I have been wondering about the difference in reaction to Anthony Weiner's venial sins compared to Bill Clinton's transgressions in the Lewinski affair. Clinton perjured himself at least twice (in deposition in the Paula Jones case and before the Grand Jury) and he famously said on television "I did not have sex with that woman". Although `having sex' commonly refers to intercourse his denial was correctly understood to be much broader than that.
Yet nobody on the Democratic side of the spectrum thought he should resign - or be removed from office. His approval numbers stayed high.
What's the difference? I think it is that Weiner's behaviour would be seen as that of a jerk in high school. Very few people think they were jerks in high school - and certainly not at 46. Clinton lied about sex. Lots of people have lied about sex. It's somehow less damaging than being a jerk.
What about Spitzer vs. Clinton - maybe the difference is the prostitution vs consensual sex with an adult. But David Vitter got re-elected in Louisiana despite using prostitutes. Maybe Spitzer's big mistake was having his wife stand with him at the press conference. I wonder if a confession and apology would have kept him in office.
No comments:
Post a Comment