Number one question: Is a denial of an accusation "news," if there was never really an accusation in the first place? As far as I know, no one openly "challenged" Mrs. Clinton's sexual preference.
Number two: What difference would it make to voters in the Presidential race? Being divorced hasn't kept people from being elected, nor has being a philanderer.
Number three: If someone "comes out of the closet" and "outs" themselves as a homosexual, is a case like this, where someone strongly denies being a homosexual called an "inning?" I certainly hope not. I mean, lifelong baseball fans such as myself know what an "inning" is, and don't want it to have an alternative definition. It's bad enough that one of the other would-be candidates is named "Mitt."
The saddest thing about the whole situation is that this is yet another example of what has happened in society with the proliferation of news outlets, in particular on cable or satellite television or on the internet.
There are so many journalists - or alleged journalists - out there trying to come up with a scoop that will make the "scooper" and/or their paper, station, website, or "blog" a media superstar, a la Woodward and Bernstein, that people are creating their own news or constantly pursuing "celebrities" that no one really gives a hoot about, such as Britney Spears, Kevin Federline, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith et al., to keep people up-to-date on their every move. P-U-U-H-H-LEEEASSE!
I am all for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and all the other inalienable rights that the framers of the Constitution wrote into that marvelous document, but some of the 24-7 coverage of what passes for news is way more than I want or need.
I miss the days of the Monday through Friday twice-a-day (6 and 10 o'clock) half-hour news coverage. Anything really worth knowing can be disseminated in that amount of time.