Burt Prelutsky has some thoughts. I have to dispute this particular point, though, because it continues to nurture the myths of that incident:

Frankly, I didn’t even care that Bill Clinton dallied with Monica Lewinsky. I took his perjury seriously, but not his philandering. I did figure he could have done better than Ms. Lewinsky, being commander in chief and all, but that’s neither here nor there. I simply don’t expect politicians to be saintly. Besides, a lot of saints weren’t the least bit saintly before they had their epiphanies.

You know what? I didn't care if Clinton "dallied with Monica Lewinsky*," either, and I do think that the perjury (and subornation of perjury, and intimidation of witnesses, and bribing of witnesses, and failure to faithfully execute the laws as he pledged when he took the oath of office, particularly when they were laws that he signed with his own pen but thought himself above) was very important. But that doesn't mean that his "dalliance" wasn't.

Two points. The Monica "dalliance" was not, despite the incessant spin at the time, and now, his "private" life. It occurred on company time, on company premises. He kept people (like Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentson) cooling their heels in the outer room while being serviced in the Oval Office by said "dalliance." He was getting a hummer while discussing troop deployments in Kosovo with members of Congress on the Hill.

Second, it was not something that he wanted to see on the front page of the Washington Post. If, like a French president, you want to have an affair, on your own time, and keep a mistress out in Virginia, that you visit on the off hours, I'm no prude--go for it*. But if you think that you need to keep it a secret, don't do it, if you are the most powerful man in the world.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again. What if Linda Tripp had decided to sell the tapes to Saddam, or the head of the government of China, instead of giving them to Ken Starr?

*All other things being equal, I'd prefer a president that kept his vows to his wife to one that didn't, given that this seems to me at least as important a vow as one taken to defend the Constitution. But note my caveat. I can live with a president that is unfaithful to his wife, given the long history of presidents who have been less that faithful to their wives, Mr. Clinton excepted. I'm just sayin'.

Less dramatically but still importantly, what if Monica herself had said to the President one afternoon, "You know that military base in my home town that they're talking about closing? I really think it should stay open. I mean, REALLY."

Mark,
if ML had done that, she probably would have "committed suicide" in a park near the White House. Maybe even the one Vince Foster used.

Don't keep overlooking the key issue -- Monica was under his executive authority, she worked for him, he was in her chain of command. That's what gets execs in companies, in the military, into trouble -- wherever people can use their power over people to bend them to their will, or use their power to accept bribes from them to bestow favors. Somebody independent of your power, do it behind closed doors and it's not the government's business. Somebody you have power over, abuse that power and close the door behind you.

The article isn't really about Clinton, but for the liberals (I realize Burt claims to have left the left) who claim Bush lied and manipulated, there is still a persistence in reclassifying the issue with Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I don't care that then President Clinton dallied Monice Lewinsky* or that then Governor Clinton made unwanted advances to Paula Jones. The point is that Paula Jones cared, that there are laws against that, that the Governor and President are sworn to uphold, and that then President Clinton was using his office to prevent a citizen from properly seeking justice. In short, the story mentioned nothing about Paula Jones. Clinton was impeached for perjury in the Paula Jones case and not because he had sex with any particular person in any particular location. Paula Jones' name is a key component, it's not mentioned, and she made Clinton's private life public, because he tried to force his life on her.

*As far as caveats, I did think it was bad form to take advantage of an intern, but then again, Monica didn't seem to mind, and she was an adult and capable of making her own decision.

The Monica "dalliance" was a legal issue and a big deal, because Mr. Clinton made that activity illegal. If he couldn't live under the laws he was signing, we should fry him. Note that he never tried to get the odious law repealed. He liked the law, but it was only supposed to apply to the little people.