Something that has always bothered me: Moralizing.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Actually, geneder still makes no difference to me, but . . . . .

. . . . . parsing his actions into suitability for office, or even simply being worthy of *your* vote, is perfectly fine.

People vote based on haircut, or boxers vs briefs. Surely an issue such as this is more weighty and worthy of consideration.

I just don't like the idea of "morality" getting mixed in.

Please don't interpret that as defending winkie tweets. It isn't.

Let's use Bill Clinton as an example. His affair with Gennifer Flowers didn't trouble me in the least. The fact he tried to hide it was normal and (again, to me) untroubling. The allegations of Paula Jones, if reasonable, might have been troubling, but I found them incredible (without credibility), as did most people.

Now, fast forward to the Monica Lewinski thing. *THAT* stuck me as bad judgement. A blow job in the oval office anteroom is just a stained dress too far, even for me. What was he THINKING???? Had *that* happened when he was running for office might have changed my . . . . . nah. I'd still have voted for him. Him or Poppy? Not even close. But back to my point. He had consensual sex (to me, a blowjob is having sex) with an adult woman. It was kinda skeezy. But to the real point, it showed horrible personal judgement. And it is that demonstration of bad judgement that would have bothered me. Not the actual spilling of the presidential splooge.

I really think we're on the same page. The difference, it seems to me, are kind of subtle.