Left media bias is a given in today's society.

The results in next week's California election will demonstrate what the proles think of that continued bias.

It's the timing, and the repetition that's causing the public to tune out. Given the past pre-election revelations about candidates, the public now expects this stuff. Combined with the general disdain in California towards both incumbents and the media, the attitude seems to be "If it's so important, why didn't you run the story three weeks ago?"

The Times' argument has been that the story wasn't fully sorced and confirmed until this week. But since one of the women in the paper's story who makes one of the most recent allegations previously told her tale in Premiere magazine, sourcing that shouldn't have been difficult to do, and it could have run as a stand-alone several weeks ago, instead of holding it to use in a 130-plus column inch story six days before the election.

Add to that Jill Stewart's claim that the Times refused to run a similar story on Gray Davis harassing several of his female staffers in 1997 (a claim based on her reporting for L.A.'s New Times newspaper), and the Hitler quote/misquote dispute of the past weekend, and it pushes the anger level about the Schwartenegger stories themselves above the anger level about what Arnold allegedly did or didn't do.

Besides which, Schwarzenegger innoclulated himself against such charges, when he announced, by saying that Davis's supporters would conduct a smear campaign just before the election.

Is this the part when Arnold burns the
Reichstag (I mean the statehouse)?

J.H.

Now that's an excellent point! How long do you think it will be before Ah-nuld's fights with the state legislature will be referred to in that way? I'll wager that it's the first time Schwarzenegger does a bully pulpit over a contest of wills with the legislature.

"Schwarenegger is burning down the house of representative democracy with his demagogic appeal".

Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. He did keep the White House from them for eight years, but he handed them Congress, lots of governorships and statehouses, and a ready excuse for any Repub candidate caught doing nasty sexual things.

Was Clinton a mole for the RNC? Okay, the trend toward the Repubs was in evidence long before Clinton was groping the White House staff. But the Slickster sure helped the GOP along. And he continues to help by giving easy cover to Republican sexual sins.

It's more than Arnold innoculating himself: the Democrats innoculated the public by spending most of the '90s arguing that Clinton's far worse behavior was "just sex" and thus private. So it looks like rank hypocrisy for them to act all outraged now. The fact that Clinton is campaigning for Davis only emphasizes this.

Clinton's perjury and cover-up was worse-the original activities seem on a par and are vile.

No, Clinton's original activities were often worse. We know of at least one woman (Juanita Broaddrick) who says she was raped by Clinton, and another (Paula Jones) who says he exposed himself to her. Clearly both activities are worse than groping or talking dirty.