I agree that "the fallout would be horrid," but the point I was making was that it should not be that way. If the media and the rest of the country had a more mature attitude toward these things, the whole episode would simply raise some eyebrows and everyone would move on. Yes, even if he was the nominee. Instead, just look at the seismic reaction to this situation. That reaction is disproportionate to the relevance it holds to the general public. It is part of a distasteful pattern of examining family dynamics that are best left alone.

We did not, and do not, hold Bill's infidelities against Hillary; nor would we have objected to
John's fiasco, even after it was revealed, if it had been Elizabeth who was the candidate.(In fact, I know several people who thought it was a shame that it was not Elizabeth running, of the two Edwards.)

Nor, for that matter, did being an adulterer prevent Bill Clinton from being elected, even when it was known, if denied. So, IMO, the problem is not that we are a puritanical nation. No one -- male or female -- is required, these days, to wear a scarlet letter; no one is shunned or driven from the pack.

The problem -- in today's world, in particularly tenuous times -- is one of public trust: WE ARE TIRED OF BEING LIED TO. If you inhaled, by god, just say so. If you cheated, trot out a mea culpa. Say it upfront, and take your chances on it having an impact at the polls, or not. As recent history would indicate, chances are, if you are a strong candidate, your faux pas will be overlooked.

And if it isn't? Well, you may lose the election but you can sleep at night. More importantly, so can your countrymen and women.

We have a right to know what's what, so that we can make informed decisions. Hiding the facts when there is so much at stake is rather like sleeping with someone, without protection, without letting them know you have AIDS. What the two of you decide to do is your own business, but both parties are entitled to informed consent.

How many instances of this do we have to have before politicians get it that it's not the action, but rather the inaction that is at the heart of the matter? It's the lies of ommission as well as commission, as it is the coverup and the parsing of "is" that drives us up the wall? Oh, and also the money trusting people sent to a campaign that was accepted, without demur, and without shame.