According to another Brit-tab story, the network in question was ABC.

Ah. ABC News. That bastion of conservative thought.

The interesting question being rolled around ABC right now (assuming) is, "Are we doing our liberal agenda a FAVOR by running this, or are we hurting that agenda?

An interesting question. Could go either way.

There's an AP story out that she and her parents issued press releases saying it's not true and they love John Kerry. If that's true, there's something very not right with all the press coverage so far. Did the Sun, etc., just make it all up?

It will get out when and where Hillary says it should.

She doesn't want any of them to win the primaries, but she won't use public arm twisting techniques unless she has to.

As far as the alleged tapes goes, doesn't this 24 or 27 year old media executive have a copy.

Does she wants to sell it? Send out a message -- it goes to the highest bidder only with the proviso that it be aired within a short time after receiving.

If she doesn't want money, put it on the Internet. It will literally go around the world in less than 90 seconds.

I'm starting to lose faith in FOX. Since when do we care the leftist press says. They dropped Tony Snow like a hot potato after Jay Rockefeller complained Tony told the truth about him. FOX should be hammering on the rest of the media's disgraceful behavior with the president's military records. They were pored over last election. The obscene ads on TV are only a precursor of the really dirty stuff they'll start throwing when the actual election campaign starts.

Some of Bush's former blogger supporters are going wobbly now too. Doesn't everyone know if Bush is defeated, no matter which Democrat gets in, we're back to square one with the U.N. dictating our foreign policy.

She denied the affair today to the AP.

Story over.

Thanks for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you.

It doesn't matter who is the second to report this story. This is a big lose-lose for the media and it gets worse every day that goes by.

First, they got scooped by Drudge (again). Ok, not really since big media was sitting on this for so long, but that's the way it looks since Drudge actually reported the story.

Second, the media is on the horns of a dilemma as to report this or not. Do they wait and make Drudge look better and better, or suck it up and "legitimize" the story with their involvement?

Finally, everyone is asking questions as to why big media is refusing to pick up the story. I guarantee you that big media does *not* want people seeing the media cycle and its workings on display and being discussed on blogs and in chatrooms.

You also have to ask why they're all over the debunked Bush AWOL story, but aren't touching the Kerry intern story. Do they think a wannabe deserves more respect than the President? Are they afraid of hurting "their guy?" Why the disparity?

The longer this goes unreported, the more questions get asked. The more questions that get asked, the worse this is for big media, and the more it looks like the internet and talk radio is eating their lunch.

I think of all the red faces and frustration at CNN and ABC and just smile....ahhhhh

There has been some TV coverage of it, although still nothing in the major papers. They talked about it on Fox News Sunday at the 45 minute mark and showed a clip of Peter Jennings reporting Kerry's denial from the Imus program. But, still, this has essentially been off the radar.

How fast news moves...

But can I say that something here does not add up? The media was investigating *something* since 2001, Wes Clark predicted the implosion of the Kerry campaign, and the father of the woman was quoted as calling Kerry a "scumbag."

Now suddenly she wasn't an intern, the family loves Kerry and is voting for him, there was no affair, and the multi-year investigation was for naught and Clark was just shooting his mouth off?

What?

I'll readily admit that I don't get this.

Well, the possibilities are:

1. There was never any truth to it, and the Sun, Telegraph, Drudge, LeHane, and Wes Clark were all either making it up or relying on somebody else who made it up.

2. She (and her family and friends) falsely told that story before, but now they're telling the truth.

3. She and her family and friends were telling the truth before, but now they're lying to protect Kerry.

(if it's 2 or 3, though, you have to wonder where this alleged TV tape is).

4. Drudge, LeHane, and Wes Clark were all correct in stating there's a story there - it just didn't involve this girl. The Sun and Telegraph were just lying or messed up massively in linking it to her.

If the story is not true, what happens to Drudge? Or is this another example of keep throwing spaghetti on the wall till some of it sticks. If Kerry is innocent of these charges can he sue?

Drudge is now saying that the mystery woman (not an intern) had actually dated Kerrys finance chief. No retraction mind you, just keep spinnin baby. 'Heh'

Pathetic. After what Rove and company did to McCain in 2000, this is childs play.

We're at freakin war. We're running out of money to pay for it while we ship 50 year old family guys in the National Guard out for 18 month tours, and these aholes are wasting our time with red herrings. They deserve to lose the election.

Who's "they?" Lehane and Clark? They already lost. Drudge, the Sun, and the Telegraph? They're not running for anything.

If you mean "Rove and company," what's the proof that they had anything to do with this story? Again, the only quoted sources are the girl, friends and parents, Lehane and Clark.

And no, I don't buy that they must be in on it (despite the lack of evidence) just because they had a motive. First, if they really wanted to use it (especially a demonstrably false story), they'd use it later. Second, they'd have all the motive in the world to let the press, Clark and Lehane offer this one up, and just sit back and see how it plays out. I'm sure the orders were explicit - don't touch this one no matter what (for now).

Still a bunch of blather comments after it is posted the woman and family denies. Obviously the media was not scooped and they behaved very well. It's early guys, something real could still show up.

RE: Wrapper -- "Still a bunch of blather comments after it is posted the woman and family denies. Obviously the media was not scooped and they behaved very well. It's early guys, something real could still show up."

Just be sure to hold your breath while waiting ...

Matt Drudge -- what a friggin' neurotic closet case! See what happens when you live in denial, and support those right-wing wackos who'd just as soon see you dry up and blow away id you weren't so important to their misinformation campaign.

Maybe he can next report that Mrs. Kerry actually talked to someone who was not her husband.

Why should anyone but the Kerry family and the family of the woman even care about the truth or falseness of this rumor or allegation?

What if he did. Who cares? Why is this even newsworthy?

"You also have to ask why they're all over the debunked Bush AWOL story, but aren't touching the Kerry intern story. Do they think a wannabe deserves more respect than the President? Are they afraid of hurting "their guy?" Why the disparity?"

Because there were legitimate questions about Bush's Vietnam-era service: How did he land that sweet gig in the Air National Guard? If he was supportive of the war, why didn't he volunteer to actually fight it? Why did he blow off that physical and lose his flight clearance? How did he manage to get out early? And, yes, did he bother showing up at all after he transferred to Alabama. All legitimate questions for a "War President" (his words, not mine) who has no regrets over a war that has lead to the deaths of over 500 of our soldiers, but will apparently not achieve its stated goal of finding and confiscating Saddam's WMD. He did an OK job of responding on "Meet the Press" even if, true to form, he insisted on answering a different question than the one he was asked.

Contrast this with a vague rumor about an affair Kerry may have had with some woman who might be an intern or a staffer or a freelance journalist. The only places you read about it are "The Dredge Report" and a British tabloid called "The Sun", the second of which says "there is no evidence of an affair." Even if the Sun has missed some key piece of evidence and Dredge's innuendos prove to have some basis, it's still a story about a guy's private life. Cheating on your wife is bad, but ultimately, if he actually had an affair it's his business. He needs to explain himself to his wife and his family, but not to the rest of the world. And if you disagree, then you need to explain why Bush doesn't need to describe, in excruciating detail, every time he snorted cocaine, every other drug he's tried, every time he's driven while drunk, etc.

So I give the responsible media props for not raising the profile of this story.

Unfortunatley, much to the chagrin of Mr. Dredge, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, NewsMax.com, and, it seems, many of the regular followers of this "blog", the affair rumor turns out to have been false. But all is not lost; in a recent show our fat, drug-addled standard bearer reflected on exactly the same point made by Mike M. Rush found it quite unfair that the media focused far more on the military record of our War President than on vague, scandalous, unsubstantiated rumors about John Kerry's sex life. Unwilling to let such an important piece of news be swept under the rug simply because both people who are alleged to have had the affair flatly denied it, Rush has concluded that the woman's denial raises more questions than it answers.

No JNS, that ain't it at all.

Both of these stories are political hits. Or rather attempted political hits.

For a hit to be effective, it has to undermine the candidate's base. If you attack the base, the stuff they care about, then.

Thus, Bush being AWOL, would work (if it were true) as it would cause his base to doubt his abilities and honesty, two of his most attractive features (to Bush' base constiuency)

But Kerry as adulterer ain't going to work against Kerry's base. After Clinton, it has been shown that not only the Democrats, but even the independents don't care about Presidental adultery.

The only thing this latest flap does is essentially insulate Kerry against future bimbo eruptions, or such charges later in the campaign. Anyone who comes forward now will get shrugged off.

And I think the way the AWOL story is winding down will have a similar effect. Any further talk will get lumped and not believed. Been there, done that, am bored already.

BTW, the fact that the Democrats have shown they don't care about adultery is why I doubt the Republicans are behind Kerry's flap. If the base don't care about the charge, then it would be pointless to push the story.