[kegler4]

Something just seems wrong with this picture.

How did an Australia paper interview the alleged "parents" but no American media did? Why the heck would Clark tell reporters about something that might torpedo the Kerry campaign, and then come out and endorse Kerry for president? Why wouldn't Clark, Edwards, Dean bring this out in the open to torpedo the Kerry campaign? And why isn't a conservative paper like the Washington Time blaring this on its front page?

[kcvl]

Because no American press called the parents since they probably already know all the details. In fact, Drudge told Hannity on his show that yesterday Chris Matthews had this subject buzzing over at MSNBC but he didn't even bring up the subject on the air last night. It was all "Bush is a liar about his military records". Fair and balanced & no bias, of course.

[William McKinley]

Not only that, but a blog entry made many days ago 'broke' the story. The blog is run by Cameron Barrett (go to the bottom of the blog to see his name and copyright note). Cameron Barrett works for Wesley Clark's campaign.

And notice how in that blog entry, it already was setting up the right to take the blame?

Could this create a Democratic backlash against Republicans for perceived scandalmongering?

This was all part of the gameplan all along. And we already have posers writing Andrew Sullivan with their 'seminar poster' scripts, straight out of the Moby playbook. (It seems like yesterday, Sullivan bit on their bait a little, but this morning he seems to be catching on that he was used a bit).

[Chris Talk]

The story says the London Sun, not an Australian paper, interviewed the parents.

[OldFriend]

And why didn't Imus ask Kerry why he thought Weasley Clark would make such statements about him?

According to Drudge, this has been percolating out there for several weeks.