Tammy Wynette is full of s**t...or is she?

OK - we've been witness to the latest politician's demise caused by itchy pants. This time, the itchy pants victim is the governor of NY.

Needless to say, we've also seen the wife standing next to him. If you click on the title of today's post, you'll be taken to the article that analyzes why women stand by their men in this particular set of circumstances.

Here's my humble opinion on this whole scenario.

First of all, I'm going to start by saying this: IF HILLARY CLINTON had left Bill when Monicagate occurred, I would have respected her a lot more. Hell, I'd probably be on the bandwagon for her presidency.

Why?

Because she could have left and made a future for herself. If she had, she would have shown women everywhere that it's OK to say no to neglectful, hurtful behavior. It would have also shown that the easy thing isn't always the right thing to do. She had a daughter to think about as well...wasn't she showing Chelsea that it's OK to stay with a man that cheats on you? Would Bill have been as tolerant of Hillary's infidelities?

But I can see that the other side of the coin is just as right a choice to some people. When kids are involved, the picture turns into a gazillion shades of gray. When public office enters into play, the shades become even more diverse than that. Although I don't agree with it, I do see why one would have to do it.

I know I've done inCREDibly stupid things in my life. I haven't paid $4k for a hooker because I don't need that kind of thing in my life. I'm dumb enough to f**k up the things I get for free, for God's sake. My family (my mother, late father, and sister) stood up with me when I f***ked up. They chewed my ass in private and stood up with me in public. That's what families do.

So I guess there's only one solution to all this...

Find a mute, illiterate hooker that charges $4k. (apologies to those who are mute, as illiterate people won't be able to read my entry. Just hit the high points on that one.)

*****Post script: My friend Daniel the Mad Scientist brought up some very good points and held a mirror up in the literary sense to my shallow face. Read the full comment to find out more.

I should explain myself.

I'm not a fan of Hillary's in many ways. I know she's a loving mother and wife, and I'm sure that her choice to stay with Bill was one of the hardest ones she's ever had to make. There's just something about her that turns me off, and I don't think she has any more experience at what she does as a politician as Obama does.

Let's face it, when you're a President, all eyes are on YOU. Period. I don't like the fact that she purports to know what to do as a president any more than what Obama would know. Even though she was First Lady, she WASN'T President. As supportive as she was to Bill, there's a quote that fits: "You've got to go there to know there." NOBODY knows what it's like to be President until they get there. That's the whole point of voting...you vote for the person who YOU think would be the best at the job based on their outlook, their poise, their ideas, and their past.

I happen to feel that neither candidate really gets the whole idea of what it's like to be president, but I feel that Obama would handle it better. If Obama and Hillary were paired up, they would kick ass and take names. Neither one wants to take the #2 spot, though, and that's the one thing I regret seeing. At this point, one of them has to say, "OK, let's just do this for the good of the country and I'll take the #2 seat." It wouldn't matter who, in a way, because history is still being made. However, it matters to them from an ego standpoint. I can't say as I blame them...neither one wants to be in the background.

I work hard to be fair. I'm not always, and this is one of those times. For that I apologize, and I'm glad the Mad Scientist made me think a bit.

PPS: Also, for some insight and a change of pace, click here to read another good blog entry.