Your implication is that politicians engage in extra-marital sex because their position lets them do so. In reality, I believe they do it because they are no better or worse than any of the other people in our country.

One small correction:

The Miami Herald did not observe Ms. Rice leaving Mr. Hart’s house after spending the night. Rather, she was seen leaving the house on the evening of May 2, 1987. YCLIU.

Most powerful politicians attract (or even hire) their share of “groupies”. These are often nimble (female) 20-somethings that, once on their staffs, look to their bosses as some kind of “rock star” that they can swoon over and dream of sharing a bed with.

Clearly, when they finally come to light (as they most assuredly will do) most of these sexual trysts are consensual. Yet it always seems that it’s the politician (usually male, older and graying) that gets the rap…probably because the whole sordid affair fits the age-old stereotype of the “dirty old man taking advantage of his office staff to cheat on the wife”.

Now, I’m certainly NOT advocating or excusing such behavior. Marriage vows are marraige vows. And, clearly, the vast majority of our elected representatives still well recognize what the consequences (political and otherwise) will be if they are ever caught with their fingers in the hired help.

On the other hand, just because someone is graying and married doesn’t ALSO mean that sexual chemistry can’t, on occasion, still happen. Toss in a failing (or failed) marriage and the fact that powerful politicians are a particularly juicy “target of opportunity” for swarms of nubile females looking for an elected power figure to chalk up as their latest sexual conquest, and it all becomes a recipe for personal shame and political disaster.

So, before we all automatically assume it is entirely the (male) politician’s fault in such situations, it is important to remember that it still takes “two to tango”.

Gerald Sutliff
Bakersfield, CA

Clinton denied “sexual relations,” not “sex” with Lewinsky. As an attorney, I was quite interested to see how Clinton could have been so stupid as to lie about having sex with Lewinsky, so I read quite a bit about it. As I recall, the term “sexual relations” was the subject of a court-approved definition adopted for purposes of discovery in the case. That definition did not include oral sex. In fact, oral sex had originally been included in the definition, but Clinton’s attorneys had argued to have it removed, and it was removed. The argument was based on the whole Southern Baptist “blow job isn’t sex” argument. Accordingly, Clinton’s lawyers’ argument was that oral sex was not “sexual relations” under the Court’s definition. Accordingly, under that definition, the blow job was not “sexual relations.” However, I do not know WHEN that definition of “sexual relations” was approved by the court, so I cannot say that the term had been so defined at the time Clinton used it at his press conference. I use this as an example for deposition witnesses — don’t deny the obvious like Clinton did by using a artificially narrow definition of a term. Most people will just think you are lying.