Were you angry with Bill Clinton for the same reasons

Yes, I was, and I felt I had every right to be. Jesus, Glen, I might be a son of a bitch (opinions vary on this), but I would never, never do to my wife what he did to Hilary (I'm not interested in whether Hilary can take care of herself, that's not the issue) nor, do I consider it any great burden to live up to at least the must basic and cursory of my marriage vows. Nor do I consider it to have taken a Rhodes-scholar mind to know what the most probable consequences would be, that zoftig little prietzkh was gonna wail like a muezzin soon's she had the chance.

So yeah, on that basis, and that basis alone, I was pretty disappointed with old Bill, yes. A man his age who didn't know a girl like that couldn't hold her mud is a pretty sad spectacle.

Thank God for America. Thank God for law and order. Thank God for the Republicans.

Democrats support these stupid laws making private consensual behavior illegal almost as strongly as do Republicans.

My personal bete' noir is the drug war but prostitution and gambling laws are almost as idiotic.

You wrote:

"Alecsmom

It's morally repugnant, unethical and a crime. Period.

You're certainly entitled to think so, but I just want to ask a couple questions. How do you feel about pro-life advocates who say that abortion must be a crime because it is also "morally repugnant?"

And is it truly justice if a crime has no genuine moral basis?"

_____________________________________________________________

Here's the distinction:

Prostitution IS a crime. It's a crime meaning it's against the law. The law that we all are supposed to follow.

Abortion however, is NOT a crime. Big difference.

BTW- Abortion foes don't just state that abortion is morally repugnant, they state that it is ending life. That's why they WANT it to be a crime.

What does "genuine moral basis" mean? There's significant evidence that prostitution is harmful to the prostitutes so it certainly is not a victimless activity.

For a minute there I thought I was in the midst of another Clinton Crisis.

You are, except so many of the people back then who were insisting that what Clinton did -- both sexually and in terms of his deposition testimony -- was none of our concern, are the same ones expressing such moral outrage over Spitzer's conduct.

And let's consider this as well - Clinton's having hanky-panky with Monica was not illegal, and most people rightly saw the issue as a personal one between him and his family. Particularly many of the same people who are now condemning Spitzer on a moral basis.

What's different here? Spitzer allegedly paid the woman (more accurately, the company for which she worked). This transactional aspect suddenly changes its moral dimension?

Maybe it does, but I'd like someone to make a compelling case that it does.

I amuse myself.

And nobody came up w/ a punch-line for my previous set-up (Chuck Norris, Eliot Spitzer, and a $5500/hr prostitute go walking into a bar...)

I'm waiting for Scott Horton to weigh in on this, and I'm sure that GG will get by my throat if I'm mis-speaking, but this strikes me number two in the "get Dem. Governors who are inconvenient to Bush" political prosecutions.

Given the Quantico open floodgate of domestic surveillance, me thinks it's probable that Spitzer's data was swept up and conveniently "triggered" further scrutiny.

Democratic Governors are, in my view, an endangered species, as long as Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Mueller and Chertoff, are still hunting out of season.

Back to lurkdom.

GlennGreenwald wrote: "You are, except so many of the people back then who were insisting that what Clinton did -- both sexually and in terms of his deposition testimony -- was none of our concern, are the same ones expressing such moral outrage over Spitzer's conduct.

It's really surprising me."

Personally, I thought Bill Clinton's behavior was of our concern, both for the act itself -- having sex with an intern showed appallingly bad personal and professional judgment -- and for the dishonesty. What I disagreed with at the time -- and still do -- was the extended and blatantly manipulative attention the behavior received.

> If someone is untrustworthy then they are untrustworthy.

Aycharaych, do you really believe that there are people in the world who are COMPLETELY trustworthy? Any politicians?

If so, please mention a few by name. If not then, by your logic, everyone should resign tonight.

One can object to Spitzer's actions and still believe that there are degrees of untrustworthiness. Let the punishment fit the crime. Not all crimes, or even all instances of untrustworthiness, are the same.

While he is a hypocrite given his prosecutions for the same crime, and while he should suffer the same consequences of other caught for the same crime (though a federal prosecution here is suspect), the outrage here is alarming.

First, the woman:

A $1,000/hr prostitute has a good job. It is not enough to be attractive to get this price -- many beautiful women cannot charge this amount -- you must also be very good at your job, like highly paid folks in any line of work. To be very good, you must take your job seriously. The woman that Spitzer hired is a true professional (not in the colloquial sense). Like an athlete, she has natural attributes and skill that she deploys for her own financial needs. While forced prostitution and low-end prostitution that depends on coercive pimps who hook women on drugs and debt are an affront to women, it is positively anti-feminist to criticize women who are able to perform at this level by choice.

Second, the man:

Perhaps he is a weak man who violated his vows with a great woman. Perhaps he is in a loveless marriage that is now perfunctory and, for all practical purposes, open. That's not a public issue. What we do know is that he paid the market price for a woman's services that are top-of-the-line. And this also applies to Vitter (who like Spitzer, can be rightly judged as a hypocrite for running on sexual moralism, but did not deserve our outrage on personal level).

And while I believe that prostitution should be legal, I think Glenn covered that well. What disturbs me is the increasing belief among US residents that it is our business to look in on, and judge, the private lives of public figures. Is Spitzer good at his job? Is Brittany Spears a good performer? This is our domain. The rest is voyeurism. Sure, these people should know the nation in which they live, and good judgment might dictate how they navigate their private life once they become a public figure. But it shouldn't. And even given the environment, we aren't owed good judgment about private matters. Spitzer owes me good stewardship of New York, but he didn't promise me he'd be faithful to his wife. Spears must offer good entertainment products to excel in her career, but she never promised me anything. If you think extraordinarily personal matters come anywhere near the top of expectations for public figures, you are probably ignoring many more things that actually affect your life.

[You can make the argument that public figures set an example, but if children are dependent on rock stars and politicians to discern good private behavior, then a key battle of parenthood is already lost.]

You don't even have to go to public figures to see my point. Would you rather have a neighbor who is rude, filthy and loud, or one that has a perfect private life? Easy question. When you are talking about people who you will never meet but have control over your taxes, laws and quality of public life, personal behavior is all the more inconsequential.