Sam Smith - I was listening to the Diane Rehm show, that hospice for old ideas, while on the way in a metaphorical suitable fashion to the recycling site. To my surprise I heard something new.
The topic was a whole segment devoted to Herman Cain’s alleged mistreatment of two women employees. A conservative caller argued that reporters were harder on Republicans on such matters than they were on people like Clinton and Edwards. The panel, predictably, denied that was the case, although, for example, the Review was among a tiny number of journals that reported during the campaign on the National Enquirer's claims about John Edwards, even though we had endorsed him.
Then one of the panel asserted that, furthermore, the offenses of Clinton and Edwards were lesser than those alleged of Cain because they were personal and against their wives rather than against a corporate employee.
In other words, corporate staffers had greater moral and legal protection than a mere wife.
While marital infidelity should certainly not be covered by non-discrimination laws, it should probably remain a worthy topic upon which to judge and discuss a political candidate. But in our legalized times, apparently, if it’s not in the statutes, it’s okay.
