Basically what he said was that he didn't do anything wrong, but he couldn't fight the charges because it would cause publicity. Which is more or less correct, really. I can see how someone could rationally think along those lines and plead to something they didn't actually do. (With the caveat that where he claims he didn't *do anything*, I'd say he didn't do anything illegal, and those two positions are miles apart.)

And yeah, this is the world you spent your career defending - welcome to it.

I'd say he didn't do anything illegal

If you let him foot-tap, pretty soon everyone will! It'll be anarchy!

If the Craig criminal matter shows anything, you future closeted Senators, it's to get a lawyer immediately! They even provide one for you. Do not talk to the cops! Get a lawyer!

I don't think whether he cruises for sex with men has anything to do with his fitness for office. I think that cruising for sex with men while voting for legislation that adversely affects other men who like to sleep with men does.

Had Clinton been legislating against blowjobs or making adultery criminal, then we'd be comparing apples to apples.

Do not talk to the cops! Get a lawyer!

I don't understand why everyone doesn't know that yet, really.

I am currently feeling work-related smugness. I had to submit something online today by 5pm. I got it in around 2:30. Then a little while later, I wanted to go back into the system to double-check something, and I haven't been able to log back in! Only error messages. I feel bad for the people who are frantically trying to submit, but still a little smug that I was early.

I don't understand why everyone doesn't know that yet, really.

Seriously. Do these people not have tvs?

This is what I'm saying!!

I don't think whether he cruises for sex with men has anything to do with his fitness for office. I think that cruising for sex with men while voting for legislation that adversely affects other men who like to sleep with men does.

The thing is, having a personal life at odds with your political position is not a firable/resignable offense-- it's a reason for voting against someone, or even shaming them and their party, but it shouldn't trigger an ethics or criminal investigation, hearings, or any of those other distractions.

This is a much bigger issue and I probably don't have the time to tackle all of it, but we don't move on from things like the Clinton ridiculousness by having witchhunts that are targeted at Republicans. We gotta stop doing that.

Had Clinton been legislating against blowjobs or making adultery criminal, then we'd be comparing apples to apples.

(Well, he did sign DOMA.) And Clinton did lie, and he did cheat, and he did make happy families while doing gross things. He's a hypocrite too, but a pretty good president. I don't think Bush did any of the former, but obviously can be a consistent, principled person with absolutely retarded principles.

I guess that's one reason to vote for Fred Thompson; he'll know when to call a lawyer, because you know he's seen it on TV!

I don't care whether the Republicans are consistent.

I have a bug in my ear about consistency. By failing at that, you fail at life. Or should get pwned by the l33t l0g!( fairy.

having a personal life at odds with your political position is not a firable/resignable offense

I don't think it's fireable at all--which is why I said "shamed out." Even if you were the narrowminded Republican sort (and homophobic with said narrow mind)--he's a liability because he's one of them. If you're less narrowminded...well, the other guy would have to be pretty bad for me to vote for the hypocrite. It's not like he had an implied disconnect. There was a direct failure to reconcile issues.

he said was that he didn't do anything wrong, but he couldn't fight the charges because it would cause publicity. Which is more or less correct, really.

But incomplete--because pleading guilty doesn't prevent publicity, and puts it smack dab on his permanent record, as well as all over the interpipes. Just a bad move.