When Larry King asked David Paterson tonight if his blindness made it hard for him to read the tabloid headlines about a story he claims doesn’t exist, we understood the true meaning of “Kafkaesque”.
David Paterson’s appearance on Larry King Live was his most high-profile move yet to stifle the phantasmagorical sex rumors about him that exploded last Sunday—Super Bowl Sunday no less! We were one of a number of outlets speculating about an unpublished New York Times article with sexy revelations crazy enough to force Paterson’s resignation. But it contained no such things, said Paterson’s camp. And Paterson did not resign.
But since Sunday, Paterson has been a case study in just how hard it is to take away the chattering class’ delicious rumors once they start getting passed around like a lukewarm shrimp cocktail. He’s issued a number of denials, but each one seems to glance off the rumor mill and fly crazily back in his face: Fighting back against the Post’s claims of extra-marital humping prompted some more unsubstantiated rumors; Chris Smith wrote for Daily Intel that Paterson’s appearance on “Imus” only aided in “keeping the larger nuttiness alive by claiming the Times’s phantom story had “hypersexualized” him.” And still, the question hangs over everything: What the hell is in that article?
Read More: – Adrian Chen, adrian@gawker.com
