home

Al Gore Accuser Molly Haggerty, Steps Up Allegations

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:58:42 PM EST
Tags: Al Gore (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Molly Haggerty, the woman accusing Al Gore of sexual misconduct during a massage in 2006, has agreed to be publicly identified. She tells more of her story to the National Enquirer. The Enquirer claims she has new evidence and is now demanding a full police investigation.

Oddly, the Oregonian, while reporting on her enhanced version to the Enquirer, which reveals her identity and shows her holding up a pair of pants, continues not to print her name .

I think this story died last week when it was reported Ms. Haggerty wanted large amounts of money for her story. Yet, in her taped statement, you hear her telling the police investigator she's not doing this for money, she's not interested in money and she just wants justice for women. Her credibility is shot. Continued interest level in this story: zero. Time to put it to bed.

< A Glimpse At The Journolist Archives | Federal Grand Jury Indicts Joran Van der Sloot for Extortion, Wire Fraud >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Al Gore Accuser Molly Haggerty, Steps Up Allegations | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    how much more of (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    her "story" can there possibly be? she was there for what, 3 hours? is she going to give a minute-by-minute account of the whole 3 hour period?

    this thing died a'borning. last time i checked, being insulted, or having your feelings hurt, no matter how borish, doesn't constitute sexual assault.

    a massage requires up-close, physical contact. the odds are pretty darn good that DNA will be exchanged, accounting for the "stain" on her pants. unless the stain is from semen, that's all it is, an unfortunate stain, probably needing bleach.

    geez, talk about cries of desperation.

    Even semen... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    wouldn't prove any sexual assault.  A guy getting rubbed down for 3 hours in only a bathrobe is likely to get a little excited, some pre-ejaculate could be passed to the pants via innocent incidental contact.

    Parent
    Am I the only one who will admit (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    reading the very long transcript?  She sd. during the massage he was nuder and draped.  He put on the robe after the massage.

    Parent
    I read it (none / 0) (#29)
    by Shawn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    Which is why I don't believe it.

    Parent
    If, in fact, she called a friend immed. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    after this incident, would be pertinent to hear what the friend says she told the friend.

    Parent
    I read the entire thing....her 'lawyer prepared' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    statement as well as the question/answer segment.  

    Parent
    Not "to bed", TL (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Get out a stake, a hammer, and a shovel, then drive the stake through its heart and bury it.

    Jeralyn, you are a real tease. I must (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    buy The Enquirer to find out about the corroborating witness and/or DNA?

    I love the little balloon (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    "her stained pants"
    like we didnt know.

    Parent
    Balloon is Needed, IMO (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    I wonder what the pervert part of it is, clearly she has accused him of being a sexual predator, but pervert?  hmmm.

    Parent
    She stole his pants? Who committed the crime (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    And the gal originally stated "I was not sure what to tell them and was concerned my story would not be believed since there was no DNA evidence from a completed act of rape"

    So why would the pants help her anyway.

    Her pants, with a stain on the front. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:45:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh --- nevermind (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by magster on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:52:02 PM EST


    Parent
    From three years ago? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    This thing is so peculiar.  It is just bizarre.

    Parent
    Think "Innocence Project." (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:00:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Are they blue pants (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    from the Gap? ;-)

    Parent
    Why is she saving the pants? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    What is the significance of the purported stain if she's already acknowledged there was "no DNA evidence from a completed act of rape?"

    Does anyone know?

    In the transcript of the interivew of (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    the masseuse by law enforcement, she stated Mr. Gore, after the massage, was wearing a hotel bathrobe when he pressed against her.  

    Parent
    also in the (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:59:49 PM EST
    Taiwanese animation recreation.


    Parent
    the significance (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:51:48 PM EST

    The significance is she feels she needs every scrap of evidence because there are many who desperately want to doubt her credibility.

    Parent
    I hate to challenge rape allegations (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    especially considering the absurdly low rate of false accusations, but refusing to cooperate with police, sitting on the story then attempting to sell it for a million dollars aren't exactly credibility enhancers. (they don't rule out Gore's guilt either).

    Parent
    Alleged victim has not alleged rape. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    She has alleged sexual assault.

    Parent
    Sexual assault is legal term for rape (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    in my state and many others since the '70s.  That was supposed to increase the number of convictions from judges and juries freeked by the word rape.

    That's not working too well. . . .

    Parent

    I would think that sexual assault (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    covers other types of sexual violations in a larger scope than rape, and that rape in a legal sense is probably a term used only when actual penetration has occured.

    Parent
    I would call her allegations (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    unconsented to touching.  I think Oregon statute is "sexual abuse."  

    Parent
    Nope, you could look it up (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    as just as before in my state, at least, where there were degrees of rape, there now are degrees of sexual assault.  (And I think my state's law, among the first to revise the codes, was a model used in other states.)

    Judges and juries may have required penetration for rape, but the law did not -- not for all degrees.  Etc.

    Parent

    Portland PD: (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    But what is the relevance ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    ... of the stain if she's acknowledging it's not DNA?  Has she indicated what the stain is supposed to represent?

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    If it's not DNA, what the heck is it?  Three year old massage oil :)?  Perhaps what she meant was that there was no DNA evidence of rape, but there is evidence that he was in a sexual state and pressed up against her.

    Parent
    Probably the latter. But I will refrain from (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    buy The Enquirer to see if DNA testing has been completed and, if so, the results.  

    Parent
    Wouldn't Gore have to agree to (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    submit to giving a sample of his DNA?  If his DNA is recorded somewhere, as my husband's is, wouldn't he have to agree to give them access to that?

    Parent
    Assuming he hasn't been arrested in a state (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    which statutorily ordains collection of DNA sample on arrest.  

    But, I am assuming a good forensic chemist can identify a substances as semen.  Just not whose w/o Gore DNA sample.

    Parent

    Ahhhhhhh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    And some states mandate a sample taken when someone is arrested for sexual assault or rape?  That is sort of creepy in a way but not.  If someone is guilty it is reassuring, if someone is innocent...it is a further violation they will endure.  I know, the fair is in the fall.

    Parent
    In some states, including CA, (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:18:36 PM EST
    law enforcement has statutory auth. to collect DNA sample from any arrestee.  link

    Then the issue becomes, what happens to the sample if the person is not convicted?  

    Parent

    Maybe she's saving the pants (none / 0) (#59)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    to sell on EBay.

    Parent
    I don't get it (none / 0) (#11)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    As I recall, during the election campaign, rumors of a McCain affair garnered P.1 NYT coverage above the fold -- with far less evidence than is offered here.

    Why was that a story, and this isn't?  

    Except that this time it's our guy who is taking it.

    I didn't follow the McCain coverage, but this one is a guy I voted for, so I'm a little more interested.

    It would seem to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    What's not to get? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Shawn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    Sexual assault allegations are much more serious than rumors of an affair, so the burden of proof is far greater. Since there's no lawsuit and the case seems unlikely to result in a prosecution, the non-tabloid media is being rightly cautious about pursuing it further.

    As I recall, the NYT was pretty harshly criticized for that McCain article.

    Parent

    Not to mention The Enquirer turned out (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    be accurate re John Edwards.

    Parent
    If you report three-headed goats (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    enough times, it will be true once.

    Parent
    and even a stopped clock (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    is right twice a day.

    Parent
    I think in that case (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    media coverage is based on what's more "sellable" vs what's more "accurate".

    Scenario A) a person who is currently one of two major candidates in a presidential election.

    Scenario B) former vice president who lost an election and now makes movies about the environment.

    I don't think you would see similar coverage of McCain if it happened today.

    Parent

    The fact that it was during the campaign (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    may have has something to do with the MSM covering allegations concerning McCain.

    Gore's not running for anything, and they are 4 yr old allegations.


    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#50)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    I would think the fact that these were "allegations" unconfirmed by either party, and presumably involving consensual sex (if any at all) would be less newsworthy than charges that have emerged, however haphazardly, on a police blotter.

    And the fact that "it was during the campaign" and that that "may have something to do with the MSM covering allegations" is precisely what I am driving at.

    Parent

    Has Everything to do W/Campaign (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    Remember McCain's v Bush?  Illegitimate children, homosexuality, also that he committed treason and Fathered child with a black prostitute.

    Parent
    Then... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    Then how did they manage to miss the John Edwards story that was right under their noses?

    And even after the "National Enquirer" broke it, they refused to cover it?


    Parent

    Dems Did Not Have Rove (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    And the GOP work the whisper smear campaigns like nobody's business.

    Parent
    What we're all dancing around (none / 0) (#58)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    What I'm trying to suggest is that our idea of what is "newsworthy" is no longer influenced by any consistent standards of coverage or any guiding principles -- but rather by what we would like to be true.

    This one is being ignored by the MSM not because of the questionable evidence -- witness Andrew Sullivan's salacious obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, or, yes, McCain's black baby -- but because Gore is a beloved hero to much of the left. (And again, I say that as someone who voted for him.)

    In a world where the blogosphere reins, these kinds of double standards won't do.


    Parent

    I do not agree (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    Gore is not running for office.  He doesn't hold any current office.

    That makes any allegations against him less than front page news.

    Parent

    But not for Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#62)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:13:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Palin is running (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    Al Gore is not out tweeting on all kinds of public issues (that he really doesn't know anything about) and isn't going around the country as a kingmaker endorsing people....

    Parent
    Gore has no "public opinion"? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    Or rather, he's safe because it's not about things "he doesn't really know anything about."

    So your opinion on whether someone knows or doesn't know what they are talking about determines whether they are fair game or not?  (Even in the case of Sullivan's strange fantasies?  Even on McCain's black baby?)

    I'm trying to talk about principles -- principles that will protect someone precisely from your opinion about them.

    Parent

    I am trying to fathom your apparent (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    outrage here.

    All public figures are fair game.  

    I do not think the recent coverage of Palin has been unfair.....You apparently do.

    The Al Gore allegations have been covered....but he is really old news....and the allegations have problems for any number of reasons.

    You have a bunch of people of the leftist variety on this blog all telling you Al Gore is old news--one would think that is a pretty good gauge of how relevent he is or his interest in running.

    Al Gore last expressed an interest in running 10 years ago.....You really see no difference?


    Parent

    OK, MKS (none / 0) (#90)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:52:15 PM EST
    You are illustrating some principles.

    You say the allegations "have been covered" -- by the National Enquirer. Once again, the "National Enquirer" is breaking the story.

    On what grounds should or should not this story be covered?  If it should be covered, shouldn't the MSM be on it?  If it shouldn't be covered, it's not news now.  

    You agree that he's a "public figure" -- but then you contradict it by saying he was last interested in running "10 years ago." But many see him as the Dudley Doright of global warming, rightly or wrongly. They don't see him as a has-been.  He won the Nobel 2 years ago.

    The point is:  Eisenhower, JFK, FDR all had the press extending the cloak of silence over their private lives.  At some point that changed.

    Now there don't seem to be any rules, and it's all subjective.  Journalism used to have standards, other than the personal opinions of the reporters.  The blogosphere is blowing that up, too.

    In all the years I've been a journalist, I can't recall ever knowing a Republican in the newsroom (though there must have been one or two somewhere along the line...)

    Yes, that's a media bias.  And a conscientious press, knowing that, should vigilantly work against that.  I don't think they are.  

    And yes, I think it hurts them.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    Still don't get it.

    Yes, Al Gore is a public figure.  That is why we (and others) are talking about him.

    You seem to be ticked that the "MSM" is not making a big deal about this....

    As a journalist, I assume that you would agree that not all stories are created equal.  Here, the combination of the lack of credibility of the allegations, the unlikelihood that Gore will ever seek public office again, and how horribly devastating false allegations like these can be, make responsible press appropriately careful imo.

    Why you took this as an occasion to complain about Palin's coverage, or that Gore was getting too lenient coverage, is beyond me.

    Parent

    Palin can actually be (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:23:33 PM EST
    a good example in some ways.

    The dreaded "MSM" is not covering Andrew Sullivan's favorite story.  Why is that?  Some great bias in favor of Palin?  Perhaps because the allegations lack any support?

    Parent

    The point is... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:41:24 PM EST
    It should never have run under The Atlantic's banner in the first place.

    And I remember a day in the not-too-distant past when it would not have.

    Tough managing editors and city editors used to browbeat you for trying to publish such stuff.


    Parent

    Really Now (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    Another enigma for me, is that many of the Hillary fanatics here, seem to be very defensive of Palin. Don't get that, never will.

    Fine to criticize sexism whenever it rears its ugly head, but Palin is a GOP extremist, just like Beck. Is it because she thinks that Obama is like Hitler that makes so many here defend her like she is their BFF?

    Talk about double standards...

    Parent

    Thanks for the tag, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    But I don't consider myself a "Hillary fanatic."

    I am against sexism, and I am all for fairness in the media.  

    Your opinion of Palin, or Beck, or anyone else, should not determine whether they can be subjected to unwarranted attacks in the media -- or, on the other hand, whether it is justified for the media to ignore offenses that should be scrutinized.

    I am pointing out that there is no consistent principle, other than people's opinion of the characters involved. And there is something wrong with that.

    Parent

    No Tag (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    But clearly there are many here who are crazy for Hillary, iow irrationally defensive of her. Many here are also very defensive of Palin, the two groups elide, imo. You may have been neutral about Hillary, clearly you are not neutral about Palin, my statement is a generalization.

    But the point remains. TL is a defense site, it is not neutral. There is no way that TL is going to side with an accuser even if the accuser seems credible.

    As far as the MSM goes, well they are reflective of our society, which is racist and sexist, classist and ageist. Nothing new there.

    Also the MSM leans right, nothing new there either.

    Parent

    Thank you, squeaky (none / 0) (#104)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    But the point remains. TL is a defense site, it is not neutral. There is no way that TL is going to side with an accuser even if the accuser seems credible.

    I hadn't taken that into account.

    Parent

    Tho, let me add (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:39:16 PM EST
    that most of my 30 years with the federal government involved enforcement and/or prosecutorial functions. And, as indicated below, my view is that the claims made public about the alleged massage incident are downright laughable. "Incredible" comes to mind (as in non-credible and without credence.
    Perhaps, there are other examples that would better make your point about journalistic bias; because, to make your case, wouldn't you want to argue from a solid set of facts?

    Parent
    Aaaaaaaaaaaand ..... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    ... there it is.

    Parent
    A model of restraint this time (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:17:46 AM EST
    -- comparatively speaking, of course.

    Parent
    It's not up to you (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    or to me, is what the commenter is saying.

    Parent
    Perhaps "story" seen by some (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    as means to discredit Gore's cause and the notion of climate change.

    Parent
    And.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    Please don't forget that the "facts" as we know them in the massage situation appear laughable on their face.
    Look, Upstart, I understand what you are getting at. In the abstract, I agree that we might all tend to support one of our own with a bit of bias. But, tell us how the reported allegations even meet the laugh test (timing, $$, background, $$, inconsistent behavior by the woman, $$.) That scandalous allegations should not be disregarded because of political party is certainly important; but, the fact that one simply throw mud on the wall--without more--doesn't even amount to interesting gossip.
    My real question concerns what your take on all this is...and why.

    Parent
    Dancing Around? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    Not sure why you think so, but I really think you are off on this one. Besides the love for Gore that some have here at TL, not unlike Hillary love, this is a defense oriented site. Gore has been accused of criminal activity, and even if the accuser seemed solid, TL is very careful not to pass judgement on the accused.

    Andrew Sullivan? Not sure why you are bringing him into it, unless you are trying to say that TL coverage of Palin is sexist. I certainly do not think that is the case. She is a GOP nut case, imo, and should be called out for her wingnut views.

    Double standards? Because Andrew Sullivan is a sexist pig, we at TL have double standards?  Really I think that is off. Unless you mean that TL is biased towards the defense of those accused, well that is certainly true.

    Parent

    Gore (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    isn't running for President.

    And,yes, he's a Democrat.

    Yeah but (none / 0) (#19)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    Okay, but let's face it:  If they had anything like this on Sarah Palin, it would be all over the place, and she's not running for president, either.  And never was.

    Gore is a very influential statesman and opinion leader, and a Nobel peace laureate.

    Insofar as I have anyone I looked up to in the realm of politics, it was him.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    I think Palin is running for President.  All her actions are consistent with that--the endorsements of other politicians to gain chits, the appearances, the tweets on public issues, etc.

    In some ways, she has to run to keep her brand alive.  If she were for sure not running, she would become yesterday's news--another Dan Quayle.  She doesn't have to win the nomination--just be in the running.  And always hold out the possibility she will run the next time.  Just like Pat Buchanan for awhile and Huckabee now.

    I just do not agree with your theories about bias in the press--the "lamestream" media.

    Parent

    I think Palin is running for President (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    perhaps :)  I don't doubt that she wants to, but she has no actual backbone.  She has no real spine in my opinion.  You may be able to make it as a VP candidate and not be Presidential material, but I don't know if you can be a Presidential candidate and not be able to take REAL HEAT and overcome it....take it in stride.  I don't think she has that ability.  She loves the people to adore her, and we do have one of those currently as President.  I'm not going to kid myself though that she is as intelligent as Obama is and can compensate during a serious election.  And if she is running against Obama, he'd eat her lunch :)

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#64)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    So if you think someone is running, they're fair game?

    Parent
    She did run and (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    is running, so, sure, coverage of her is fair.

    She blasts Democrats at every turn in the most derisive and uninformed ways.....

    The recent coverage of her has been on the things she has publicly said.  

    I am not buying the "lamestream" media bellyaching.

    Parent

    And Gore "did run" too. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:25:47 PM EST
    In fact, he was our vice-president, and some wanted him as a vice-president again in 2008.

    You aren't showing me any core operating principles.

    You are saying that your opinion of someone running trumps all.

    Parent

    If you don't see a difference between (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    what Gore and Palin are doing with their public personas, then there isn't much basis of a discussion.

    I am not saying that Al Gore gets a pass on improper conduct.  I am saying that the press coverage of him versus Palin makes sense....

    You appear invested in creating the narrative that the media favors Democrats....That is a standard attack line by Palin supporters....which you may or may not be but why inject her here in this conversation?

    Parent

    I inject her into the discussion (none / 0) (#83)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:39:14 PM EST
    to illustrate principles at play. I have also brought up Gore, Edwards, McCain and others to illustrate principles at play.

    "That is a standard attack line by Palin supporters" is not something that scares me. I am tired of Democrats thinking they can stampede me into conformity by calling me "Republican," or other things they consider epithets.  I have voted Democrat longer than most of you have been alive, I suspect.

    I am still looking for principles that transcend opinions.

    Parent

    Your premise is that Palin (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    is getting unfair coverage.  I do not agree.  

    Perhaps another example would serve well.....

    You really seem all fired up by some double standard here....and I frankly don't see it.....

    Who is getting the short end of the stick here?  Palin?  That seems to be the basis of your concern.

    Parent

    And calling me young again (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    Someone did that a couple of weeks ago....

    Is this another proxy argument for the Primary?

      The last time I was called young here was iirc when the old Primary divide came up.....As an Obama supporter, I suppose many assume I must of course be young....as if that were some kind of slam, which if I were, might be the case--I guess.

    If you have been voting for Democrats longer than I have been alive.....So you voted for Adlai?  

    I am trying to understand why you are so ticked off that Al Gore is not getting mountains of worse press.  It makes no sense to me....
     

    Parent

    Enjoy it while it lasts (none / 0) (#103)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    Sorry if I mistook you for a young'un. My comment was more generic.

    You assume my position is an emotional one -- e.g., "ticked off," "outraged," etc.

    Rather (and again), my contention is that press calls seem to be made almost entirely on emotional whim, one way or the other.

    There are no operating protocols anymore. And when that happens, yes, the prevailing mood gets the megaphone.

    For example, I see that the National Enquirer story is getting more pickup now from Huffington Post, NY Daily News, etc.

    But nothing has changed about the story, except the name and picture has been published by the tabloid press. If it was not worth covering last week, it's not worth covering now.

    So what changed?  More pressure to cover?  Is that how the decision gets made?

    Parent

    Gore could run again too (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:32:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Gore really can't run now that (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    he is separated from Tipper.

    All things are possible but he really hasn't done anything to suggest he is.  And hasn't since 2000.

    Parent

    Does everyone forget how many times (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    Jerry Brown has been rebirthed?

    Parent
    Jerry is running for CA governor (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:45:26 PM EST
    and will probably win......

    He has been in public office or running for public office almost every year.....It is hard to think of an exception....

    Parent

    I'm happy if he wins too (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:53:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Does this influence your opinion of him? (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    I really couldn't care less.
    I don't expect people to be perfect, or even nice.
    My only beef against Gore is one that gets laughed off on  the left: his gigantic personal carbon footprint, including his huge house and all his travel miles, cut into his credibility as a spokesman about global warming.


    Parent
    Yes, it does. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    I am a woman. And when a married man uses his authority to bully and force himself on women like this (if true), it influences my opinion of him.

    Parent
    I think powerful men are all pretty typical. (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    So my opinion of him doesn't change, because I think he's no different than the rest.
    What I care about are his politics.

    It sounds like he was rude and bullying, but not criminal; of course my opinion of him would change if he were guilty of criminal misconduct.
    I only cared about  Edwards' affair because he was a smarmy hypocrite who belittled the morals of his opponents. He got what he deserved.

    Parent

    You mean (none / 0) (#37)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    I only cared about  Edwards' affair because he was a smarmy hypocrite who belittled the morals of his opponents.

    You mean as opposed to a smarmy hypocrite who belittled the morals of his running mate?

    (Again, if the charges, such as they are, are true.)

    Parent

    Good point. (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:19:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I didn't appreciate the way the Gores (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    treated former President Clinton either. Not at all. Even tho personal comeuppances happen in the most unexpected ways, the fact remains that the allegations published in the Oregon matter are laughably inconsistent and monetarily unbelievable. Again, there are many avenues to drive home the point of media bias against some public figures...but, your approach here seems to have gotten lost in lots of things (including maybe some emotional agenda???)

    Parent
    Agree (even if he wasn't married). (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:48:47 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't agree. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    I think that women matter.

    Parent
    I think we are talking past each other. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    IMO, it doesn't matter whether Gore was married of not.  Did he sexually assualt the masseuse?

    Parent
    I am in the middle (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    People who we put into leadership positions and who have voracious character flaws always end up gutting themselves and then me with me....right off the top of my head....Bill Clinton and Stanley McChrystal :)  It does matter in politics and choosing leaders.  I also care about women.  I don't understand her actions three years ago though or the direction of her actions now.

    Parent
    I don't think Bill Clinton had (none / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    character flaws that affected his leadership.
    He was a very normal politician who had pursued affairs with other women quite often, as many men do.
    It wasn't my business, and  I think it's just stupid to worry about it.
    I don't believe there's an elected official (male) at the national level who hasn't cheated.


    Parent
    I hate to disagree (not really) (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:26:27 PM EST
    But his Monica scandal blew up his own party...otherwise we could have had the perv Gore for a President :)  His Monica scandal did serious damage to the party though, and utterly destroyed his own credibility forever.  A leader without a grain of credibility can easily become worthless in a leadership position, even on all other counts he/she is worthy of the position.  Credibility does matter.

    Parent
    I think you're missing the point entirely (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:37:03 PM EST
    The Republicans spent $70 million of federal money, plus untold millions of private money to investigate and smear Clinton.
    Before he was even inaugurated in '93, Republican leaders (Delay, IIRC) threatened to impeach him.
    Compared to other Presidents---he was a tame bunny. And for once, I have to agree with Republicans that it wasn't the sex, it was the lying that got him. But he was put in an intolerable position.

    I couldn't care less about what he did with Monica. That was nobody's business at all, and should never have been investigated.
    If he had a child by her, that would be different, to me, but bj's???? We're primitives to care about that.


    Parent

    And I think you are missing the point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:44:28 PM EST
    entirely, it does matter if a politician has big character flaws that have had to be covered up or they would have never gotten where they are.  Such flaws are indicators of many things and will also destroy the credibility of that leader and unfortunately will pull down everyone who is standing next to him until further notice and they can redeem themselves.  Just because the GOP was trying to get Clinton any way they could doesn't mean there wasn't anything to get....vulnerable.

    Parent
    Ok, let me be clear. I dont' think he has (none / 0) (#96)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    a character flaw, as a politician. As a husband, that's for Hillary to decide, not me.
    As far as I know, he was ethical in his pursuit of other women---and why would have to force anyone, as he was a very desireable man.
    Do you think Obama hasn't had affairs?
    Biden?  I would be shocked if they haven't.
    Clinton engaged in normal adult sexual behavior. It wasn't with his wife, but I just don't care.
    Look, there's no guarantee the Republicans wouldn't have gotten Clinton with some other trumped up charge---lord knows, they were trying.
    The fact it happened to be about sex was just lucky for them.


    Parent
    Unfortunately it is about lying (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:04:36 AM EST
    and also attempting to get another person to lie as well.  But he didn't push that thankfully when that was about to be approached.  That was when he gave in and confessed, before things got even worse.  And I don't know if any other politician  has had affairs, but it was pretty obvious Clinton strayed a bit....Monica wasn't his first scandal.  Where there is a bit of smoke there is usually a little fire too.

    Parent
    "Alleged perv." (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:44:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Well Some Conservatives Agree With You (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    Rejuvenated Bill Clinton Takes Aim at Tea Party Darling Sharron Angle

    How in the hell does bill clinton have any credibility at all? Am I the only one who remembers the shame he brought on this country with his inability to control his sex drive? He is a disgrace to this Country. He and his wife have been linked to more scandals than any political couple in the history of politics.

    And yet he still has some sort of cult status among democrats. That should really tell you something about the mind of the democrat. If they like you they can forgive anything, even out right lies, adultery and a host of other things the clintons should probably be in jail for.

    BillyBob

    But another conservative site, newsmax, recently took a poll using Zogby, so YMMV. Clinton won:

    If Americans could have a former living U.S. president run the country and deal with the problems facing the nation today, they would pick Bill Clinton by a wide margin, a Newsmax/Zogby poll reveals.

    link


    Parent

    A snapshot poll is not a campaign (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN      good luck working with that and every place that leads you and getting to the ballot box a winner.  Maybe in ten more years people will have forgotten enough to care too much, but not before then.  And what rejuvenated his party after what he did to it?  A totally worthless Republican President and an insane rubber stamping House and Senate.  Too bad it wasn't an honest fight they had to put up to redeem themselves.  They could be very different people doing very different things at this point.  You crack me up too.  You are a knee jerk Clinton hater until you want to pick a fight with someone.  I don't think you really care one wit about this conversation at all either.  You just want to fight with someone......anyone :)

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:11:35 PM EST
    You are a knee jerk Clinton hater until you want to pick a fight with someone.

    Please show me one comment I have made at TL to support your ridiculous statement. I voted for Hillary in the primary, I voted for her as NYS senator once. The second time round I voted the progressive Tasani because he was anti-war, knowing he was never going to win, but I voted on principal. I voted for Bill both times, and did think him more conservative than I would like, but never remotely hated him.

    I have met Hillary, shook hands with her and talked to her. I have recounted that rather amazing meeting here several times.

    But for you, I imagine, any one who is not fawning and gushing over Hillary or Bill as if they were the second coming is a Clinton Hater. Amazing.

    Parent

    I am critical of Billary whenever (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    I see something that I disagree with so I must be a hater too.  Just I like I am in your book whenever I'm critical of Obama.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    I have never seen anything coming from you but contempt for Obama..., the lowest life form?

    And the only thing I have really criticized Hillary for is being conservative, and a warmonger like Obama. But then again I have pointed out that I thought she is no different from Obama, and considering your viewpoint, that would mean saying she is the lowest possible life form.. lol

    Parent

    CNN poll today since you are so fond of polls (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    How about a current poll?  50% of Americans say that President Obama has underperformed and not met their expectations.  That number goes up to 58% when only indies are polled.  Indies are the votes that must be won to win an election in the USA.  Perhaps there is a geniune problem with Obama's performance and who he caters to squeaky.

    Parent
    Poll Comparisons POTUS (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    As always, I fully admit that predicting the future of any president by drawing parallels to past presidents is indeed a fool's game, but it's certainly a fun one to play, so if you're not into this sort of thing, I advise you to just stop reading here.

    Out of all past presidents we have so far examined, from George W. Bush back through Dwight D. Eisenhower, there are really only a few parallels that can even be drawn with Obama's approval chart. Obama is roughly in the same place in the polls right now as Bill Clinton was at this point in his first term; but there the parallel ends, because they both took very different paths to get to this point. Obama's chart is much more similar to Lyndon B. Johnson's -- but the comparison is to Johnson's second term (his only full term in office), making the comparison a little less of an obvious parallel [links in this section take you to our comparison graphs].

    Obama's graph, though, has so far tracked the graph of Ronald Reagan's fairly closely, up until the last few months. Reagan's numbers, however, continued to slide right up to his first midterm election, after which they took an even steeper dive, before Reagan regained his popularity and went on to win his second term in a landslide.

    link

    Parent

    You desire to compare (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:56:43 AM EST
    Obama to Ronald Reagan?  Really?

    Parent
    Poll Comparisons POTUS (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:11:54 AM EST
    you cited a poll as an indicator of this:
    Perhaps there is a geniune problem with Obama's performance and who he caters to

    His approval rating was little different from several presidents at  around the first year and a half of his presidency. Of course you have changed the subject suggesting that his policies are the same as Reagan as opposed to his popularity.

    That dishonest meme has been beaten to death here, refuted by BTD among others...  

    Parent

    So you can over lay one Presidents (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    performance over the top of any other President at any old time, and that is some sort of predictor of anything?

    Parent
    It is in my opinion (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    off the hook absurd.

    Parent
    Not Sure What YOu are Saying (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    But you did make a comment saying that the reason Obama's approval ratings are what they are is because there is a genuine problem with his performance as POTUS, and who he caters to.

    I responded to that by pointing out that other presidents approval rating during the same period in their presidency was comparable to Obama.

    Personally I think that the approval rating of Obama has to do with the economy, and the fabulous job the GOP is doing in obstructionist warfare. It appears that the GOP does not want anything positive to come out of the Obama presidency, and will sacrifice short and long term US wellbeing, in order to regain power by making the Democrats look bad, ineffective and powerless.

    And, I did highlight the poll analyst's warning:

    As always, I fully admit that predicting the future of any president by drawing parallels to past presidents is indeed a fool's game, but it's certainly a fun one to play, so if you're not into this sort of thing, I advise you to just stop reading here.


    Parent
    I have too much going on to be (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    interested in fool's games squeaky.  You are always calling anyone around here who critiques Obama about something a hater.  In truth, people who blog and like blogs tend to be analyzers based on a few wholesale Myers-Briggs testings that people took part in on DailyKos.  They are compelled to be critical thinkers and some of us can be overly critical at times.  To think though, that you will come to the blogosphere and not find a ton of analysis done by everybody and the dog that they really are does not make sense to me.

    And as much as you like to call many people a hater around here, perhaps you could take into consideration that they have a lot of company right now among the American people?  And there are some elements of the current economy that are Obama's fault.  For instance, if he had entertained any of the fixes that BTD posted about early on in all of this he would have ended up with a U shaped recession and not a lost decade.  Krugman and Stiglitz also predicted this, and they also offered their services to Obama who chose to go with a diffferent middle of the road tack. He is responsible for the decisions he made in how to deal with the crisis that was handed to him.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:07:42 PM EST
    You are always calling anyone around here who critiques Obama about something a hater.  

    That is untrue. What is true is that I have been here long before the primary and since. I know the commenters who feel that Obama has personally insulted them, harmed them  irrevocably  manner and never said one positive word about him. Yet those same people gush over Hillary as if she had a position miles from Obama.

    That is irrational, and nutty, imo. There are several commenters here who do not trust any of these people, yet are critical of Obama and complimentary when appropriate. You do not fall into that group, and it is a bit strange as you came to TL a good nine months earlier than the refugees fleeing Hillary hate sites.

    But clearly you were gobsmacked with Hillary and have the ensuing Obama contempt.

    Parent

    Oh I'm sorry (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    If I'm not a hater I am a worshipper.  I can't think for myself.  I'm too busy worshipping at the idol of Hillary.  That is your defense to distract and cover your Obama fetish.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    I get it. The black and white world of the dkos primary wars comes to TL. Sorry I never played that game, you must have been wounded enough to think that this ever went on with long time TL commenters. No wonder most of them stopped commenting here.

    Parent
    oooo oooo Monica's HBO special (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:52:40 PM EST
    Monica's testimony that he attempted to persuade her to lie about their relationship :)  Not happening

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:03:59 PM EST
    There was a poll taken in 2007, asking college students if they considered oral sex, as having sex. By a large measure, they said no.

    There was some analysis that suggested those polled were influenced by Clinton.

    I do not think he was lying. Having sex is generally meant to be having intercourse, imo.

    Parent

    College Students :) (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:20:16 PM EST
    A reliable voting block :)  Who takes oral sex seriously in college and votes lefty ever in their lifetime :)

    Parent
    Actually, Militarytracy (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:02:16 PM EST
    The "facts" in 1998 were that President Clinton led his party to substantial gains in the Congress and that, when he completed his terms, he was regarded--in terms of Presidential performance and governance--higher than most Presidents in modern history.  While I hear you about personal credibility regarding personal sexual morals, the majority did separate the personal situation from the governance situation because he conducted himself henceforth in a manner that we could do so. Obviously, it would have been so much better if that human (and stupid) flaw re: Monica had not existed. In my view, he was a good President.

    Parent
    I am not saying he was a bad President (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:01:02 PM EST
    Sheesh, there are so many things that are not black and white in this world....like everything.  He was a good President in my book too, but what he did prevented anyone from piggybacking or claiming any joint success for anything that happened during his Presidency.  How many incumbents had to pretend like they didn't even know him?  And I'm sorry, but he is partially to blame for Gore's loss. We had a great run with him and then he promptly cut us all off at the knees when it comes to gaining anything long term from ALL THAT.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    because Sarah Palin sells papers.

    Al Gore... is not as "sexy" a story.  Bottom line.

    Neither would McCain be today.  But John Edwards was.  Cuz John Edwards, like Sarah Palin, is hot.

    We are all a little shallow.  Plus, Al Gore's story just seems... sad/creepy.

    But I don't think it has much to do with dem/repub.

    Parent

    I think there's a difference (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:45:24 PM EST
    between calling someone out who claims to be a moral standard-bearer for violating self-professed standards ("family values" or what-have-you) and gossip or news about a public figure who does not make such claims.  Edwards and Palin fall into the former group IMO

    Parent
    Speak of the devil... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    McCain gossip made the papers today , some book out mentions his degenerate love of the craps tables...not as salicous as a sex story, but anything that can be deemed embarrasing is gonna make the papers, from the A list all the way down to the D list, political celeb or otherwise.

    This is our culture...we love dirty laundry.

    PS...I knew there was something to like about Johnny Mac...roll dem bones old man!

    Parent

    He's practically a nobody these days. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    How often did you see his name in the year before his separation and this? I know I rarely did. He is only influential in the climate change sphere and the media is certainly not interested in that topic, as they have proved by mostly ignoring it.

    Parent
    "laid to bed" (none / 0) (#34)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:54:59 PM EST
    If she sat on a million dollar story for several years before trying to sell it then this at least is not your classic golddigger.  
    In any case, the allegations are unproven as yet; Al Gore is not falling into any potential perjury traps because he is not denying anything.  Perhaps Mr. Gore should make a sworn statement concerning the events of that day to help settle matters.

    Portland PD reopening (none / 0) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    the Gore sexual assault investigation. Local news just told me that this case is going active.

    Gore has issued a statement emphatically denying that he assaulted Haggerty.

    Parent

    Case reopened link. (none / 0) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:07:44 PM EST
    Here is a link to the Oregonian story about the reopening of the Gore/Haggerty case.

    Read it here.

    Parent

    depends on the meaning (none / 0) (#119)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:26:02 PM EST
    I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "assault".
    And I'm sure you all remember how Washingtonians all the way up to Hillary were attacking Monica for being crazy, troubled, delusional, etc until the blue dress came out.

    Parent
    she may have been trying to get (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:06:53 PM EST
    money out of Gore or the hotel in the intervening period. Her lawyer told the police initially they wouldn't file a complaint because they were going to handle it civilly. I wouldn't be surprised if she got turned down in late 2008, which prompted her to go back to the police in 2009 to provide her statement.

    Parent
    So she always planned on (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:13:54 AM EST
    making some money off of this, from the git.  This isn't about healing or justice.  It's about saving melty chocolate bars trying to get a pay day. It struck me as very odd that she was so upset about being attacked that she hung onto a melting chocolate bar that was unwrapped.  I know that wouldn't be anything I would be doing as I'm fleeing for my safety.  Why would I?  I wonder what lies in this woman's past.  I have never known anyone to attempt something like this, and not have attempted it before.  I think there is a very good chance she is a conartist.

    Parent
    Shadesw of Kobe Bryant.--in reverse. (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:53:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Al Gore Accuser Molly Haggerty, Steps Up Allegations | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment