No, I don't want to have to put up with another sex scandal involving a politician and an intern. I mean, what will the French think? But, it seems to me that the issue of adultery is as indicative of a man's character as his military service. Is that not so?
I can appreciate the ideal of monogamy and I think it's great, but I have shockingly little faith in it. Which is why I think marriage should be the right of any couple (of whatever combination of genders) who are actually committed to each other. If they're not, they shouldn't be married; they should be divorced.
In my mind, a marriage in which one or both partners is being unfaithful is a sham. The only reason why these spouses would stay married is because they have rationalized the adultery and are too lazy to surrender the financial or social benefit of their union.
The kinds of "power couples" that politics produce are particularly nauseating because most of them strike us as marriages of convenience and ambition. I still laugh at Hillary Rodham Clinton's tale of her "shock" at discovering that Bill had, indeed, been getting blow jobs on the side. Of course she knew he was cheating on her! She had known what sort of rake he was from day one. But, could it have mattered less? No. She wouldn't have dared hop off of that gravy train.
I would guess that the same sort of arrangement pertains to the Heinz-Kerrys. The Senator's wife once said she wouldn't kill him if he were cheating on her ---she would maim him. Which is a politician's wife's way of saving the appearance of her self-respect when the only interest she really has is in being a politician's wife who knows that he sleeps around on her.
My only question at this early stage in the scandal is why General Clark would help to spread this story to the media ---and then endorse the candidacy of a man he said would "implode" because of his dalliance with an intern. Seller's remorse?