Clinton

"If you open up anyone's private life to public inspection it would look pretty lurid." I feel this statement by Representative Albert Wynn sums up the Clinton Lewinsky scandal. This was a sensationalized case that brought in a new era of openness regarding private lives of public officials. Kenneth Starr created a investigation that really damaged President Clinton's legacy. The release of the investigation to the public is central to the privacy question. Was it necessary for Congress to release this information to the public without even knowing what was in the report? Should there have even been an investigation by Starr?
I turn to Thompson's article for guidance. Are Clinton's personal acts relevant to his position of President of the United States? In the first aspect of Thompson's four tests, publicness of conduct, it seems to me that this was a clear case of what became public did not need to become public. The media had a field day with this scandal, blowing it way out of proportion. Furthermore, it is not something that needed to be released. I find no reason to believe that it was necessary for the public to need to know any of this information of Clinton's private life.
So, was Clinton's personal conduct revealing of any sort of character flaw that would pertain to his job as President? I could make the argument that Clinton showed repeated offenses of this type of behavior, which is true. However, is it actually relevant to his position? I do not believe that extramarital affairs translate to any sort of flaw in his ability to hold public office. I am a firm believer in compartmentalization, or separating one's public conduct from private conduct.
Are reactions of the public relevant to this case? I believe the reactions do hold some relevance. However, the relevance seems to be of insignificant amounts. Public reaction was enormous; this case dominated discussions and the media for months. However, the confidence and reputation that Clinton lost (in hindsight) was of no significant matter.
Lastly, priority of process highlights the highly irrelevant and unnecessary nature of the publicness of Clinton's conduct. Why should the American public be focusing on Clinton's sex life? However interesting the subject may be, I believe this behavior is corroding American Democracy. The distractions we are subjected to everyday are enough to not focus on public policy. Once public officials private conduct is added to the mix, the public loses all interest in what public officials are actually doing in relation to their position.
The Clinton Lewinsky scandal is one that shows why the private conduct of public officials should stay private. The distractions the public are subjected to are deteriorating democratic process. Lets start focusing on the public policy initiatives of these officials and leave out whether or not they "had sexual relations with that women".