Silliness. Has there ever been an hour where McCain didn't say things like this? He's crackers. It's one reason he didn't get elected. This is a spectacularly weird time to entrust him to communicate the goals of the Republican party.

There are many, many respects in which I want Obama consistently opposed. It's great that the opposition party is keeping its blades sharp.

"Negative, attack politics"?

Anybody see Sunday's NYT? They're starting one last series of articles about how Bush is responsible for everything. Anybody remember that bailout speech from the Speaker of the House?

I'm reminded of the Stephanopolous book: "You're in Washington now. If you're lonely, get a dog."

I had several conversations with American voters just after the election, in Oregon, Washington and Massachusetts. They were all democrats and were happy to see the republican party in disarray for as long as possible. They were surprised at my suggestion that the democrats, once in power, would have a brief honeymoon period and then only be as good as the opposition required. A strong opposition is in the national interest.

But I suspect that republicans will try to do another Kenneth Starr, instead of doing politics and policies.

(Apologies to Crid for commenting on US politics.)

If any CEO in America did what Clinton did with his "wandering penis", he'd have gone to jail. Especially if he'd lied about it to the Grand Jury.

And a lot of Obama's faithful followers are going to be very disappointed. They should get used to it.

CEO fuck their subordinates all the time, havent seen one to go to jail for it yet

> for commenting on US politics.)

Don't let it happen again, regency-lover.

If a CEO were to make any of the sexist comments that Clinton did, he'd get bagged for it. CEOs (and other upper management types) have had their careers and pensions destroyed due to accusations (real and imagined) of sexual harassment.

You said "go to jail" brian. And that was without perjury

Oh, gee, excuses for Mr. Clinton yet again. Molesting women, cheating on your wife and lying about it is OK, is it?

That's the example we want for our Chief Executive, right?

Lying to a grand jury is a felony regardless of the topic, and the Constitution states that a felon cannot be President. This was disregarded. The entire public focused on sexual escapades while John Huang bought the White House. Look him up. You mention Kenneth Starr as if his office was at fault for something - that office was established by Democrats to pursue Richard Nixon. Look that up.

This, "In a time when America is facing real challenges,..." is nonsense, too. There is no time when a party's interests are better served by simple sniping. Congress's approval ratings are lower then Mr. Bush's because both parties have no solutions. When your goal is merely to be re-elected, talking about anything that might happen after your current term is crazy.

This kind of thing happens because the public can't be bothered to remember anything, or learn about either the law or governmental organization.

What's Paris Hilton doing?

>>You said "go to jail" brian. And that was without perjury

Yegods, I'm nodding in frantic agreement at a comment by lujlp!!

Come on, brian - that was an outrageous attempt to 'casually' adjust your original statement.

But I suspect that republicans will try to do another Kenneth Starr, instead of doing politics and policies.

Why is it that whenever anyone is trying to point out an example of independent prosecutorial excess, they turn to Starr? Starr spend $50 million and got convictions that held up on appeal.

Why does no one turn to Lawrence Walsh? Walsh spent $80 million (in the '80s when that was real money) and used flimsy grounds to get a few convictions that were almost immediately overturned.

Oh yeah. 'cause Starr went after a Democrat and Walsh went after those evil Republicans.

The independent prosecutor law was passed by Democrats to "get Nixon." It was a bad law then (even though Nixon by then deserved a little "getting"). It was a bad law when Democrats again used it multiple times to harass Reagan and GWH Bush. It was a bad law when Republicans finally woke up from being doormats and used it against a Democratic president. It was only having it used against one of their own that made Democrats oppose its renewal.

CEO fuck their subordinates all the time, havent seen one to go to jail for it yet

Clinton was not impeached for having an affair. He, while president of the United States, committed perjury (he lied before a grand jury). It's not for nothin' that he ain't allowed to argue before the Supreme Court and lost his law license in New York for two years.

And, Looj, people who are not the president of the United State have gone to jail for committing pejury.

On the other hand, CEOs have been fired for having affairs with their subordinates.

Ever heard of Harry Stonecipher? He was the CEO of Boeing and was fired for having an affair with a subordinate.

Personally, I think the Paula Jones lawsuit should never have been cleared to go forward. I think Janet Reno should never have approved expanding Starr's Whitewater investigation into the Lewinski affair. But, once called before a grand jury and put under oath, Clinton was under an obligation to tell the truth - just like any of us would be - or to face the consequences for lying. As yet, we are still a nation of laws.

My bad. Brian started the "go to jail for an affair" thing.

Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.

Ah. So who get's to decide whether or not he is right?