As far as their personal relationship goes -- the parts of it that are wholly hidden from us -- even entertaining the notion that their marriage is an "arrangement" is insulting. It seems incomprensible to most people that the Clintons actually took the part of their wedding vow that says "for better, for worse" at face value. In other words, some pretty bad stuff happened to them within their marriage and they found ways to sort it out instead of letting it shipwreck them. I sometimes think people are so nervous about the mere concept of infidelity that when they hear it's happened in someone else's marriage, they secretly hope that marriage won't survive. Because the notion of actually recognizing a partner as a fallible human being, and working it out and moving on, is much, much weirder to people than the idea of saying, "You have destroyed my trust in you forever!" and walking out. People are so much more comfortable with rigid notions of what they can and can't accept than they are with the idea of having to be flexible -- in other words, of having to allow that the person you share your bed, your home and your life with is also human.

From Gennifer Flowers to Monica Lewinsky, Hillary has certainly put up with her share of potential embarrassments. But she never acted ashamed, which was the role that many, many people -- on the left as well as the right -- wanted her to fill. Anyone could guess that the Clinton marriage has been pretty rocky at times. But as highly public marriages go, it seems like an astonishingly mature and adult one, particularly in the face of the absurdly conventional expectations most of us in this country seem to have about matrimony. All of Europe was howling with laughter during the Monica debacle, partly because they couldn't understand what Clinton's personal life had to do with his job performance and partly because in those countries people seem to understand that, in a world where people are actually lucky enough to have sex drives, infidelity happens.

In his recent book "The Clinton Wars," Sidney Blumenthal tells of a conversation he had with Romano Prodi, then Italy's prime minister, around the time of the Kenneth Starr investigation. "We talked at length about the convolutions of Italian politics. Then Prodi asked me to explain the [Lewinsky] scandal. 'Please,' he implored. I gave him a brief, factual chronicle. 'No, no,' he said. 'I don't understand.' I tried again. As I tried to offer yet another explanation, he interrupted: 'There's a man, yes?' 'Yes,' I answered. 'There's a woman, yes?' 'Yes.' 'I don't understand. There's a man. There's a woman. Please explain this scandal to me' I gave up. Trying to explain Ken Starr in Italy was not a productive exercise."

In dealing with the scandal -- that is, in choosing not to deal with it publicly at all -- Hillary may have been far too European for our tastes. My sense is that loyalties between the Clintons run so deep that an act of infidelity -- or even two or three or more -- may not be enough to shake them off their foundation. No matter how pissed off and hurt Hillary may have been about Monica, she and Bill certainly closed ranks at the time of the Starr inquisition -- talk about intimacy forged in the face of a common enemy. It seems clear that Bill is loyal to her above all others, and she to him -- which I see as an exceedingly romantic, rather than cynical, notion. There's a great line in Julie Taymor's movie "Frida," in which Diego Rivera pledges his loyalty to Frida Kahlo but can't be so dishonest as to pledge sexual fidelity; and together they discuss the notion that loyalty may be much more significant in a partnership than fidelity.

It's OK for Communist painters to think about marriage that way. But for presidents, as well as for many of us civilians, it just won't do at all. Marriages are strange and mutable things. Infidelity can and does hurt people (although deceit may be, in the long run, more damaging). Marriages sometimes fall apart because of it. But plenty of marriages survive it, too -- not because it's necessarily a good thing, but because sexual fidelity isn't the sole component of a marriage.

Do I want to read what Hillary has to say about how she felt about Bill during the Monica blowup -- about the screaming matches, and the sleeping in separate beds, and all that? Hell, yeah! All marriages are like high-seas adventures, subject both to changes in the weather -- in other words, highly unpredictable outside factors -- and to the stability of the boat you've built. And reading about someone else's adventure is often much more entertaining than actually weathering your own. Married people know all too well what their own beds are like; once in a while, you can't help wanting to know what goes on in other people's.

But I'm just as curious to see what Hillary has to say about the collapse of her national healthcare initiative. One aspect of the Clintons' very public union is that during Bill Clinton's presidency, they both seemed devoted to improving American life as much as they could. I think of them as busy, ambitious patriots united by common personal and political goals. It sure doesn't sound like such a bad marriage to me.

Recent Stories