Where should the Dems stand? Either sexual indiscretions (involving adults) are proper grist for official action, or they're not.

If it had been a drug bust and he'd legislated against something drug-related, then I'd say go at him. The fact that it's sex doesn't affect my opinion one bit. Go after anyone on similar hypocrisy charges--and note, I'm not even saying lying. I'm saying hypocrisy.

I guess the people after Clinton could spin it as hypocrisy on his part--I just think it's a much muddier argument than this one.

I still can't believe Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner.

Yeah. I think the more publicity he gets, the more people will realize what a bad president he'd make.

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

Something that doesn't get said often enough.

Where should the Dems stand? Either sexual indiscretions (involving adults) are proper grist for official action, or they're not.

If it had been a drug bust and he'd legislated against something drug-related, then I'd say go at him. The fact that it's sex doesn't affect my opinion one bit. Go after anyone on similar hypocrisy charges--and note, I'm not even saying lying. I'm saying hypocrisy.

Again, though, contrasted with Vitter, not illegal.

Vitter should be out. Marion Barry should be out. Craig and Clinton should be between their consciences and their voters. (And privately, their wives, of course. Is Craig even married? I don't recall hearing one way or another.)

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

unless you've lied about it, and then it becomes an ethics issue.

Is Craig even married? I don't recall hearing one way or another.)

yes he is

Craig and Clinton should be between their consciences and their voters.

To be clear, I've never said anything differently--I used "shame" as the ultimate consequence of this whole thing (well, or the motivator for resignation), as well as distrust engendered.

Is Craig even married?

Yes. And he has kids. Adopted kids.

He got married in the '80s right around the time rumors were spreading that he was involved with male pages.

x-posty....

eta: Or maybe his wife had kids from a previous relationship. I disremember.

I get you ita, I knew what you meant.

I hold the whole anti-gay element of the right in contempt. People should have voted against Craig on that basis alone. This arrest doesn't change the calculus for me, because being a closeted public person is not, in and of itself, wrong.

unless you've lied about it, and then it becomes an ethics issue.

What ethics issue? Do you mean, Clinton's lying justified the impeachment proceedings, or that Craig lied? (I'm not aware of him doing so.) And even arguendo, I strenuously disagree that the Ethics committee of either house should investigate when someone lies about sex.

And even arguendo, I strenuously disagree that the Ethics committee of either house should investigate when someone lies about sex.

I disagree. I think that it doesn't matter what you lied about, but that you lied.

But, as I recall, the ethics committee isn't investigating him because he lied, but because he has been convicted of a crime, as well as made an attempt to use his status as a senator to get out of it. It remains to be seen if these allegations reflect on his fitness as a US Senator.

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.

I don't see anyone calling for hearings or a criminal investigation. It's been his own party that are telling him to go.

(Well, he did sign DOMA.) And Clinton did lie, and he did cheat, and he did make happy families while doing gross things.

Eh. That's really stretching. Let's take sex out of it. If Clinton and the Dems decided that obesity was such a problem, they were going to outlaw fatty foods, all the while he's sneaking hamhocks and butterbeans-that, in my view would be the same thing.

I guess the people after Clinton could spin it as hypocrisy on his part--I just think it's a much muddier argument than this one.

What ita said.

More to the point, as a Democrat, I'm not looking for a Republican sexual witch hunt. I'm saying, "Dudes! This is why we don't need to be legislating what happens between consenting adults!" We're all for keeping our noses out of the bedroom. But we're not above appreciating someone being hoist by his own petard.