Gossip: Mystery Dem candidate to go to Iran & address its parliament

That ought to put a final nail in (his) campaign's coffin. I'm guessing OBAMA ("negotiate with everyone") or RICHARDSON who said the other night he is (the only one) who has experience in negotiating.




*******QUOTE*******

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022007/gossip/cindy/candidate_to_address_iran_200326.htm

CANDIDATE TO ADDRESS IRAN

November 2, 2007 -- AMONG the thundering horde of Dem candidates running for president, one's committed to A) go to Iran and B) actually address its parliament. We're not talking if and when the person's elected or even declared the nominee. We're talking now. Shortly. As soon as the carefully laid plans get finalized. A secrecy in terms of not revealing any name is to protect these arrangements. The instant this becomes public somebody's monkey wrench will be thrown into it.


The quiet diplomatic negotiations have been lengthy. Top-level Iranians accepted the proposal, including the idea of addressing their parliament. Clearly, it's induced by the person's position that America should negotiate with everyone. As we speak, this candidate is shopping for a private plane.


Allahu Akbar. God is great.

********UNQUOTE*******

Don't cha think, of all papers, the New York Post, would have this front and center?

Sounds like Rupert's servants are trying to start bullshit rumors.

"The Note."

Most of what passes for news these days is gossip, opinion, and speculation along with the disaster du jour.

of creditable news sources.....must be a really,really slow news day in the big apple

...he ran against Jimmy Carter over the Iran hostage crisis?

Regardless of which democratic candidate does this, the Bush administration will label them as traitors under the Patriot Act provisions.

*on edit: or faux, nbc... all the same.

So I hope it's true--but there are no sources mentioned (as usual).

Guess the no sources is why it's considered gossip.

It seems to me that a such a trip would be a good thing.

I think it's a good thing.

to the detractors of "gossip" (for the umpteenth time) : "Gossip" is not interchangeable with "NOT TRUE." Here's Webster's (again) :

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gossip&x=15&y=14

Main Entry: 1gos·sip
Pronunciation: 'gä-s&p
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English gossib, from Old English godsibb, from god god + sibb kinsman, from sibb related -- more at SIB

1 a dialect British : GODPARENT b : COMPANION, CRONY c : a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others

2 a : rumor or report of an intimate nature b : a chatty talk c : the subject matter of gossip

********UNQUOTE*******

As for the NY Post and Ms ADAMS, MURDOCH does not dictate to the three gossip columnists (one of whom, Liz SMITH, is a Dem and Friend of Bill) what to write. I don't read any other parts of the NY Post. I read these three columnists because I liked them when they were on the E! Channel. The oldest-person-in-the-world-named-"Cindy" swims the cocktail circuit, is undeniably a wingnut, but she pals with Whoever is "Somebody," is pals with the CUOMOs and Teresa KERRY as well as with the PATAKIs. And these old style gossip columnists are far more credible with their verifiable stories than Tweety and G.E.Russert are with their OPINIONS. (I'm saving this for interminable re-posting. )

into overdrive? It's nothing new. :shrug:

no matter what we do. They are off in their own little world that is aggravated at our very existence. What we actually do or don't do, is irrelevant. We are far better off focusing on our own goals, missions, and yes talking to the Iranians is the right thing to do.

Notice I did not comment on the quality of "gossip." Al I'm saying is that if it is true, it's good. If it's not, then too bad, it needs to be.

:eyes: