Didn't Giuliani (sp?) movie out of Gracie Mansion and leave his wife and kids there?

Hahahahahahahahaha.

True, Guiliani did. But he wasn't governor. He was mayor. A very overhyped mayor.

yes, but the same principle applies. the house goes to the official, not whoever the official wants it to go to. Evict 'em!

Also, CM, why aren't you working on the recall campaign for gibbons? If anybody deserves to be recalled it's that dingbat.

Not only did Guiliani move out of the Mayor's Mansion, he moved in with two gay guys. New York is awesome.

Apparently in NY, the legislature can pressure a sitting governor to resign mid-term because of marital problems. God I wish sex and politics were not married, can't they get divorced like the rest of America.

Why do people always seem to have a hard time understanding that it's not the sex that's the problem?

In Spitzer's case the problem was that he was elected on his squeaky-clean, "everyone who violates the law should go to jail for a long time, especially the rich and powerful" image. This image was dramatically tarnished when he acknowledged that he was one of the rich and powerful scofflaws. With Clinton the problem wasn't the sex, it was the lying under oath in court (and on national television) about the sex.

We don't really like our politicians to break laws, even when they're sexually-related ones. This seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.

That might be your problem with Spitzer and Clinton but it definitely isn't everybody's problem. I distinctly recall being informed by a Clinton-hater at the time that "if he cheats on his wife, he'll cheat on America", whatever that meant. Certainly the news media and particularly the talking heads focus on the sordid details and not the damages to constituencies. If we only cared about Clinton lying under oath cigars and blue stained dresses wouldn't be part of his legacy.

The facts that surround the lie are understandably more interesting than the lie itself. But, at least in the case of Clinton, the lie itself was only unearthed because of the blue dresses.

Awe, come on, we cannot create a precedent for going after elected officials while they are in elected office in the hopes of making them resign mid-term. ES should still be my governor and we would have made the decision to vote him out when his term was up. Having a situation where political parties and the media pressure resignations instead of the voters conducting a democratic vote, really begins to question our system. It becomes more about "getting" someone caught red handed in office than about whether they perform well in office. Or better yet, about beating them during an election.

I still do not know why the Fed was checking up on Spitzer int he first place. Personally, aren't their better uses of our federal governments tax dollars?

He broke the law. How many laws, and of what type, do you think it's acceptable to break before you should be pressured to resign? I presume that if a governor murders somebody on the job, you'd be ok forcing them out. Armed robbery? Mere theft from the public coffer?

Note, by the way, that he still did choose to resign, it wasn't like he was forced out. The problem was that this particular crime undercut his entire message and, hence, nobody had any real faith in him.

Again, this seems reasonable. If he had merely cheated on his wife, he'd still be in office today.

I think RumorsDaily is displaying charming optimism about how high-minded and intellectual the American people are. These stories get out of hand and politicians are pressured to resign because everyone loves dirty dirty dirt and the hype makes it impossible to do the job.

I'd like to add that I don't quite believe the "Spitzer was a hypocrite" line either. I think there's a pretty big difference between buying consensual (let's hope) sex and the sort of financial corruption Spitzer was famous for fighting.

IIRC, Spitzer got caught in a wiretap that was not designed to snare him in particular. It was just an unpleasant surprise.

Spitzer is indeed a hypocrite, and while he was famous for his actions against financial corruption, he did indeed spearhead several efforts as AG against prostitution rings. He would not have been a hypocrite if he refused to prosecute those cases, and stated that in his opinion prostitution should be legal. I liked Spitzer and what he represented, but one can't be an effective governor if you've brazenly broken the laws you are supposed to uphold, even if it's a bad law. His resignation was appropriate.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was in a much grayer area. While he deliberately lied to the American people about his adultery, and was caught for it, he was never convicted for his alleged crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/impeachment/), mostly because he was very smart about wording his answers (and the prosecutors didn't ask very good questions).

He lied under oath and intentionally mislead a criminal investigation. I don't think anybody believes he wasn't lying... whether or not what he said was technically accurate, any honest jury would/should find him guilty. You don't get to play word games in court. It wasn't so much that prosecutors asked bad questions, it was that he was intentionally and misleadingly dense in his responses.

His punishment should have been the same as Scooter Libby's. Since they both served no time, I guess that's what ended up happening... but I think it was too light for both of them.

I've said this before to you, but I'll say it again: Libby was convicted, Clinton was not. You get to play word games in court when you make the prosecutors define those words in advance, which is exactly what Clinton did. Again, read this legal defense of his statements:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

I'm not saying that this whole thing would've stood up in front of a jury, but it certainly is more ambiguous than Libby's crime.

If you were on a jury, would you find him guilty of perjury?

Lorelei, I do tend to give the general public more credit than they probably deserve. While that's probably a character flaw, I'm ok with holding on to it.

I was shocked by a story of a friend who went door to door for Obama in Philadelphia in a poor white neighborhood and was confronted with an apparently disturbing amount of direct and open racism. I tend to assume people don't do that anymore, because I don't ever see it. Again, a flaw in that I assume people are better than that. It's surprising and sad to learn that you're wrong about people's underlying nature.

"If you were on a jury, would you find him guilty of perjury?"

I'd have to read the legal definition of perjury, carefully consider the jury instructions, and read Clinton's statements in detail.

"I do tend to give the general public more credit than they probably deserve."

Do you really? Or do you pick and choose what issues you give them credit for? Do you feel the same way about the general public for all the following issues: racism, religion, evolution, literacy, violent tendencies, prohibition, the 1st amendent, gay rights?

Prohibition I think people are wrong about, but I don't think less of them for being wrong about it. That's not an issue that shocks the conscious, it's just one we disagree about.

Maybe it's a factor of never being around people who are openly hostile, but I do have a pretty positive outlook that the average person has at least a reasonably non-arcane perception of race, evolution, violence and the first amendment. I assume that basically 100% of people in America are literate (though I know this factually inaccurate).

Even on gay issues I haven't seen all that much open hostility, at least not on the real world. Some on TV/online. But again, that's probably based in major part on my social circles. I have, I admit, heard a few really bad stories. I was called a faggot on the phone by two separate anonymous threateners, which was pretty astounding.

Even religion, which I moan about the most (like, what's up with this: http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080415Catholics2_s0l4k3.gif ), I tend to assume that people are better than the polls say they are. I've never really interacted with someone who made religion an issue.

Maybe I should live in Kentucky or Alabama for a while.

Well Racism and Homophobia are alive and well on the streets of NYC, which is a far cry from Kentucky. I have been called a faggot, maybe a dozen times in 6 years. My partner was called one after a shouting match after trying to alternate merge into the Lincoln tunnel last week (stupid big haired Jersey Girl). Also, I have cabbies avoid black customers and pick me up instead.

Also, I have been called a "Tom Hanks" in a more Black/Hispanic part of Brooklyn and later found out that that is a new slang for honky.

As for Spitzer, he is a hypocrite, but many times over good politicians are not good people. I think we have to high a moral standard for our officials. My knee jerk reaction to his resignation was that he did something stupid, but that it still doesn't make him a bad governor. Let him be tried like any other employee and get a sentence like any other employee, but let him finish his term we elected him to. Now that would be interesting.

In the same way that a fireman should be fired if he's caught burning houses, a governor who was a former prosecutor of prostitution rings should be fired if he's caught visiting prostitution rings.

In terms of racism and homophobia, I have it pretty easy based on who I am and what I look like. Being called a faggot was really more confusing than anything else. I have no problem admitting that this is going to give me a more positive perception of the problem, and a more positive outlook on people generally.

Being fired is very different from resigning before all the details emerge. Also, it was not that big of a crime. It wasn't murder or embezzlement. It was something you can get for free in Nevada and Amsterdam.

I'm under the impression he resigned, not because of the crime, Marion Barry was elected from prison, but because of political pressure.

Anyway,as for Pres Clinton, I think lying about a sexual relationship in court is not reason enough to fire him from office (the vote on impeachment shows a couple people agree with me). He could have easily resigned, but the precedent it would make would lead to more and more investigations into the personal lives of elected officials. I really do not care that much about that. I want to know if they were successful at making positive change, no matter how big or small. OR in preserving laws that protect Americans. These tow things both Clinton and Obama will do in my esteem.

I do hope he lets her on the ticket. She knows he has to be on her ticket if she wins.

"I think lying about a sexual relationship in court is not reason enough to fire him from office"

Had Clinton been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, that would've been a serious offense, regardless about what the legal matter was about. Remember, the trial wasn't about Monica Lewinsky -- it was a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones. If he was found guilty of sexual harassment (though he wasn't), do you think Clinton should've resigned? What if he was found guilty of rape? What about rape and murder? Where is the line drawn?

By the way, it's sort of a shame that George Bush or Dick Cheney will never be impeached. Here's hoping for some sort of post-term investigation.

I'm not sure where I would draw the line. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a federal distinctions for crimes, like misdemeanors versus capital crimes, or something?

Sexual Harassment is another matter, that does involve behavior in the workplace and termination from one's job.

But if, say a co-worker got caught smoking a joint, I probably wouldn't fire them. Though to me this is worse than having sex with a co-worker and lying about under oath. I especially think this is important in light of the aggressive nature of the investigation against Pres Clinton and I feel the legality of these investigations should have been in question. Same with transporting a prostitute over state lines. Sucks for the guy personally, but has nothing to do with be hiring or firing them.