(02-07-2012 09:22 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: I don't think this will get that much coverage for the simple fact that it's not that shocking. We all knew that JFK had mistresses, tons of them.
I guess the term "that much coverage" is open to interpretation. I certainly don't think this is going to get Super-Bowl-like attention. More like a Wild-Card game or a divisional game.
But my point in starting this thread was to comment how different the woman's story will be received by the media now, as opposed to how it would have been received in, say, 1973.
Now, people shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah, JFK was like that."
Then, people would have denounced her as a liar, fantasist, whore, "protecting Nixon", etc., etc., etc. That kind of shift in attitude is interesting to me. Also, when it comes to our national political leaders, I think we -- all of us -- are better off knowing the full truth abut them, as opposed to not knowing. People should go back and look over some of the Kennedy books that were published in the 20 years or so after his death. Watch some clips of the tv-movies that were made (Martin Sheen's in particular). Liberals acted as if JFK were a god.
Also, check some of the liberal websites like Huffington Post to see their reaction. It's interesting that they are not really denying the woman's story, but still accusing her of doing it for the money (she's already rich), and being resentful of her for "bringing shame to a dead man", while simultaneously denying that JFK's affairs mattered in the first place. (But why is it shameful if it doesn't matter?). Also interesting because Nixon is just as dead as Kennedy, yet every time some new batch of his tape-recordings is made public, there are plenty of liberals of a certain age who just start salivating at the thought of hearing Nixon's latest racist or anti-Semitic remark while rambling to his aides in his office. A shame we will never get to hear JFK or FDR unload whatever was on their mind at the end of the day!