How so? You don't even illustrate how I made your point for you, much less what your point might be.

tom wrote: "although I would bet money he didn't do a lot of them"

Then how in hell is taking him to task for his actions, that you grant he likely did, simply a liberal 'dirty tricks' smear campaign? Please explain this. If he likely did it, and if he is a gubenatorial candidate, then is it or is it not news that he did those things?

If it is not news, then holding Clintons feet to the fire for perjury is simply a right wing dirty tricks campaign. You don't expect me to buy that argument, or believe that you would advocate it, do you?

tom wrote: "Premiere Magazine DID break this story years ago, which makes the L. A. Times timing even more blatant"

And makes your argument blatantly disingenuous. If it was news-worthy before he was a candidtate for california high office, then it is certainly a story after he is a candidate.

And if you do in fact submit that this was originally publicized years ago, then it negates your contention that 'nobody spoke out' until 'the eve of the election' on 'dirty trick tuesday'.

tom wrote: "And on Dirty Trick Thursday, it suddenly becomes news, and the papers are full of women--mostly anonymous--who have suddenly found their voices. "

And who is repsonsible for making the voices of the vistim heard? How is it that the victims were supposed to 'speak out years ago', when nobody was punblishing their story. How does that exactly make it the case that they must not have cared or were never groped? So if a tree falls in the forest and no journalist writes about it for you, then it never fell? Absurd.

And yeah, it may be a political 'dirty trick', but seriously, Tom, does the fact that his enemies found allegations that are VERY credible and USED those allegations necessarily make him not accountable for his actions? Think it through. If you honestly believe that the seriousness of these charges is negated by who helped them be made, then you are on some sort of moral and ethical crack.

My point here is that REGARDLESS of who/how they were brought up, they are very credible, made by MANY people on TWO continents by TWO different journalistic organizations in the span of 5 years, are not fully denied by Arnold, and are backed up by other things, such as his OUI magazine interview. Doesn't this even give you pause?

Tom wrote: "Did Arnold get hauled in back then on charges? Civil harassment suits?"

I see, so if a prosecutor doesn't decide to prosecute, or a victim of sexual assult does not press charges or sue, then it necessarily didn't happen? This logic hardly is.

Many civil suits are closed procedures that end in undisclosed settlements. In cases of Rape or sexual battery, DA's can refuse to press charges or even investigate matters if there is not a strong case to be made. In terms of the court of law, this means the person (Arnold) is, in legal terms, what he is by constitution assumed to be: not guilty. However, this hardly determins that factually no assult was done upon the person. Most women I know who were raped did not EVER press charges, and many tried but had no evidence with which to have the police press an investigation or the DA to make a charge (not all rape leaves physical evidence or witnesses). What physical evidence does a groping assult in an elevator leave?

tome wrote: "Was his career destroyed? Or was this deemed by sensible people in Hollywood to be a non-story back then? These stories were common knowledge in Hollywood for years, and nobody apparently gave a rat's ass [...]
"

is your argument actually that because no justice was metted out, there was no injustice? How amusing. I think I want to laugh... Or cry... Wow. you are a veritable moral compass, Tom. (at least in the sense that you only and always point exactly one direction, to the right)

"Yes, there was hypocrisy on the part of some win-at-all-costs Republicans too, who were eager to pounce on Clinton's morality, but not Arnold's. But you didn't hear a lot of that noise from real conservatives, including most of my local talk radio folks and the guy I actually voted for. "

Its funny tom, in that greek tragedy sort of way, that all those you disagree with you paint as the stalinist-socialist sort of liberal, and all those you agree with you paint as a reasonable sort of right-winger. Its a fraud you still refuse to own up to. An easy way out.

Davin L.