The GOP hunted Bill Clinton before Monica, though not before other allegations. They hunted him because he went after the racists in Arkansas. He took time out of college to go home and help against racists running for governor, one, Jim Johnson. Clinton went up to him at a rally and said you make me sick; I'm ashamed you're from Arkansas. He repeatedly supported candidates against the racists and when he ran for office he doubly pissed them off, working to successfully strip the legal system of racist baggage and including blacks in his gubernatorial administrations. (Incidentally that's why he is so mad at Obama for calling him a racist as a tactic to pull black and liberal white votes away from Hillary.) Eventually, Johnson retired from politics to his home, which he called White Haven. When Clinton considered running for president national GOP figures, including Floyd Brown of Willie Horton ad fame, went to Johnson to plot strategy on how to destroy Clinton. They and the national GOP aided by Gringrich and others went after him from the very beginning, determined to destroy him and if not his campaign his administration. The press, lazy, cowardly, Republican suck-ups that they are (follow the money--the rich own the news media and Clinton taxed them to balance the budget and get bills to help the poor, working and middle class) joined the hunt). As long as we allow the press to sidetrack us we will get a government for the rich, by the rich. Sex is the press's favorite tactic because it is easy--no work, every can understand.

Excuse typo on the way out.

People know Obama wants, badly, to be president. They know he speaks well. Many know he plays Chicago politics--after all he played the race card against the Clinton's (to pull blacks and white liberals) and convinced the press that the Clinton's were the ones playing the race card. They know he is a good speaker and really smart.

What peole don't know is what is really important to him, what he will stick for come hell or high water. They know it's not standing against FISA or off-shore drilling, but what is he so committed to that he will stand fast even if it costs him votes. That knowledge is crucial for a politician about whom the public knows little because he hasn't been around long, hasn't cast a lot of votes or fought hard for an issue or two.

People know or think they know that about McCain. They knew that about Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II. They may not agree with the politician, but people need to think they know the issue or issues that the candidate will not abandon. Obama has not shown that. In fact, he has repeated abandoned high-profile issues he said he would stick on. He needs to find an issue that he fights for. If he doesn't people won't believe he will fignt for them.

Personally, I think 2 of the major endorsers are useless. Chaffee stayed a Republican, helping them control the Senate and then whined when he lost. Leach pretends to be a moderate Republican, but he is more of an old-fashioned isolationist and a right-winger on economic policy. He represented my district and I was overjoyed to see the last of him. He voted against every liberal economic bill, supporting corporate interests with the fervor of a Bush or Cheney. He hoodwinked a lot of Democrats in Iowa because of public speeches and votes on foreign policy like the war and no one noticed they were getting raked over the coals economically because of his votes. Good riddance.

Monica was immature but not naive. What follows comes from her own testimony to the independent prosecutor: She told her friends when she took off for D.C. for her unpaid internship after college that she was taking her kneepads because she planned to seduce Clinton. The government shutdown gave her the chance because paid employees were put on leave and interns, like Lewinsky, filled in. One day she wangled a way to get to Clinton by delivering pizza. When she entered his office, she pulled her skirt (pants?) part way down and flipped her thong underwear at him. The rest, as they say, is history.

The conventional wisdom that we can tell whether someone is racist by indirect means, ie 5% say they won't vote for a black but 19% say others won't and thus the larger number is a window to the soul of the racist is poppycock. The reasons Joan quotes Somerby advancing are true, but there are also other reasons to discount Blow's analysis. I am a liberal feminist who supports Hillary Clinton; yet when asked I said many wouldn't vote for her because of sexism. That was analysis not hidden sexism. Many who say others wouldn't/won't vote for Obama may well be analyzing the issue not revealing their hidden racism. Some might well be blacks or liberals, who, like me, distrust the ability of others to vote for blacks or women. If so, then the smaller number may well be more accurate and we, hopefully, might be misjudging our fellow citizens.