To say this:

This had nothing to do with breasts.

This was political.

In the same way that rape is a crime of violence, not sex, see?

Ann Althouse a feminist? Well, I suppose she doesn't place her daughters in a burqa. But she's much more of the Independent Women's Forum sort. She can't help herself, see.

She sees Clinton, and of course, any attractive young woman becomes Monica-ized. Standing nearby means seductive complicity, and that she must be Luring the Pervert.

Then the real woman speaks up, and does she say, "Oh, sorry. I was just contributing to some idle political gossip"? No. Never back down. So she insults. She demeans. Very familiar. Very political.

When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor made her decision of the unconstitutionality of the warrantless spying program, what did this law professor Ann Althouse do? She got an op-ed in the New York Times, decrying the decision -- not for what it said, of course, but for its breasts. Did I say breasts? I meant she criticized the poor logic, the faulty arguments of this Liberal Black Woman Appointed by Carter. Affirmative action, see? Nothing with the fine, crystalline logic as a proper conservative white woman would write. Like herself. Only she'd have found it constitutional. With faultless logic and beautiful style.

Somehow all this is very familiar, and the feminism part is just peripheral. Like the sex part of rape.

"No one on the right argues that Clinton was too distracted by the scandals initiated by the right."

Uh, "Path to 9/11"?

You guys remind me of Monty Python skits. "You do x." "No we don't." "There you are, doing x." "You're a Bush-basher."

People who say that should really take a look at what it means. To me, there were two parts to that operation: one was filled with factual lies, and really just were used to to blunt Kerry's legitimate war hero status. This is the Swift-boating part.

The other part of the operation was to raise his activities in the Vietnam Vets Against the War. As long as you don't distort that -- and many did -- this was a legitimate matter to raise. To criticize the activities of the "young" John Kerry in the antiwar movement is legitimate, although I find those actions as heroic morally as his earlier physical courage. But like it or not, this really pisses a lot of people off, but it's the public record. Deal with it one way or another.

Politically, though, I'm wondering about the backlash. I remember the very effective counterattack by Schwarzenegger and his allies about the disgusting stories told about him by all those women.

How about his tax cuts, his support of Iraq, and so on?

There is a justification for taking precautions and conducting agressive police and military work.

There is no justification for the strategic blunders of Iraq, and none for the fearmongers of the Bush administration when it's looking to be elected.

Doesn't the guy look like John Fund?

If it was his propensity to call names, and he acknowledged that, as a youth, he had done that, it would pass, and the attackers would look like tormenters. That's what I thought this story would end up as. (And I'm a Dem with no love of Allen.)

But it's the way he's handled all this stuff! "I made up 'macaca,' I don't even know what it means." "I was referring to his 'mohawk' haircut -- long on top, short on the sides. What's this about North Africa? Never heard the word." "Okay, sure, my mom's from North Africa, but she never used the word." (Maybe true; but look on Stormfront.org, it's a term that's popular there.) "Jewish? How dare you? Are you anti-Semitic?" "Well, no, mom just told me I was Jewish a month ago." Picture taken with confederate organizations that are against interracial dating? No, I never knew about what they believed.

And now, faced with these n-word allegations, what happens? He denies he's EVER used the word. Not, well, I might have said that in the past. I'm very sorry about that. No, "I never said that." And dozens of people come forward who say they've heard him. The latest? Larry Sabato, a classmate, on the Hardball show. I'm pretty certain he's a Republican, but there was a look on his face when he said it that told you something.

If you made a mistake or two twenty years ago, but you were a good guy, people would shut up. Whoever was with W during the cokehead years, the booze and wild party years, must essentially like him, because they never came forward. Of course, maybe Karl would have had them killed, but I think it's fair to presume that he was liked enough by the people who partied with him, which he didn't deny, that there was no big scandal.

But his serial denials, and the way people are coming out about this guy makes me think that a lot of people who knew him really saw something they didn't like, that they saw something ugly ten or twenty years ago or more, and they're bringing out the stories now. If he was a good guy, nobody would be saying shit.