Yes it's official, it's a contest to see how many Senators can visit how many soma fountains and spew upon us the heightened political rhetoric we all rightly deserve. Why focus on new genocidal atrocities being perpetrated by Serbians near Pristina in Kosovo or new Israeli air attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, when we have Mister Bill to kick around?

*On ' Eat The Best ', a six pack of Senators waited to offer up their toppings. They had to wait for Representitive Bill McCollum ( R ) to make a token visit and retired Senator George Mitchell ( D ) to get sticky with the Whitehouse talking points ( pollaganda, et al. ). Only currently serving Senators count, here goes:

Christopher Dodd ( D ) was trying to feint objectivity, but the best he could do was, " House managers did a decent job presenting a weak case ". I didn't think he was going to be impartial. When asked about calling witnesses or not, he replied, " we made an agreement a week ago to wait ". Nice, he didn't repeat the DNC talking point but thought they may have to call them because of " significant factual disgreements ".

John Kerrey ( D ) did not try to hide his extreme partisan nature and attacked Ken Starr and the investigation. He seemed to indirectly advocate the jury nullification scheme of Senator " Dung Heap " Harkin with, " People ought to step back from all this for a moment...we can all get lost in legalisms here ".

Paul Wellstone ( D ) once again exhibited his House of Representitives hoaned, ' Whitehouse/DNC Bill Clinton forever ', training by repeating all the talking points fax subjects. He said, " the House has not made it's case ", " a big mistake to go to witnesses ", and " if we go to witnesses, it will be a spectacle ". He is one of the partisan Democrat grandstanders who thinks the public will fall for anything he says, trying this one, " I want a strong censure. I don't want to give any ground on morality "? Oh please, what a crock! The question is not, how can you tell when Wellstone is lying, but will Wellstone ever tell the truth!

Orrin Hatch ( R ) thought most of the names mentioned as possible witnesses were favorable to the Whitehouse. He said, " The House presented a powerful case...the Whitehouse has a heavy burden ( to rebut ) ". He did urge the Senators to " keep open minds ".

Kay Bailey Hutchinson ( R ) thought the Senate should " bend over backwards to be fair. Give both sides a chance ". She was very concerned with the final outcome saying, " What the status of sexual harassment laws will be, is effected by this case ".

James Inhofe ( R ) said, " I want to see witnesses unless the Whitehouse agrees to the facts ". He was afraid about " what happens to justice if there are different standards for lying under oath ". He finally added that there would be grandstanding if Senate deliberations are done publically.

*On ' Shields and Evans ', John Warner ( R ) was concerned as " this case troubles the military ". He talked of the increased need for legislative branch oversight on the Whitehouse because, " If the President remains, he is an injured President ".

*Tony Snow had Byron Dorgan ( D ), Charles Schumer ( D ), Jon Kyl ( R ) and Larry Craig ( R ) on ' Fix the News Sunday ' ( as well as a liner note that the DJIA had risen 437 points since the House impeached Clinton ). The Republicans were non-committal and hesitant to offer opinions before hearing all the facts. Schumer was predicably a partisan Democrat hack saying that what Newt Gingrich did was worse than what his precious first philanderer did? What planet is this guy really from? Even sicker, is that Dorgan seemed to go along with all the BS, though he didn't offer up anything quotable.

*' Defacing the station ', House manager Lindsey Graham talked about how prior to 1936, impeachment proceedings consisted of two final votes; one for guilt or innocence and another for removal. Then came the four Senators:

Pete Domenici ( R ), " If the President doesn't put on a case, the House lawyers have proven the case ".

Dianne Feinstein ( D ), " Whatever we do here sets a standard and a precedent for the future ".

Mitch McConnell ( R ), " the President's defenders like to point to the polls ".

Robert Torricelli ( D ) attacked Ken Starr and declared that the Senators could say or do whatever they like, for whatever reason ( I think disregarding the oath he took to be impartial ) saying, " We are a court...take a larger perspective ". What is this larger perspective? A dictatorship of Democrats?

*Wolf blitzed through his ' partisan condition ' with Barbara Boxer ( D ) and Robert Bennet ( R ), with Bennet being objective and attempting to be non-partisan in the face of the bitterly partisan Boxer. More interesting, the retired Senators Howard Baker ( R ) and Sam Nunn ( D ) were able to sort it out. Nunn thought the Senators should be impartial, quoting Napolean, " You can do everything with a bayonet, but sit on it "! Wolf proved his direct connection with the DNC by having a love-fest with Lanny Davis spinning madly on the defense of the First Defendant, instead of having any meaningful dialog with Senators!

*On ' The Geeks of The Week ', the extremist far left wing radical Democrat conspiracy of the Dictatorship of Bill Clinton finally reared it's ugly head publically. First, House managers Asa Hutchinson ( " we made a strong case " ) and George Sensenbrenner ( " it was the first chance the public had to hear how comprehensive the case against Clinton was, without interruption " ) offered up their opinions on the need for calling witnesses. George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson were openly dumbfounded at the arrogant partisan rancor and denial that Patrick Leahy ( D ) and Tom Harkin ( D ) displayed when they began their questioning. Leahy illustrated his complete lack of free will and robotically repeated the Whitehouse spin thusly, " We didn't ask for Ken Starr to be an out of control prosecutor and the House to send us a partisan impeachment ". Whoa, wait a second, is this the Groomaldo show? Harkin finished off any trace of his conscience with, " We are not a jury, we are more than a jury...weigh everything, not just the facts, not just the law ." Wow, I wonder what the Whitehouse has on this guy? Is Clinton operating him with a remote control unit? He finished with, " I see no need for witnesses ".

Phil Gramm ( R ) was impartial ( that is why I had to separate him from the Democrat side-show clown act with his own paragraph ). He thought the House managers made " a very strong, very persuasive case ", but " I am not going to make a decision before they ( the Whitehouse lawyers ) make their case ". On the need for witnesses he said, " I believe witnesses will be called ". And finally, when asked about a censure motion he opined, " If the President is found not guilty, I don't believe he should be censured ". Why are the Republicans so obviously objective or impartial, and the vast majority of Democrats going public, so bitterly subjective and partisan?

A major topic for today's pontifications was the apparent leanings of Democrat Senators toward a non-impartial verdict in the Senate trial, basing their decisions on un-admitted petty party reasons. Many, if not all Democrats, thought Tom Harkin opened the door for them to base their vote on any reason they desire. These Democrats are proving themselves to be completely devoid of any integrity or morality ( no matter how many times they repeat their lies )!

- Bongo ( So many Senators, so little time... )