Second only to "It's his private life," the next most often heard complaint by Clinton supporters, regurgitated directly from his spin machine, is that "We need to move on with the business of the country."

I have a little sympathy with the latter. I got a little antsy myself during Iran-Contra and some of the other investigations that the Democrat-controlled Congress pushed on and on during the Bush and Reagan years, long after the depths had been plumbed and no evidence of presidential involvement had been found.

There were important things that needed to be done. Taxes needed to be reduced, people needed to have more control over their own lives and incomes, the machine of government needed to be lifted off the backs of individuals and the back of the economy, etc.

Yes, the Democrats were playing whatever scandals that erupted for all the political good they could get out of them, though I'm sure that most tried to put the good of the country ahead of partisanship.

And yes, Republicans are now struggling to let the better sides of themselves rise to the top, though there's no doubt that they, too, can't resist trying to use the president's difficulties to further their cause.

But to argue that we should just drop this whole mess because there are other problems in the world that are more important is kind of silly. Where do people get the idea that we in this country can do only one thing at a time?

We got some things accomplished during Iran-Contra. Yes, it was a bother to the administration, but life went on.

We've gotten some things accomplished in the midst of the president's current crisis. Congress goes to work every day, and only a few of its members are concentrating on impeachment considerations. The rest are working in their committees, writing and passing bills, and generally dealing with the problems of the country.

I heard a lady in one of those street interviews going on at some length about how much more important it is to deal with the problems of education, poverty, crime, and a half dozen other cliches. To which I wondered, "And your point?"

My need for food is far more important than my need for knowledge. Shall I then stop reading and listening and watching to improve my knowledge so that I can expend all of my attention and energy making sure I have food, plenty of it, and the right kind?

Nonsense.

Now that impeachment hearings seem likely, the latest from the White House is that Hillary is on the march, standing by her man and demanding that Democrats do the same. She is, of course, blaming the vast, right-wing conspiracy for trying to bring her husband down.

Cops will tell you that when they try to arrest a man for wife abuse, one of the greatest dangers is that the abused wife will sneak up from behind and hit them with something sharp or heavy because she has some kind of neurotic need to continue being abused. Sound familiar?

I said before that Bill Clinton has made a mockery of his own stated views on equality for women by treating females as playthings. Now Hillary is doing the same, standing by the man who has turned the clock back for women everywhere.

I've heard some feminists defending Clinton by saying that, although his personal behavior is certainly sick and antifemale, his public policies have done a lot for women.

Here's a challenge, Clinton apologists: Name one. Name one thing that Bill Clinton has done that has made it any easier for my daughter to make her way in this world.

He increased her taxes, increased the size of the government that she and her children will have to support, and decreased the ability of our military to protect her from future threats.

And, incidentally, he stated through his actions that it is perfectly all right for her boss to have sex with an employee as long as it's consensual.

The message is plain. If she wants the promotions and the perks, she may have to be the one providing perks for the boss.