So true, The Clinton's are the MSM's and the right wing in generals easy to sell sex scandal even 6 yrs on. With all the really sordid GOP sex scandals lately you'd think they'd run after atleast one of them? The Gannon thing was a super ripe sex story but the MSM dropped it like a hot potato.

Reminding me that Hillary is married to Bill makes me like the idea of a Hillary Presidency just a little bit more.

However, I really, really don't like the idea of Hillary Presidency (and Hillary as our nominee is even worse). So it hardly matters.

I am probably the only progressive in the blogosphere that believes this, but I think the relationship with the Clintons is fair game for coverage in 2008.  And regardless of whether I think it is "fair" game, game it is certainly going to be.

Here is why.  I believe there is NO chance, I repeat NO chance that Bill will be sexually loyal to Hillary.  Maybe until (if) she is elected, but certainly not after.

Think about it. . .he could not be faithful to Hillary while he was the President of the US even though his prior indiscretions almost ruined his political career.  Does anyone really think that as he is fulfilling his duties as "first man," watching his wife in the spotlight, he will not strike out for some 25 year old big haired women? If he could not be loyal when he was President, when such loyalty was vital to his political survival, there is not way that he will be faithful when/if Hillary is President.  I mean no way at all.

One of the two or three reasons why I really oppose Hillary's election is that the whole 4 or 8 years in office will be nothing but a soap opera surrounding their relationship.  It will be all Bill's Sexcapades, all the time.  As a result, the realignment that is literally within our grasp will be gone for a generation.

I wrote a diary recently about the roots of the double standard in politics across a wide range of groups, "Dignity, Hierarchy and Demonization: 'Dressing Like Sluts' Edition".  It drew it's inspiration from a comment at Feministe, the key of which was:

women who have sex are bad, while men who have sex are good - and the more sex women have, the more "slutty" and bad they are, while the more sex men have, the more "manly" and good they are.

My argument, from here, is simple: The cultural duality of gender just illustrated is virtually universal in human societies; and the privilege that men experience from it becomes the template for virtually all other hierarchical relationships, beginning with those of group dominance that privilege one race, ethnicity, religion, or tribal group over another.  In each case, the practice of a double standard judges dominant and subdominant groups differently.  For example, the "noble lie" of the dominant group is praised, and deemed essential for the survival of civilization. OTOH, any lie whatsoever from the subordinate group--even to save a child from rape or sexual slavery--is condemned as a mortal sin.

In short, there is nothing superficial or arbitrary about this obsession.  Which is not to excuse it for the moment.  It is, rather, to say that it is something to take very seriously--regardless of how you feel about the Clintons politically.  (I find their "third way" politics extremely reprehensible.)