Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but it seemed to me that Clinton DID admit that he had a problem, that he had made many mistakes, & often speaks of himself as a 'sinner.' I'm not a Christian - these labels & rules mean nothing to me, though in some cases, I may share some similar values. (if he'd been doing meth & hired Monica, I would be a little more repulsed - or if he'd been grooming a 16 yr old girl rather than a 22 yr old woman. As it is... NO comparison!) I don't know why, I see it all the time, but I am astounded by those who leap self-righteously to defend obvious, wanton creeps like Haggard, Foley, and the other foul Bush appointee who was soliciting 13 yr girls online. (and I include the large portion of the Bush administration, including the utterly sociopathic & disgusting Rush Limbaugh who Cheney & Bush support so vigorously) -

Since when is it 'judging' to recognize that someone has done something evil, wrong, deceitful & destructive? That is how we learn to distance ourselves from dangerous people, & how we decide our votes.

This whole thing is just mind-boggling - I keep thinking 'no, no, no - he's not writing a book, publishers aren't putting it on shelves, people aren't pre-ordering it... nooooooo. I can't imagine reading this book, or watching the interview - there's not enough soap & hot water to ever get clean after that - and I personally don't need to know the details of 'how he did it.' Severed heads... there's not much leeway in how that can happen. No thank you. But what really amazes me is the people who still pipe into to insist on OJ's innocence. (who also tend to believe poor Michael Jackson was framed by little boys, too. But not Mike Tyson - why is that?) He's obviously a psychopath (having left the sociopaths in the dust) - but what's going on with people who hold to his innocence even after he's soundly slapped with with his cute little 'If' title? Are they related to the woman who married Ted Bundy in prison?

However, thank you, bobbyjoe - the tale of beloved Aunt Bessie's demise, delivered at Thanksgiving Dinner, was worthy of The Daily Show!

I voted for Kerry because I liked Edwards, and feared (fear) Bush. I wanted a candidate who was against Iraq, but when Kerry was all that was left to us, I trudged along & half-heartedly cast him my vote. (and yes, his email appeals go straight to my anti-spam filter, too.) I do not respect those candidates who refused to stand up against this primitive & stupid reaction to terrorist attacks, not just because I am a bleeding heart liberal, but because I didn't think it would work, & because it seemed painfully obvious that such aggression & lack of thought or insight would make things worse. (I've seen Conservatives now reduced to saying 'in 40 years, Bush's decisions will be proven... There's a last gasp argument if ever there was one!) I do not have much more enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton than I did for Kerry, because I don't seen any inspiration in her, any resistance to what we're trapped in now. So if Barack Obama proves to have the depth and substance to match his emotional appeal, he'll have my support - and I want to see something real in a candidate I support from now on. Kerry made Bush seem genuine (dangerously genuine, true) - I don't see anything very real in Sen. Clinton either. If you can't see even a shadow of who they really are, how do you trust them when the world is on fire? (I would argue that it was perfectly obvious what Bush would do - and he did it - I am amazed at those who voted for him, and are surprised by his actions now - what did they expect?) John Kerry managed to lose the honor he had from speaking out against war - he needs to find another avenue to benefit the world (as Al Gore & Jimmy Carter & Pres. Clinton have all so nobly done) - and recognize that a Kerry Presidency is not for him - or for us.