The report from Mediaite (disclaimer: I've never heard of them!) is a bit skittish, and pretty much hems and haws between "they have the goods on him" to "they might have the goods on him, but don't count on it", and was later updated to reflect a statement by the Enquirer that it doesn't have a tape that someone said they might have had.
At this point, third-hand-rumors of a second-hand story, BUT, the Enquirer did have the dirt on John Edwards, and nailed him a dozen-ways-to-Sunday with it, so who knows. Then again, it's not like John Edwards was very smart.
I will personally take no joy from it if this turns out to be true, if only because a) I have my own problems, thank you very much, and b) I would feel badly for the Obama daughters. My take on it is that I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors/reports were true, but does that mean they should be reported? I know, some of the more panty-bunched of the public (especially those with political axes to grind, or who may be awaiting the Rapture) will say "Hell, yes! A man who can't keep his marriage vows can't be trusted to run the country honorably!" to which I reply: at what point, exactly,did you expect him to? When you aren't calling him "Socialist" or examining his birth certificate under a microscope, you're probably laying awake at night wondering when The Almighty will finally deliver America from Obama's evil clutches with a well-timed sex scandal. What evidence has Obambi given you to this point to indicate that he's an honest man to begin with? I'm still waiting for shit to turn up on C-Span and the Stimulus website which proves that he truly is running the "most transparent Administration in History".
Of course, I'm still waiting for Bill Clinton to fulfill his promise to run the "most ethical Administration in history" , and for Nancy Pelosi to "drain the swamp of Washington, D.C." and Teddy Kennedy to fess up about drowning Mary Jo. I think I have a better shot at hearing from Teddy than from Bill. I don't want to hear anything more from Nancy.I expect my politicians to be scumbags, liars and sexual deviants, this way I won't be disappointed when they turn out to be just that.
Then there's the "This could potentially leave the man open to blackmail, and a President who can be blackmailed is bad for America..." argument, which is true, up to a point. JFK was open to blackmail on an epic scale, Nixon, too. We survived. I rather doubt someone's going to tell Obama "either you go public or we nuke you!" or "I'll spill the beans if you don't sign this bill...". Of course, anyone who tried to blackmail a President could probably expect a visit from the Secret Service or FBI, so without solid proof that he's done something illegal, as opposed to something unethical, I rather doubt anyone's coming forward, or asking for cash or a quid pro quo.
Perhaps I'm just too cynical to really care, unless, of course, Barry got a Monica in the Oval Office. Then it becomes a different ballgame altogether. Then whatever he's doing is on My Time. But something which appears to be old news, with dubious proof (if there's any at all), is nothing to get all excited about. I don't like the man's politics, but I don't think it necessary to tear him to shreds over rumor and innuendo (and yes, I know that's the American way going all the way back to Aaron Burr, but still). I would still give no credence to the rumor without proof.
And besides, I'm not one of those Obama haters who wants the man destroyed, I just want him replaced, preferably by means of an election rather than a resignation under duress. I mean, if you think Obama is bad, just look who's lined up behind him, ready to take over should he have to go.
HIllbuzz refutes the Obama Affair rumors with the following (paraphrasing) "we know the woman well, like her very much, and just don't think it's possible or even likely....and besides, Obama is gay...".
Oh, well, that explains everything. Then again, if anyone knows who's gay in Washington, it's Hillbuzz.