all the major papers have had his story since September and are just sitting on it. Also, note that Sen. Larry Craig was arrested in June, but his story did not hit the MSM until late August. As another example of the media dragging their feet (at best) or protecting Obama (at worst), I called in to a local radio show here in Phoenix the morning after Obama spoke here this week to ask the host to please comment on Larry Sinclair's claims and how this will affect Obama's candidacy, and they would not put me on the air.

I just saw an article saying that Larry Sinclair was interviewed last night on the New York radio program, "The Right Perspective." (link)

Excerpt:

The Right Perspective will speak to Larry Sinclair, who has come forward in a YouTube video with allegations that he and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama shared a two-day, cocaine and gay sex party back in 1999.

Mr. Sinclair's bombshell charges came out (no pun intended) just days before the hotly-contested South Carolina primary two weeks ago and have been largely ignored by the mainstream media, save for conspiracy radio host Jeff Rense, who only interviewed Mr. Sinclair first due to technical difficulties at The Right Perspective.

Then, on "Hello, Africa!", veteran New Zealand anti-apartheid campaigner John Minto, will talk with Frank and John about why he recently turned down a nomination for the South African Companion of OR Tambo Award for foreigners.

Be sure to listen to The Right Perspective tonight starting 10pm EDT (05:00 South African time) at the link at the top right. You can also call in with your questions at 718-761-9996.

I wished I had seen that so I could have listened. If there is anyone who may know if they have an archive of the interview, please post a link.

Thanks.

 

[Redcard]

I cannot believe you guys think this is serious.

I mean, seriously. This is beyond the pale. We should not be connecting ourselves to this unsubstantiated rumor.

 

[Birdie]

I cannot believe you guys think this is serious.

I mean, seriously. This is beyond the pale. We should not be connecting ourselves to this unsubstantiated rumor.

How can you say it is "not serious" and "unsubstantiated?" Please explain.

 

[Young_Apprentice]

In the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

hm?

 

[Birdie]

Indeed. Well, so far he has provided quite a lot of specific details and evidence to support his claims, which is why I said he came across as very credible.

I would also think that one would be extremely cautious about making slanderous claims against someone as high-profile and wealthy as Obama, because if it weren't true, he would obviously be found guilty in a lawsuit and face a hefty financial judgment and perhaps jail time.

 

[RonRules]

I always thought Obama was a diversionary tactic to keep the media off Hillary. Obama has plenty of dirt around him like the Slumlord that bought the land under his house for 30% above the market price, allowing him to buy a $1.6 mil house at much lower cost.

That's stuff will come out if Hillary is in peril. Obama is the ultimate scapegoat, but he doesn't' know.

 

[RonRules]

What concerns me is the use of crack cocaine. I have to undergo random drug tests as an aerospace worker. I see NO PROBLEM checking presidential candidates for drug use.

 

[Redcard]

How can you say it is "not serious" and "unsubstantiated?" Please explain.

Uh.

Easily.

Not serious:

A youtube video proclaiming something without any evidence.

Unsubstantiated:

Without substantiation. Without evidence of any type lending to a state of truthfulness.

 

[Young_Apprentice]

Uh.

Easily.

Not serious:

A youtube video proclaiming something without any evidence.

Unsubstantiated:

Without substantiation. Without evidence of any type lending to a state of truthfulness.

BUt....but....but...dont you know that you should believe everything till you have evidence to prove otherwise?!

 

[Redcard]

BUt....but....but...dont you know that you should believe everything till you have evidence to prove otherwise?!

*laughs*

Well, I am on RPF, aren't I?

 

[Birdie]

Easily. Not serious: A youtube video proclaiming something without any evidence.

Unsubstantiated: Without substantiation. Without evidence of any type lending to a state of truthfulness.

a video proclaiming "something..."

Well, personally I consider illegal drug use and infidelity to be serious matters, so I don't get how you can call his claim "not serious." Why? Because it was on YouTube? So what? If the MSM had held a press conference, would that have "changed" the seriousness of his claims?

And, I guess you have not listened to his interview. Sinclair's claims are hardly without substantiation or evidence. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[Young_Apprentice]

Does he have pictures? Does he have sheets with Obama juice all over them? Anything?

 

[Redcard]

a video proclaiming "something..."

Well, personally I consider illegal drug use and infidelity to be serious matters, so I don't get how you can call his claim "not serious." Why? Because it was on YouTube? So what? If the MSM had held a press conference, would that have "changed" the seriousness of his claims?

And, I guess you have not listened to his interview. Sinclair's claims are hardly without substantiation or evidence. Quite the contrary, in fact.

No, they really are without substantiation and evidence. Seriously.. you guys will believe anything if its in a Youtube video said by someone convincing.

I can produce a similar video calling Ron Paul a racist and making up some evidence, and you'd want more substantiation. Don't you think that's a fair thing to require of a man before you go and accuse him of gay sex and illegal drug use and infidelity in the middle of a campaign?

Because I'll tell you what... it'll link back to this campaign, and if it's anywhere close to unprovable, bye bye Ron Paul's chances forever.

 

[Birdie]

He has his plane ticket and hotel receipts from his trip and a third party witness - the man who arranged the introduction between him and Obama.

 

[Redcard]

He has his plane ticket and hotel receipts from his trip and a third party witness - the man who arranged the introduction between him and Obama.

And did Obama pay for the room? Did anyone else see them? Was Obama in the area at the time?

I can do ALL those things too, about anyone in the world.

Remember, the FBI had similar "evidence" on MLK, and it turned out to all be made up by them.

 

[Birdie]

Because I'll tell you what... it'll link back to this campaign, and if it's anywhere close to unprovable, bye bye Ron Paul's chances forever.

That's really absurd.

Ron Paul's campaign is not going to be affected by Obama having to defend himself in the least.

 

[Birdie]

And did Obama pay for the room? Did anyone else see them? Was Obama in the area at the time?

No, Sinclair paid for the room. He says they went to his room for the first encounter and that Obama came to his room for the second encounter. Yes, he says someone else introduced them initially and accompanied them to the hotel on their first encounter.

 

[Redcard]

That's really absurd.

Ron Paul's campaign is not going to be affected by Obama having to defend himself in the least.

No, you don't get it , do you?

This is typical Karl Rove manuevering. Once it gets found out, who do you think gets blamed? Hillary? HAH!

No way. The Dems will blame the Republicans.. the Republicans will look shocked and looked around.. and then.. someone.. will come up with a link to this forum. Then, suddenly, on Youtube, someone will "Find out" that this "Obama Blow Job" guy was really a member of this forum.

Come on. It's so painfully obvious that this is a set up.

 

[Birdie]

No, you don't get it , do you?

This is typical Karl Rove manuevering. Once it gets found out, who do you think gets blamed? Hillary? HAH!

No way. The Dems will blame the Republicans.. the Republicans will look shocked and looked around.. and then.. someone.. will come up with a link to this forum. Then, suddenly, on Youtube, someone will "Find out" that this "Obama Blow Job" guy was really a member of this forum.

Actually, I'm starting to think you don't get it. You're actually quite wrong, in that the only people who are blaming Ron Paul's campaign are a couple of lower-level liberal bloggers, while the higher-profile liberal bloggers and virtually all commenters on this topic are blaming Hillary's campaign.

Either way, it doesn't affect Obama to have people committing an indirect smear of another candidate by trying to say their campaign is "responsible."

BTW, Larry Sinclair, as an "out" gay man doesn't personally strike me as the type who would be an endorser of Ron Paul's campaign.

 

[NewsGuy]

I think it is terrible that bloggers are pointing to Ron Paul's campaign as being the "source" of the Larry Sinclair story. Obviously, a "dirty trick" of this kind is just not Ron Paul's style (although it may be Hillary's style.) The only common thread of interest in Ron Paul supporters and Larry Sinclair is the demand for truth from our elected representatives, including the President.

This is why Larry Sinclair's claims are important. It goes toward Barack Obama's credibility as a Presidential candidate if he is lying about past drug use and if he has been unfaithful to his family. We don't need another liar sitting in the White House - we have that right now!

Larry Sinclair came across as extremely credible in his Rense interview. Larry Sinclair's claims should be thoroughly investigated. It may not make any difference in Obama's "electability," because Gennifer Flowers didn't stop Bill Clinton from being elected, but it absolutely should be investigated. If the Obama supporters can so easily accept Ron Paul as a "racist" based upon flimsy accusations, then why no similar examination of Obama's character? Since when is illegal drug use and illicit sex "okay" and not a factor in one's ability to hold the highest office in the country and make decisions that affect millions?

It is true that the MSM is studiously ignoring the story for the moment. Sinclair himself said in his radio interview last week on Rense that all the major papers have had his story since September and are just sitting on it. Also, note that Sen. Larry Craig was arrested in June, but his story did not hit the MSM until late August. As another example of the media dragging their feet (at best) or protecting Obama (at worst), I called in to a local radio show here in Phoenix the morning after Obama spoke here this week to ask the host to please comment on Larry Sinclair's claims and how this will affect Obama's candidacy, and they would not put me on the air.

I just saw an article saying that Larry Sinclair was interviewed last night on the New York radio program, "The Right Perspective." (link)

Excerpt:


I wished I had seen that so I could have listened. If there is anyone who may know if they have an archive of the interview, please post a link.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm the producer of The Right Perspective and I stumbled across this post while doing a search. Larry was supposed to be on last week but canceled at the last minute due to health reasons (he claimed to be calling from a hospital emergency room when he canceled the interview).

Larry will be on this Friday (Feb. 8) and you can hear the interview at 10:00pm EDT over the Internet at www.therightperspective.com - click on the link at the right that says "listen live". You can also call in with your questions (or voice your opinions after the interview) by calling into the show at 718-761-9996.

Just to add that The Right Perspective has never endorsed Ron Paul's campaign, although I myself do like Dr. Paul's Constitutional message and real conservatism.