Maureen Dowd, "Time to Hard-Delete Carlos Danger": Don't Promise Not to Do It Again

Is marriage a dying institution? Or is it morphing into a vehicle for the realization of blind political and economic ambition by both husband and wife?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Time to Hard-Delete Carlos Danger" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/opinion/sunday/dowd-time-to-hard-delete-carlos-danger.html), Maureen compares Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Dowd writes:

"Bill and Hillary Clinton transformed the way we look at sex scandals. They plowed through the ridicule, refused to slink away in shame like Gary Hart, said it was old news, and argued that if Hillary didn’t object, why should voters?

. . . .

Americans keep moving the marker of acceptable behavior, partly as a reflection of the coarsening of society and partly as a public acknowledgment that many pols with complicated personal lives have been good public servants.

Now, defining deviancy downward, Señor and Señora Danger are using the Clinton playbook.

The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming. In 12 years in Congress, he managed to get only one minor bill passed, on behalf of a donor, and he doesn’t work well with people. He knows how to be loud on cable and wave his Zorro sword in our faces."

Make no mistake about it: Weiner is an embarrassment and needs to call it quits.

However, Maureen appears to posit that if you're said to be "the greatest political and policy mind of a generation," you can soil Monica's dress, tell the American public "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and continue on your merry way. After all, this seminal act at close quarters was little more than . . . "roguish."

We all await Hillary's announcement that she will be running for president, but do you believe that Bill had no additional relationships while Hillary was flying around the globe as Secretary of State?

If Hillary is asked during a debate with Chris Christie in 2016 about the true nature of her relationship with Bill, will the American public again be content with . . . "At this point, what difference does it make?"

And if Hillary is elected, will Congress appropriate funds to renovate the White House and build a semi-detached bachelor pad for Bill?

As observed by Dowd in the penultimate paragraph of her opinion piece:

"As often as Bill apologized, he didn’t promise he would 'never, ever' do it again, as Weiner did."

Bill never promised not to do it again? How reassuring!

What to call Bill if Hillary is elected? The First Lady won't do. The First Gentleman? Amost equally risible. How about . . . the First Philanderer?