That to me is the biggest difference between Spitzer's behaviour and Bill Clinton's. Monica was not likely to blackmail Bill for powerful favours.

Why not? How could he possibly have known that when he started with her? And what about the prospect that others would find out -- people she might tell, etc. Isn't the blackmail concern just as strong there?

It's totally unrealistic to expect elected officials suddenly to transform into saints, and as long as they aren't living like saints, the blackmail risk will always be there.

But how big is that risk? Are there any examples where that has happened of any significance?

Sex scandals are overblown all the time, but the moral outrage seems to be equal between all sides.

No, this isn't accurate. There is moral outrage on both sides but it is not equal.

As much as I can claim to speak for "the left" or whatever side one deems to have opposed Vitter and expressed concern over his patronage of prostitutes, the prime reason was his hypocrisy in running as a "family values" type and his many condemnations of Bill Clinton.

Vitter had to resign by his own standards not by ours. Also though, he too exposed himself to being blackmailed or otherwise unduly influenced.

With Craig, the only reason to want his resignation is his frequent anti-gay voting record and statements. That said, what he actually did should not be illegal or cause for arrest.

Exposed glaring hypocrisy is resignation worthy material. If these right wing moralizers like Vitter, Craig and Foley would shut up about private sexuality and stick to law, I'd be a lot less inclined to question their private lives.

They will never listen to you, no matter how truthfully and consistently you argue.

They don't care about exploitation and abuse of women.

They believe all the "Pretty Woman" and "Lady Marmalade" myths about prostitution, because they think that anyone who has principles is just an inhibited fool or a Republican; it's all about sexual licence for them. They discovered it in the sixties and they can't let go of it.

I'm a liberal, but I feel that in this sense liberalism has never grown up.

Two things liberals excuse and excuse and excuse, no matter how many people it hurts: prostitution (because all sex is all good all the time!) and Islamic fundamentalism (because we owe brown folks big time! Kill us, please! We deserve it!).

These two things really bother me. Many otherwise intelligent people just cannot seem to be logical about these two issues. They know the party line--no sex is ever wrong--and that's it.

I wonder what they would think of the prostitute counselor in Sweden who says simply "There are no happy whores. I wish they could all get out of it."

People who work with prostitutes report overwhelmingly that the girls were sexually abused as children, unless they are third world women forced into prositution by poverty. What element of choice are they really exercising? And is not every man who buys their bodies to fuck on them for an hour traumatizing them further? If there is maybe, 1 prostitute in 100 who doesn't fit this description, who isn't abused, pimped out, an addict, etc. etc.--how do the johns know? Make them fill out a questionaire beforehand? They just don't--if they go to prostitutes regularly or even once in a while, they are undoubtedly complicit in misery and abuse.

The fact that the people on this thread don't like to admit that, and would rather theorize about how great prostitution COULD be, if the women were all psychologically healthy and not hung up about sex, if the johns were all clean and considerate, if it was legal and the ladies had safe houses to work out of and blah blah blah....they can't face the reality. So they make up their world of "what if"? Well, that's just not the real world guys.

Such sloppy thinking would be totally unacceptable regarding any other topic.

But we can imagine prostitutes away--because for the people on this thread, they don't exist.

If you're a by-the-book liberal who can't think for himself, then you have to argue that every sexual act, no matter how depraved, is good, good, good.....

I mean, stick to your guns, Mizmoon, but I've been on these threads and I don't think you'll get very far. They'll argue you into the ground just on principle.

many woman who enaged in prostitution are there under duress and threat of violence..Glenn is pullin shit out of his arse( excuse the pun) and that is wrong..

There's another Democratic primary in Mississippi tommorow, and it's got an Obama victory written all over it.

Glenn Greenwald: "Would you say the same about him -- or any other public official -- if it were revealed that he had smoked pot once, or gambled in a poker game, or committed adultery in a state where that is a criminal offense -- all acts just as illegal as prostitution?"

You're using nonparallels for arguments! You are better than this!

"Smoked pot once" is different from "smoked pot THIS WEEK."

"Gambled in a poker game" is MUCH more innocuous than hiring prostitutes!

"Committed adultery" is "just as illegal" as prostitution? Are you serious? How many people are put in prison or fined for adultery versus prostitution?

This is weird.

In reply to this : He's handed the Republicans his reputation, and far, far more important, he's also screwed up just when the state was on the verge of finally making some real progress toward enlightened government. Even if the Republicans are behind his fall (which would hardly shock me) , I am very angry with Eliot Spitzer.

Glenn Greenwald asked:

Were you angry with Bill Clinton for the same reasons?

My answer: Yes, very much so. A person who is in high office cannot engage in this degree of narcissism. If the President behaved irresponsibly so as to leave him open for assassination, we'd be angry. This is not significantly different.

Just as Samantha Powers is within her rights to consider Hillary Clinton a monster, but knows she's committing political suicide by saying it, a Clinton or a Spitzer knows they are in political trouble if they get caught with their behavior. That is the way the world is, they have to deal with it. It is part of the responsibilities of office.

Regarding Spitzer's "victimless crime" - All this stuff about victimless crimes, not a crime, etc., is nonsense. The President of the United States believes that it is a victimless crime that his intelligence agency is wiretapping without warrants and so nothing should be done about that.

Then while Spitzer's particular prostitution ring may be victimless, prostitution in general is not victimless. Surely you've read and heard enough about women being forced into it, even in New York City.

First time I've been disappointed here. GG should be leading the charge asking Spitzer to resign. Instead.....