If you sneezed, you may have missed this really strange story in which writer Todd Purdum’s piece in the most recent “Vanity Fair” in which Bill Clinton not only gets fairly vitriolic about those who would sully he or his wife, but also suggests that Bill is getting pretty “wild” again. One actress noted in the article, Gina Gershon, is demanding the magazine print a retraction for suggesting she and Big Dog shared a pet motel together.

I just don’t understand the sleaziness of such a piece, especially given its timing. Of course, besides the obvious filth, there’s the old saying about the best way to hurt a woman is to bring up her husband’s transgressions, as in “she wasn’t woman enough to satisfy him”.

Now, there are legitimate reasons not to love Bill and/or Hillary. Few politicians make it past asst. dog catcher without having to sell a little soul.

But really, is their sex life any of our business? And would it be coming up if it wasn’t Hillary? And to have it delivered in time for what seems clearly a loss just seems like an editorial twist that was unnecessary, the kind of nastiness we expect from Rupert Murdoch but don’t appreciate proportionately more because it comes from the something of the left.