It is none of our business how the Clintons as a family dealt with the Lewinsky affair. It is none of our business how Chelsea personally feels about the affair or how it has affected her relationships with Hillary and Bill. And in certain countries in Europe, for example, the affair would not have been a scandal, much less a grave matter of state, at all at the time and thus of even less import today. 

But this is America and, unfortunately, it did matter greatly--after all it led to perjury and impeachment--and therefore it does matter still.

Why?

Hillary is contending for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the U.S. If successful, she would represent the party in contention for the office itself. If successful once more, she would then represent the Democrat Party (as well as the whole nation), as a Democratic President. At each stage it is not only Hillary and those who unconditionally support her that are invested in her success. At a minimum, the rest of the party is invested, even those who may not support her. At a maximum, if she were to succeed, the entire nation and arguably the entire world is invested in her success.

In that context, then, Bill Clinton's sexual behavior is of vital importance. A new sex scandal during her nomination effort, her election campaign or her administration would have enormous impact. It would no doubt kill her nomination or election bids. It would cripple her administration, much as it crippled her own.

Setting aside the salacious nature and the aspects of it that are personal to the Clintons, why is it that a matter of such significant public import taboo?

Dear Howard Dean,

I was a fan of yours. I never understood what the big deal was with "the scream". I was glad to see you take over the party chairmanship. But now, well, here's what I have to say:

You have completely abdicated any and all leadership in this, the most important DNC activity: the Presidential primary.

Why bother establishing a rule and declaring a penalty if you have no intention of enforcing it?

Couldn't you have foreseen that states would challenge your rule, then have declared a penalty you would have been willing to enforce?

While the fault lies with the states for breaking the rules, a fault lies with you as well for completely mismanaging this process and putting the primary, election and party in jeopardy.

How dare you punt the resolution to the candidates, as if they are likely to agree to solution.

How dare you punt the resolution of your ruling to the credential committee after correctly acknowledging that a delay until the August convention would be disastrous for the party, as it was in 1976 (for Gerald Ford) and 1980 (for Jimmy Carter).

If you want to seat delegates without looking like a fool and encouraging other states to ignore your rules in the future: seat half of them 50/50. You have to penalize these states and you can't count the votes of primaries that were disqualified in advance. Even Hillary acknowledged those votes would not count, both before and after the primaries were held.

Absent a valid campaign and vote, on what rational basis could an apportionment of anything other than 50/50 be justified?

I had no idea that you would disappoint us in such a manner on such a monumental occasion. If you are truly going to leave it to others to fix your blunder in the manner being reported, if you truly have nothing of value to offer at this of all times, please step down and let a leader take over. Otherwise, there should be a movement to unseat you.