Obama Affair Rumors Reinforced

October 25th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Blackfive, a popular conservative blog, interviewed a person with, he and Blackfive say, knowledge about Barack Obama’s professional and possibly private relationship with one of his (former) staffers, most likely named Vera Baker, according to the source. You can listen to the interview below, in which the source explains how he found out about it.

Fascinating is that the source, Wolf, says that the dirt on this story was dug up by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They planned to put the story out there before the Democratic Convention, but failed to find enough hard evidence.

‘Wolf’ says that they have found witnesses who confirmed the stories privately, but not publicly yet.

Three news ‘entities’ are sitting on the story, Wolf said, at least one of them ready to go public soon; but not before, but after the elections. The reasons for them not sharing the story now, Wolf said, is two fold:

1. They don’t want to influence the outcome of the elections (also because they support Obama)

2. The most important reason, in Wolf’s eyes at least: they want to make money. What sells better and over a longer period; a candidate had an affair, or a sitting president or president-elect had? The second one of course.

YouTube Preview Image

At this moment we cannot possibly know whether Obama did indeed cheat on his wife Michelle. It could very well be that he did not do any such thing, and that the rumors are just that; empty, vicious rumors. When that becomes clear, those who said he did cheat, will be held accountable.

However, when something like this becomes increasingly important in the new media, it’s our duty to report it, whether we personally like it or not. Additionally, if the story is correct, it will cause a tremendous political earthquake.

What is clear is that this subject is not going away any time soon and, considering the sources – the conservative bloggers touting this story have been quite reliable, albeit biased and partisan, in the past – could play a role after November 4.

As for my personal opinion: it’s certainly worth reporting, both the rumor and if the story is proven correct / a major news organization runs with it, but it is insane that private relationships can cost someone elections and political support. Personal relationships have nothing to do with how good someone will govern; in fact, some of the greatest men and political leaders in history were serial cheaters.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Davebo
    October 25th, 2008 at 22:30
    Reply | Quote | #1

    An anonymous blogger with an anonymous source naming names in public.

    Pathetic. Wolf, what are you hiding from?

  2. Doug E
    October 25th, 2008 at 23:41
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I confess its me I had an affair with BO
    But im not confessing till after i vote for him
    Ya gotta love the line re clinton not using it.
    “but failed to find enough hard evidence”
    keep up the good work Between here, WND, and A martin
    i get all my cutting edge news.
    “COMEDY AT ITS BEST”
    Thanks for keeping these nuts indoors and not out in public

  3. T.J.
    October 31st, 2008 at 15:27
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I am so tired of who will be president being decided on if they have had a marital affair!!! Thier are far more IMPORTANT qualities than a PAST indescretion!! Whoever is perfect and has done NO wrong in thier lives cast the first stone, otherwise look at the canidates for what they can and will do for our country NOW!! We are at war and in a horrible recession those are things that seem to NEED TO TAKE PRESIDENCE for a change!!!

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.