My concern with the Mike Wallace question is: Where does it end?
Some may argue that Romney opened the door to the question (by alluding to it himself). I watched the video, and still feel a line was crossed by Wallace.
The fact that Romney laughed off the question does not mean we should excuse Wallace's question. From a political perspective, Romney handled it exactly right: Had he refused to answer; he would have looked like he was trying to hide something. Getting angry wouldn't have won him any points, either.
But by answering the questioned, he, in a sense, validated it. I am concerned that we are going down a dangerous path. If you can ask a candidate that question, how about asking him about ... anything and everything personal... Personally, I think that will ultimately demean the process, as well as the position of President.
Some pundits are today apologizing for prematurely jumping on Wallace earlier this week (when Drudge linked to excerpts of the story). The truth is that 60 minutes most likely leaked the most salacious information to Drudge, specifically to generate buzz about the interview. It worked.
Of course, the reason reporters ask these types of questions is, because it gets people talking. ... Including us. Interestingly, this is getting more play than the more substantive interview that McCain did with Russert, yesterday morning.
So I'm hoping this is my last post on the topic...