Mayor Newsom, Mayor Villaraigosa, Governor Eliot Spitzer, and Bill Clinton all have something in common - they support Hillary Clinton and their party finds absolutely nothing wrong with their behaviour. What amazes me is how many women over fifty years of age stand in line to vote for a woman who cannot condemn the conduct of men who are cheating on their wives with prostitutes, city employees, or White House staff. I thought feminism was all about empowerment and not about accepting the kind of conduct these men displayed while holding public office. I guess as long as the economy is doing well, we are not at war and the trains are running on time married men in power can conduct affairs with women other than their wives with total impunity. What ever happened to disgrace and shame? What ever happened to fidelity to ones spouse? What ever happened to morality? Are we so short sighted that as long as things are going well in our Cities, States or our country that we accept any kind of behaviour? What is so very difficult about exercising some restraint and keeping your pants on when you are elected to the highest office of your city, state, or country?

All this leads up to the biggest question: Who stands to benefit from Spitzer's public humiliation / resignation?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.

And on two counts:

Firstly, that what Governor Spitzer is in hot water for is not simply buying the services of prostitute, but transporting one across state lines. That's a federal crime.

I agree that in principle, this is no different than other forms of sex trafficking and the sex-slave market, which I would assume most Salonistas oppose. The fact that this is a high level muckety-muck and a high priced call girl can and should be making no difference.

The second is that Spitzer made his reputation by going after escort agencies, among other forms of corruption, and got elected on his squeaky clean moral reputation. If he had instead come out in favor of decriminalizing prostitution, and THEN gotten exposed as a client, he would at least be consistent. Like other corrupt politicians, he said one thing and did another in his private life.

Personally I can't imagine what crazy bareback sex he was paying for that could possibly have been worth his career, his reputation and (probably) his marriage.

Comparisons to Bill Clinton are absurd, as Clinton was not paying for sex or breaking any laws, but having a consensual affair with another adult.

I am not a resident of New York State, but I can't help but notice that Rudolph Guiliani, while in the Governor's mansion, cheated on his wife openly, used state police to escort his mistress around, and then had his wife forcibly evicted from the governor's mansion, so he could replace her with the mistress (by then, his next wife). No one suggested he resign for this, even though his behavior was absolutely contempible from a moral standpoint, because....IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE A LOVE AFFAIR, or to cheat on your wife.

I am basically in favor of decriminalizing prostitution, mostly because it places all the criminal behavior on the woman and let's the male customers off with a wrist slap at most, and usually nothing. It never made sense to me that it was illegal to SELL sex, but not remotely illegal to BUY sex.

But nonetheless, there are still laws against prostitution almost everywhere, and a strict federal statute against transporting prostitutes across state lines. It is unimaginable that an attorney, a state prosecutor, a governor did not realize what he was doing. Is Washington DC fresh out of prostitutes, necessitating importing them from New York? He could have saved himself a big part of this disaster if he had simply used local talent.

I am inclined to agree with the poster that this suggests Spitzer is not simply a "horny guy" but sex addict whose behavior suggests he needs thrill seeking and dangerous risk far more than kinky sex. Again, this kind of ADDICTION -- not the actual sex behavior -- is something that would make me question his ability to hold high public office....certainly had he not been caught by a sting operation, he would have equally been at risk for blackmail.

Oh, and if I were Mrs. Spitzer, I would be on my way to the OB-GYN to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, since I imagine part of what one pays $4,600 for is "bareback" sex with a partner who is regularly exposed to a wide variety of STDs.

Hubris seems to have infected a great many of the self-righteous political and religious leaders in this country, and is steadily taking them down. (You can also throw in the arrogant business leaders out there who misuse corporate assets, under perform and arrange to be overpaid.)

It is amazing to see how many of these folks think that the rules apply to everyone except themselves. Somehow these rule makers and rule enforcers act as if they have been given exemptions.

They aren't the first--not sure even the ancient Greeks were the first--and they will not be the last.

Take heed out there!

Echoed my point about ozziebear's observations about the ridiculousness of what the American media, and by extension Americans, care about. Salon has an article as well as to how utterly dead the media was during the war. But Spitzer's schtupping a hooker is all the rage on the news.

So yes, I fail to see why others can't make a negative observation about America. Perhaps being informed that our value system could use some work is in fact healthy. When we care more about yet another politician screwing around than we do about the FBI chasing Spitzer when they could be out looking for terrorists...........

By Ana's logic, we shouldn't have a mirror held up to us. That's quite arrogant and, of course, what causes the criticism of America from others.

If others can't comment about our failings, can we still pick on the French?