What an interesting article! Thank you. As a non-Christian, I have always found this concept of confession rather alien. As I read your article, I felt this phenomenon was ultimately not only about the division of private and public morality, but the imposition of a Christian concept of sin and redemption and ultimately about the separation of church and state. When a president under seige succeeds in remaining in office because of some prayer breakfast, then our political culture is so doused in one particular faith that the rest of us are left way, way outside.

Sue Katz, author

Thanks But No Thanks: The Voter's Guide to Sarah Palin

He's cheated on his wife and used various women sexually since back in Arkansas, but because he has the "right" (meaning, of course, left-leaning) politics, women continue to defend him. He uses everyone, in bed and out. He used his wife and Vice President to defend his lies. As a gay man, I felt he used me by playing for my vote and promising me equal rights, then dropping the issue once elected. He has no understanding of anything other than satisfying his own appetites (political and otherwise).

But astonishingly, after regularly cheating on his wife and discarding the women he slept with—and allowing them to be maligned by his supporters—it is still women who put him back into office for a second term (election results show that if only men had participated, the Presidency would have gone to Bob Dole). It's not a situation that feminists should be proud of.

Simply put, I despise the man.

In a story about sex scandals, this little gem shows up in a listing of Swaggart, Bakker, Foley, et. al:

"Some politicians, like Ted Kennedy, never quite managed to shake the taint of their scandals."

Hello? Kennedy abandoned a drowning woman, making no attempt whatsoever to rescue her or to get help from someone who could. That is not a sex scandal. That is a crime. How dare you conflate the two.

Another thing that Bill Clinton had going for him so far as public understanding was the perception that his home life may have been lacking in physical displays of affection. According to the Independent Counsel Report, Miss Lewinsky testified that, just after she first fellated President Clinton, "I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."

One wonders whether Mr. Clinton would have behaved differently if Mrs. Clinton had been more accommodating in that regard.

By your reckoning, a religious wedding ceremoney should include from a woman a promise to give a man blowjobs. Wisely, it does not, leaving people to negotiate their own sexual lives privately. For all you know, Bill Clinton knew Hillary didn't like to give blowjobs when he married her. Or he could have been giving the usual married man's "My wife doesn't understand/satisfy me" line to Monica in order to extract pity and future blowjobs. Or maybe he wanted blowjobs but just not from Hillary.

In other words, you don't know.

It always amuses me that conservatives blame Bill Clinton for his own behavior but many leftwing males blame his wife -- as if a man could never -- just possibly -- be responsible for controlling his own sexual behavior and keeping his marriage vows.

I think there is something to be said for the idea that if a man won't keep his marital promises that he might not keep his political ones either.

it is still women who put him back into office for a second term (election results show that if only men had participated, the Presidency would have gone to Bob Dole). It's not a situation that feminists should be proud of.

Actually, I am baffled by your logic. You seem to somehow make feminists (not really a monolithic group) responsible for the behavior of all female voters for Clinton.

I don't get it. By that extention, would Obama be responsible for what all ACORN organizers do because he was once an community organizer and because some ACORN organizers are black? I don't think so. Yet that seems to be what Palin is currently trying to claim.

Feminists are not responsible for what other women do anymore than all men should be judged by the behavior of male cheaters. Feminists as individuals are not even responsible for what other feminists do. Christians are not responsible for Hagee or Swaggart or for what Bill Clinton (Baptist!) did.

Simply put, I despise the man.

I don't like him much either -- but you, judging by your past letters and this one -- are a little obsessed.

Or perhaps Hillary said "I do", but then didn't.

You are absolutely right. I don't know. That is precisely why I said, "one wonders".

A truly repentant man gets his apology right the first time. He had to take a couple of mulligans. His whole strategy was, "I didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. Wait, you have proof? Well it's no one's business. And it's old news, anyway. Hey, let's bomb Sudan for no reason whatsoever!"

Feminists are a pretty monolithic group. One of the reasons Camille Paglia is always excluded. My point wasn't that "feminists" re-elected Clinton, though they sure helped, but that no feminist should be proud of the outcome. Yet Salon has never, to my knowledge, spoken otherwise than highly of the man, nor has any feminist group that I know of behaved differently. Why didn't NOW condemn him and suggest he step aside from the presidency? Why did no feminist organization point out his mistreatment of women, a regular course of action that goes back to the days of his governorship? It isn't just his sleeping around that's an issue, but his willingness to allow the women he's slept with to be smeared by his own people in an effort to protect his image.

I agree with you 100%.

I think your logic is a little flawed. Feminists should be ashamed, because women reelected Clinton in 1996.

Well... it was 1996. What choice did they have? Would it have been better if they had elected Dole? I'm sure he's a loving family man, but that aside, what else does he offer a feminist or any other progressive thinker? You want to talk problems with that election, explain to me why it's a good thing that the male vote continually goes Republican?

You're right, Clinton is an opportunistic son of a bitch, and he is indeed our opportunistic son of a bitch. And he'll have my vote over Senator Family Man (R) anyday.