The Silly Season? Just Mad March

I sat here mulling over various clever re-introductions (considering that I've been away for a while), but you know how wit is: never there when you need it. I briefly considered "I'm back bitches," but that's banal (and silly), so never mind.

I was also going to write a bit about a fellow named Larry Sinclair, but. . . What? You haven't heard of him? Goodness. You must be new to the Internets. In 1999, Mr. Sinclair alleges, he engaged in illicit drug use and illicit sex with a current presidential candidate (and it ain't Nader). Mr. Sinclair has also filed a lawsuit against the candidate.

I'd planned to go on and on about this story, but, to tell the truth, I'm just burned out on it at the moment, so instead of going on and on about
A) Sinclair's victimization at the hands of the DNC and MSM, or
B) the presidential candidate's (okay, Obama's) victimization at the hands of a scurrilous kook,
I'll just leave some links that review the story /debate whether Sinclair's tale bears any veracity:
The lawsuit at The Smoking Gun
Reportage and commentary at Death by 1,000 Papercuts
A summary and some commentary at Wonkette
Dear Murray's take on the matter
Big Head D C spoke with Sinclair (the interview here).

Cranking up the drama, Whitehouse.com offered to pay Sinclair if he took a polygraph. He did so; they said he failed, he said the test was rigged. Threats ensued, and Whitehouse.com has, aparently, removed all Sinclair-related materials. Whatever.

From either perspective, the whole seamy scenario is just barking batsh*t. And, sorry, I don't buy Mr. Sinclair's tale. Although he has offered hotel receipts to prove his presence in Mr. Candidate's (Obama's) hometown in 1999, he's offered no other evidence to support his claims (wait! there's a limo driver. . . and he isn't coming forward? alrighty then). But that's okay; plenty of consipiracy-minded folks have fallen in with Mr. Sinclair anyway (and they seem to include a whole lot of Clinton supporters. Fancy that!)