This DMN headline was like:
Once campaign killers, traits like infidelity less of an issue among voters today
And then the lead was all:
Traits that a decade or a generation ago would have automatically disqualified a candidate for higher office can be found in many of this year's top presidential candidates: Divorce, infidelity, "wrong" race, "wrong" gender, "wrong" religion, "wrong" age – and none are now considered insurmountable.
And then I said:
The prominence of infidelity in that headline is so off, since infidelity isn't much of a deal-breaker concern in a campaign. And whose transgressions are we notably not concerned about now? I recognize all the other stuff on that list, but infidelity? Now divorce, that's a tough one to overcome. I think only Reagan ever got away with that, and he had what they call other attributes.
My G'ma says that back in the olden days, everyone expected the president to get a little on the side. "But not Truman," she says. "He just didn't look like the type." She was not able to elaborate. "But the rest of them, oy!"
RSS
Rudy Guiliani, honey.