At a time when the Bush Administration and the GOP are imploding in scandals - mostly unreported by the New York Times - the Times published an outrageous investigation into the Clinton marriage.

Well we can play that game too.

Bill Keller is the Editor of the NY Times and therefore responsible for the Clinton marriage investigation. What can we learn about Bill Keller's marriage? Let's start with his official biography:

Mr. Keller is married to Emma Gilbey. Ms. Gilbey is a writer and the author of a biography of Winnie Mandela.

Hmm. It's hard to write a biography of a South African without traveling to... South Africa. So exactly how much time does Ms. Gilbey spend away from her husband? Let's ask all their friends!

And what about their families?

NEW YORK TIMES (4/11/99): Emma Gilbey, an author and journalist, was married yesterday to Bill Keller, the managing editor of The New York Times. The Rev. Robert J. Kennedy performed the ceremony at the Holy Name of Jesus Roman Catholic Church in Manhattan.

Ms. Gilbey, 38, is keeping her name. She is the author of "The Lady: The Life and Times of Winnie Mandela" (Jonathan Cape, 1993). The bride graduated from King's College of London University.

She is the daughter of Anthony J. Gilbey of Wangford, England, and the late Lenore Gilbey. The bride's father is the chairman of Gilbey Collections, a London company that commissions limited edition commemorative items. Her mother was a journalist.

Mr. Keller, 50, graduated from Pomona College. He is the son of Adelaide and George M. Keller of San Mateo, Calif. The bridegroom's father retired as the chairman and chief executive of the Chevron Corporation in San Francisco.

Oh dear - Keller's family is in San Francisco, but Gilbey's family is in London. Do they visit their parents together or separately? Let's ask all their friends!

And here's an interesting tidbit that the Sunday Times of London dug up while digging election year dirt on John Kerry:

Gilbey is said to have dumped Kerry for David Gilmour, the Pink Floyd guitarist. In the 1990s she wrote a well-received biography of Winnie Mandela and met Bill Keller, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist who was then foreign editor of The New York Times.

Their affair caused a frisson in New York as Keller walked out on his respected journalist wife when Gilbey became pregnant. They married in 1999. After the scandal caused by the fabrications of Jayson Blair, a reporter, Keller took over as editor of the newspaper last year.

Hmm - is Keller sure he wants to start throwing stones at other peoples' marriages?

And on and on we can go. Isn't it fun to investigate someone's marriage? Maybe we should do this to every journalist, editor, and pundit who thinks (s)he has the right to investigate and judge a politician's marriage?

Update 1: Steve Benen nails it:

This isn't the gossip page; this is the front page of the most prestigious newspaper on earth.

The NYT's Patrick Healy, who wrote the article, purportedly spoke to "some 50 people" in order to tell readers exactly how many weekends of the last 73 the couple spent together (the answer: 51), how many times they saw each other last August (24 out of 31 days), and how last February was so busy, the Clintons, who the article suggests use their relationship as some kind of political tool, only managed to spend one day together, which happened to be Valentine's Day.

It's like a '90s flashback without Ken Starr.

Update 2: Here's Atrios:

Say hello to Pat Healy, the Times' resident tabloid journalist. Politely ask him when he plans to do a 50 source story on the personal life of Rudy Giuliani - past, present, and "concerns for the future" - and other prominent politicians. Ask him if he's married, and if so ask if he'd be so kind as to tell us just how many nights he spends with his wife during an average month. Or, if not, we'd appreciate an update on his dating situation.

Most of all try to get him to explain whether the intimate details of all politicians' marriages are fair game, or just those of the Clintons.

Update 3: And of course Digby:

No folks, that excerpt isn't from Hello magazine or even Vanity Fair. That's the New York fucking Times and it's on page one. If people aren't thinking about the Clintons in terms of infidelity and betrayal now, New York's newest tabloid rag is going to make damned sure they are reminded of it.

I do not know if Hillary is running for president and I'm not making a case for her candidacy. I do, however, think she has the right to try to earn the nomination without this gossip-at-the-hair salon coverage by the NY Times. And believe me, it won't just be her. Look at the spooky picture of Mark Warner on the cover of New York Times Magazine. He looked like something out of a David Lynch movie. I have no doubt that we are going to be reading many derisive accounts of Al Gore the bearded, earth toned circus freak. It's quite clear that if the Democrats are are coming into power, the Times is going to pick up right where it left off when it was last obsessed with Clinton's crotch and Hillary's cold, cold heart. Or perhaps, more to the point, this piece is just a first notice that they plan to.

Democrats be advised: the press is a bunch of braindead robots who are uninterested in changing their puerile Democratic storyline even in the face of the most disasterous administration in American history. It's shocking. You can love Hillary or hate her, I don't care. But goddamit the intimate state of her marriage to Bill Clinton is nobody's business and it NEVER HAS BEEN. If the gossip rags want to play this game, there's nothing anyone can do. But it is just shameful that the New York Times would go back to their cheap, tabloid coverage of politics when the world is on fire. I'm honestly stunned that this is happening again.

I am writing letters to the editor about this and I urge everyone else to do it too. Perhaps we can request that they put other politicians' marriages under this kind of scrutiny. John McCain's wife had some problems if I recall. How's she doing with that? Maybe a reporter should go around and ask all of her friends to comment off the record. The presidency is a very stressfull job for a first lady. Can she take the pressure without resorting to ... well, you know. People are asking. It's a factor. And hey, what about Rudy? He's got a helluva marital track record. Matt Stoller has another suggestion, here.

Seriously, I think this deserves some pushback from the blgosphere. Regardless of your feelings for Hillary, this is obviously just the beginning of another trivializing smear fest against Democrats in general. This stuff is done for no other reason than to make Democrats appear unserious, immoral and halfway nuts. There is a concerted effort coming from somewhere to create a drumbeat that when Democrats are in the spotlight the country is going to be back in trivial tabloid scandal land. It almost has the feeling of being a threat. The mainstream press, having apparently learned absolutely nothing from their failures of the last decade are obviously eager to put on their Heathers costumes and have a little bitch party.

This time they need to hear from us. Here is the page with all the email addresses for letters to the editor and to the ombudsman. Let them know we aren't going to let this happen again without a fight.

Update 4: Matthew Yglesias:

I'd like to know why Healy can't just drop the silly insinuations and faux investigative methods. Both Clintons have official spokespersons, just ask them how often Bill and Hillary have sex. When they don't say, you can run a nice juicy headline like "Clintons Stonewalling on Sex Frequency Issue," or, to repeat a classic Monica-era format, "Clintons Dogged By Sex Frequency Questions," as if these things just come out of nowhere. If you're not going to ask straight-up, or even write clearly what you're talking about, then what's the point of all this? 

.