Why do people like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Condit and others bother to hide their extra-marital affairs? Answer: because they know that the public – republicans and democrats alike - will disapprove of their behavior.  In fact they know that such revelations could seriously impact their chances for being or staying elected. Thus, when I hear the increasingly invoked, “It’s a personal issue” strategy, it’s pretty clear to me that the majority of Americans disagree.

Anyone who is in a position to influence public policy is fair game to be questioned about their own marital fidelity. It is our right, as the public, to ask this question in order to have a clear understanding of how these public servants regard the sanctity of marriage as well as to gain some valuable insight into their character and judgment. After all politicians can say whatever they want, and indeed some will say anything in order to get elected; but actions speak louder (and truer) than words. Once the question has been asked they can always refuse to answer. This is their right. Voters can then make up their own minds as to whether they will elect someone who has a problem with answering that question. That is their right.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager is now complaining that Edwards’ lie about his affair early in the primaries resulted in votes that he might otherwise not have had, and surely he is right.  Edwards’ own efforts to conceal the affair were paramount to acknowledging that he knew it would hurt him with voters.  He painted a false picture of the kind of person he really was just as if he had, for instance, claimed to be pro-choice when he was really pro-life. That, my friends, is fraud.

Say whatever you want about the Left, they know how to play the political game. In the battle of politics they are the sneaky guerilla fighters whose only rule is that there are no rules. They’ll do whatever they need to in order to win, and if that means fighting dirty then so be it.

Back in 2000 we had the spectacle of Al Gore challenging the results of his lost bid for the presidency and trying to win by selectively recounting ballots only in democrat-majority precincts. When that tactic failed democrats made unsubstantiated claims of voter intimidation and malfunctioning voter equipment. With all the integrity of the classic sore loser, Gore and company have been claiming ever since that George Bush is an illegitimate president.

This country paid a huge price for Gore’s hissy fit. We’ve spent billions to replace voting machines that weren’t broken, bitterness in the black community was artificially inflamed by erroneous claims of disenfranchisement, our unity as Americans was damaged with false claims of Bush’s illegitimacy, and every election is now circumspect whether there is good reason or not. In the eyes of a liberal democrat though, no price is too much for the rest of us to pay if it might buy them the power they seek.

Now, with the John Edward’s scandal unfolding, we can clearly see the price that Bill Clinton exacted from us when he tried to escape the public’s rightful condemnation by proclaiming that his extra-marital dalliances were a ‘personal’ issue. “It’s a personal issue,” has now become the first defense of democrat politicians and the battle cry of their defenders. The end game is to make personal character an irrelevant issue in politics – at least for democrats - and to try and portray the rest of us as petty busybodies for caring about it.  Alas, in the Lefts’ quest to win at any cost they have led their followers to believe that moral behavior is more than we have a right to expect from those who would lead this nation. 

In a time when voters are free to choose a president because they like his toothy smile or hip sunglasses, it is truly audacious to tell us that the issue of marital fidelity is out of bounds.  

As a sideline to the fight for the presidency we have the enigma of Michelle Obama: A highly paid lawyer, educated at Princeton and Harvard and potentially first lady of the United States of America. You might think that someone with her autobiography would look upon such a life with wonder and gratitude. Instead, seemingly oblivious to her status as living proof of the American dream, she derides this country for her inability to be proud of it. 

Here’s what she should have said: 

“I have been fortunate to live in a country that truly is the land of opportunity. Americans, as a nation, have worked and sacrificed to overcome the natural tendency people have to separate themselves by color, by race or by culture, and to discriminate against or distrust those whom we see as different from ourselves. It is a perpetual struggle fueled largely by human nature, and although we sometimes fail on an individual level, we have made great strides as a nation. For this I think we should all be proud.”

Had she expressed this type of sentiment and shown an understanding and appreciation for the complex, human struggles that America has risen above, she would have earned the respect and fondness of the American public on both sides of the aisle. Instead, her comments and attitude betray the sniffy, scolding mindset that is the essence of left-wing thinking.

So while their might once have been a time when we could thoughtfully consider Obama’s book in the context of his life’s experiences, perhaps balanced by his actions, now I can only take a sort of cynical pleasure in seeing the tables turned for a change. In the words of infamous lefties Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright: “The chickens have come home to roost.”

In Mary Grabar’s March 30, 2008 column at TH, “The Letter “A,” Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism,” she delved into the public’s reaction to the Elliott Spitzer scandal and the inevitable misplaced comparisons to Hester Prynne’s treatment at the hands of the Puritans in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.

The defense of public officials like Spitzer and Bill Clinton, et al, exposes one of the many problems with the way liberals think. They seem incapable of making the distinction between branding a private citizen with the letter ‘A,’ and the reasonable expectation that the people chosen to govern us will behave with the integrity worthy of their office and, at the very least, within the confines of the law. 

No one has suggested that Spitzer or Clinton, et al, be branded, shunned or otherwise formally punished by society for their adultery (breaking the law, well that’s a separate matter). Indeed if we look at Bill Clinton today he’s not exactly hiding away in shame, is he? His ceremonious, post-Monica life belies this picture of puritanical vengeance that the Left pretends is taking place. The same will be true for Spitzer, once he gets past the legal repercussions of his actions.

The fact is, to our credit we are a nation that learns from its mistakes. We don’t brand people for adultery or burn ‘witches’ at the stake any more. But rather than acknowledge and be satisfied with this correction, the Left, in its infinite wisdom, would like to take us to the opposite extreme. Now we are told that we are bad to impose any moral standards whatsoever, even upon those whom we elect to govern us. 

No one is entitled to hold public office. Serving as president, governor or other high office is a privilege that only a tiny fraction of us will ever be honored with. Revoking that privilege merely places the individual back into the general population with the rest of us. Why this is seen as some terrible, mid-evil punishment, rather than a logical response to an official’s misconduct or poor judgment, makes no sense to any one but a liberal.

In the wake of the Elliott Spitzer/prostitute situation we are hearing the expected chorus of liberals, and a few overly zealous Christians, opine that we should not sit in judgment of him. Indeed Spitzer himself started it by defiantly proclaiming his actions to be a “private matter.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all shield ourselves from the judgment of others by simply invoking our right to privacy? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

In the words of our former first lady, Hillary, let’s all “take a deep breath,” and consider the real meaning of that phrase, ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’  I find it incredibly naïve and patently ridiculous that some take this to literally mean we shouldn’t form an opinion about people’s behavior. Does anyone really believe this is possible? Do we not all form opinions – or make judgments – all day long about the way people act, what they say, what they do, etc…?

‘Judge not lest ye be judged,’ is good advice, but just for a moment let’s show enough wisdom to understand what it really means.  Clearly it is a warning to people to not take it upon themselves to be the judge AND JURY. In other words, it is not up to us as individuals (or as a mob) to mete out someone’s punishment. In the Spitzer case, no one is suggesting that he be lynched, stoned or cast from society. And for the record, demanding his resignation is not a punishment. He is not entitled to be governor unless the people want him to be, and they no longer do.

Yes, we should all be mindful of our own behavior before we point the finger at someone else. But public officials must understand that they are in a unique position of responsibility that means their behavior will be held to a higher level of scrutiny. If they can’t live up to the scrutiny, then they shouldn’t seek these positions.

When I was in Colorado this Christmas I became familiar with a local story about a 7-year old girl who died after being punched and kicked by her 16-year old half-sister and the sister’s 17-year old boyfriend, supposedly as part of an imitation of the video game “Mortal Kombat.”  The 16-year old and, get this, her “live-in” boyfriend lived with her mother, along with the 7-year old and who knows who else.  In the initial coverage of the story no mention was made about the fathers of either of these girls, but are we surprised?

Eventually the newspaper tracked down the slain girl’s father, who lives out of state.  The father, “…said…there is plenty of blame to go around for his daughter’s death.”  Were we actually going to hear a father accept some responsibility for the tragic fate of his child, I wondered and hoped.  Would he regret that he had chosen to bring this child into the world, only to abandon her with a woman that he knew to be a sorry excuse for a mother?  I should have known better.  “I think all of them are at fault,” he said, referring to the sister, mother and boyfriend.  He also said, “Child Services should have taken them away a long time ago.” 

Now, wouldn’t it be logical for the reporter to ask the father about that comment, since it implies that the little girl was being abused for some time and that he was aware of it but did nothing?  Not in today’s world, where it has become politically incorrect for reporters to ask such questions when doing so might result in others passing judgment (gasp!) on someone’s behavior.  No, in the more liberalized world that we live in today, better that we all live without fear of being judged by our neighbors, even if it means that children are fatherless, teenagers (and custodial mothers) have live-in boyfriends, and no one is watching when two teenagers beat a 7-year old to death.

One of the most annoying traits of liberals is the way in which they can be acutely unaware of their own hypocrisy.  And one of the reasons they’re able to get away with it is through the collusive aide of other liberals.  No one epitomizes this phenomenon as much as self-anointed green czar, Al Gore.  

In an A.P. article today (12/14/07) Gore is praised by the ‘U.S. Green Building Council’ for having “one of the nation’s most environmentally friendly” homes after recently making some energy-saving improvements.  Even so, the 10,000 square-foot home, “remains well above regional averages,” in electricity usage (as we learn later in the article).  But not to worry; according to Gore’s spokeswoman, “When the Gores' heated pool is hooked up to the system later this month, their energy use is expected to decline more.”  Yes, Gore really must be applauded for setting the example for the rest of us.

So we have the complicity of the media, who largely ignored the ironic scandal of the world’s biggest energy scolder being exposed as an energy glutton himself, along with ‘green’ groups who not only ignore Gore’s high energy consumption but give him ‘gold status’ to boot. 

Next thing you know they’ll be giving him the Nobel Peace Prize.  Oh wait…..

"This governor was not defeated by anything other than the hate in this country toward immigrants right now," said Rep. Jose Serrano, a Bronx Democrat. 

That remark was in response to Eliot Spitzer’s decision to give up on his plan of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants in New York.  The reason it’s important is that it is a beautiful illustration of the typical lying, propaganda-spreading tactics of left-wing democrats. Just within this one little sentence are three very important untruths: 

-         The issue has to do not with immigrants but with ILLEGAL immigrants, as Serrano knows.  

-         People in this country do not “hate” immigrants; they want people who come here to do so legally and play by the same rules as the rest of us.  What’s unfair about that? 

-         It was not the people of this country who defeated the issue it was the people of New York, and good for them.  Serrano doesn’t want to offend his own constituents by telling them how hateful they are, thus he implies that it was everyone else who decided this issue. 

Serrano is just one more example of the wascally, weaselly ways of the Left.

According to the NYT Eliot Spitzer is rescinding his proposal of driver’s licenses for illegals, saying, “Part of leadership is listening to the public’s opposition.  Having heard that, and assessed the realities of implementing this policy, part of leadership is realizing that getting results is more important than sticking to what may be a principled position.”

Pardon me, but what is “principled” about giving driver’s licenses to people who are here illegally?  The fact is, by proposing to give driver’s licenses to illegals Spitzer was going against what most would consider to be the principled thing to do, and this is substantiated by his own words in an interview on Hardball:

"As a governor, I‘m trying to deal with the security reality, with the million people here who are undocumented. From a security perspective, we need to know who they are, what they‘re doing. If they‘re going to drive, as many do, I would rather they be licensed, so we know who they are, where they go, and they can get insurance. As a pure security matter, all the security experts agree on that."

Whenever someone says that they are just trying to “deal with reality” (as in giving birth control to sixth graders, giving clean needles to drug addicts, giving more welfare money for new babies born to welfare moms, etc.) it implies that principle must be put aside to achieve some other goal that is perceived to be more urgent.   Spitzer’s own words clearly suggest that the driver’s license proposal was a way of dealing with security issues.  That notion in itself is arguable but what was clearly missing was any suggestion that giving illegals driver’s licenses was the RIGHT thing to do. 

So, just as we should not be encouraging sixth-graders to have sex, or drug addiction, or more babies for welfare moms, so should we not be encouraging people to live here illegally.  THAT would be the principled stance.

The perpetual drive by democrats in the congress to arbitrarily increase the minimum wage is yet another example of their ignorance on economic issues and their inability to ever see the bigger, more important picture.   

The liberal argument for arbitrarily increasing the minimum wage is that people should be paid a “living” wage.  The first problem with such logic is:  how do we define a “living” wage?   The amount of money required to support oneself or one’s family depends upon a wide range of factors.  How many people in the family?  One?  Ten?  What kind of home – studio apartment or four-bedroom house?  Where will the living take place – San Francisco or Littlerock?  The fact that there are a multitude of variables that determine how much money one needs to live is a testament to the very arbitrary nature of the living wage question.  Clearly it makes much more sense to do what the market does naturally and let the nature of the work determine the level of pay, not some indefinable amount of money that may or may not amount to a “living wage.”

 The second problem with increasing the minimum wage is that you eliminate the incentive for people to better their financial circumstances through self-improvement.  First, no one who is raising a family should be working in a minimum wage job – period.  To want to reward those who are is downright stupid.  This is a case where we must look at the bigger picture:  if minimum wage is not enough to support the lifestyle or the family one wants, then one should be learning the skills or pursuing opportunities for better paying jobs.  This is better not only for the individual and his/her family, but it’s also better for the country as a whole.  Remember, what you reward you get more of.  Do we really want more people hunkering down in minimum wage jobs waiting for the next congress-imposed pay raise?  If you said, “no,” you passed the test.

 The truly liberal-minded among you will now be whining that there are some people who are forced to work minimum-wage jobs and it’s cruel to condemn them to a life of poverty.  What nonsense.  Nearly everybody is intelligent enough to learn a skill that pays more than minimum wage – if they are motivated.  When liberals cultivate the notion among minimum wagers that they are somehow deserving of more money without making any effort of their own, it is they that condemn such people to a life of poverty.

Over the past couple of decades or so it has become increasingly politically incorrect to point out that a victim, through his or her behavior, contributed to his or her own problems or demise.  The “Don’t blame the victim” cry has become the code phrase used to silence those who want to hold people responsible for their own actions in a nation increasingly hostile to the concept of personal responsibility.  Today, on American Justice, I watched a perfect illustration of this phenomenon.

The story goes like this:  In 1999, 8-year old Leroy (BJ) Brown, Jr. and his mother, Karen Clark, were gunned down in their home by drug dealers wanting to prevent the boy from testifying against them in an upcoming murder trial.  During the course of the program we learn that Clark and her son had moved to this dangerous city (Bridgeport, Connecticut, which sometimes boasts a murder rate twice that of New York City due to its rampant drug trade) from Jamaica.  At some point she became romantically involved with a drug dealer who had recently been released from prison and moved him into her home.  Her son would later be riding in a car with the boyfriend when he was shot at, the target of another drug dealer who eventually succeeded in killing him.  Clark decided to move, not out of town but to another area of Bridgeport where she purchased a home that was across the street from a crack house.  The crack house was frequented by the out-on-bail murderer of her boyfriend, who eventually killed Clark and her son.

So was the point of the show to highlight the numerous mistakes Ms. Clark made that put her and her son in danger and ultimately contributed to their deaths?  Nope.  American Justice wanted to know if police and/or the state of Connecticut did enough to protect BJ and his mother as witnesses.  In fact, her missteps were not at issue at all and, in an interview with her brother, we have this unbelievable statement:  “My sister would never have done anything to put her son in harm’s way.” 

Not surprisingly Ms. Clark’s family filed a $100 million lawsuit, not against the vicious drug boss who killed Clark and her son, but against the state of Connecticut (i.e. deep pockets).  Apparently while it is impolite to question the self-destructive decisions of the victim, it is perfectly alright to go after the state with a vengeance if ‘it’ fails to protect a victim from his own stupidity.  In the ultimate irony the taxpayers of Connecticut, who had nothing to do with the tragedy, are now expected to enrich the victims’ relatives and, of course, the lawyers. 

Welcome to the twenty-first century.

As I approach my 47^th birthday I am as ever dismayed and perplexed by the progress, or lack thereof, of women in American society.  Before the usual crowd gets all excited let me say that I’m not talking about the glass ceiling, wage inequality or the larger share of household chores women are still doing.  I’m talking about the truest barometer for achieving equality with men:  Independence of thought. 

What’s brought about my latest round of exasperation with the so-called ‘women’s movement’ (not!) is the media’s frenzied announcement that Oprah will be supporting Barack Obama’s campaign for president.  I see headlines about it everywhere. 

Anyone familiar with Oprah or the show knows that she is deeply committed to and focused on the betterment and progress of the African-American race.  Consequently it is no great surprise that she would like to see an African-American win the presidency.  So why is this such big news?  Because Oprah has developed a cult of women followers, numbering in the millions, who apparently don’t mind being told how to dress, what to eat, what to read and now… how to vote.

Does the wide-eyed pliability of Oprah’s mostly female following seem reminiscent of any particular segment of the population to you?  Well for me, children come to mind.  Indeed, what the Oprah phenomenon proves, sadly enough for the women’s movement, is that some of us ‘women’ still need a mommy or a daddy telling us what to do.  This doesn’t speak well for my gender and, judging by the grins on men’s faces when the subject of Oprah comes up, such cult-like devotion to an entertainer is a serious detraction from the credibility of the ‘movement.’

The fact is I like Oprah.  I respect her for what she’s accomplished and though I haven’t watched it in years I have enjoyed her program in the past.  But as much as I might find her show entertaining, no way is she going to tell me who I should vote for as the future president of this country, particularly not when race is clearly the driving force behind her own choice of a candidate.

What I want to ask the Oprah cult to consider is this:  Who tells Oprah how to vote?  The answer, of course, is no one, because Oprah is her own person.  She has achieved what we all are supposed to want, true independence and adulthood.  So, should Oprah succeed in handing Barack Obama the gift of a few million votes from her horde of worshippers it will be a sure sign that some of us haven’t come very far after all.