[AlphaGamDiva]

here's another question along the same lines of these allegations (i think):

how recent does something shady in a candidate's past have to be to be considered "damaging"?

for instance: clinton's "non-inhale"....far back enough, or damaging enough that it's irrelavant when it happened?

kerry's supposed fling: too close to this election to not consider it, or just not damaging enough to care?

bush's supposed abortion secret: too controversial to not be considered damaging to his election, or too long ago to judge him on?

no need to answer these specific questions, really, as they are mainly examples of scandals that are discussed. can we really get in a tizzy about something someone did in college when they are now at a much more mature and "knowing" age? or, is the scandal too big to not be upset about?