OK. Let’s see. The spouse of an elected chief executive, holding no authority other than sharing a bed with the chief executive, pushes for a political appointee to be removed from the office that appointee currently holds. Which then happens. For reasons which may or may not implicate how that appointee has discharged his duties, but which also, because of the peculiar facts of the case, intersect with the spouse’s personal-level thoughts on whether the appointee should continue in the job. I thought we were assured that Travelgate was not such a big deal after all, and had zero to tell us about the fitness for high office of Wm. Jeff’n Clinton. Or perhaps the White House travel office had tasered Chelsea one afternoon, just for giggles, and purely out of concern for the First Privacy, we weren’t told about it.