"The panel" discussing the matter on CNN had two conservatives and a Hillary supporter. Not very balanced. This was amazing as it marked the first time I saw a conservative radio talk show host defend the Clinton's right to privacy. (This should be a testament to how many conservatives believe that Hillary will lose to John McCain if she gets the nomination. They are willing to say that the Lewinski affair isn't "fair game.") He said that it certainly shouldn't have been brought up-- addressing Clinton's daughter.

I am sorry. If you are going to walk an airport tarmac, through gunfire that requires you to keep your head down and wear a flack jacket with your 14-year- old daughter, you obviously don't care about her well being. (Of course we all know now that was a lie--excuse me, was "misspoken". Maybe the famous 16 words in President Bush's speech which scared a nation into war were also just "misspoken".) If you are going to put your daughter on the campaign trail for the world's most powerful leadership position, know that she is as susceptible to disturbing and hard questions and ridicule as anybody else in the game. This further proves your lack of concern for her. Also, you should understand that if you going to parade a 20-something cheerleader for your cause in front of college students, then expect college student questions. One only needs to look at today's "reality" shows and watch MTV's spring break to get a general understanding of many of the college kids' mindset. If the first thing that comes to mind when people hear your last name is your husband denying and then eventually admitting he got oral sex, then know the question is coming.

The question was actually overtly softened considering the subject matter. The wording went something like, "do you think the Lewinski scandal hurt your mom's credibility?" To which she said she had never been asked that question in some 70 college campuses, and then just said "none of your business". Really in that context, it was his and our business. That brings me to point number two.

Why hasn't this question been hounded into the ground? I said it when Bush was having trouble with his daughters, and I will repeat it now. If you can not get a handle on your own family and at least know what they are doing, then how can you be expected to keep control of a whole country? Yet to my knowledge this has rarely ever come up. It is a question I would like to see her interrogated on, as if she was in some dank CIA prison holding out the location of a bomb. The reason is that her answer will expose what kind of character she really is and what really drives her decision making. I would like to hear why she stayed with her husband after so much infidelity. Was that really the best example to show her daughter? Should she stick with her mate no matter how deceitful and harmful it has been to the marriage? Or did she stay for political reasons only? Is she really willing to suffer any moral and/ or embarrassing indignity just for political power?

There are a bazillion other questions that have also gone unanswered about so many scandals that just land outside of Clinton's door. Whitewater, political funding, and other real estate fraud cases where prosecutors never say they don't believe Hillary was nvolved. They always say, "There wasn't enough evidence to bring her to trial."

Somehow the really hard questions about Mrs. Clinton's own personal relations goes unchallenged, while the pastor of Barack is pasted to him like crazy glue to your fingers. As an example, look up Norman Hsu on your favorite news outlet. They have all reported on him.

This is "our business".