As most of you know, Illinois senate candidate Jack Ryan has dropped out of the senate race when his divorce documents were unsealed by a judge who felt that Ryan's need for privacy was outstripped by the public's right to know all the lurid details. I didn't say much about it because I can understand both sides of the legal argument and don't know what the law on the matter actually is. It is, of course, another example of dirty politics (the requests and judgment came after reports were leaked about Ryan's sexual picadilloes).

Consider the source for what it is, but Matt Drudge says that the same could happen to John Kerry and Kerry's campaign is crying foul. Regardless of whether or not Drudge is being accurate, what's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander, legally speaking. Hasn't it? I can't imagine why it's okay to release Ryan's records but not Kerry's. If the "right to know" exists, I'd imagine that right is escalated in a presidential race. Of course, the media may suddenly decide that restraint is a good idea.

For what it's worth, I doubt that Kerry's records have near the amount of dirt that Ryan's did. I'd imagine that they're not flattering, though. Whatever the law says I'm inclined to say that divorce documents that are voluntarily sealed by both parties (as in the Ryan case and maybe or maybe not the Kerry case) ought to stay sealed, but a judge says that's wrong.