I was fine until you said "Ken Starr"...

I have no beef with what you wrote... character matters, no question about it. That is why we have the primary and general election system that we do: we have the opportunity, as a nation, to "vet" our candidates before deciding if they are ready to serve in office.

Wiener is just that... a wiener. He's an idiot of the first order, and the disaster that is his career and life right now is wholly his own doing. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

So, having said that character matters, we move into your "justification" for the Ken Starr investigation. Without rehashing the whole affair... and why do that? There are only 470,000 pages of evidence and testimony that are available to read over if we choose... I really feel bound to point out that there is (in my mind) a difference between finding a "bad character" in an important position within our government, and conducting a "character assassination" for purely partisan political gains.

Clinton lied, and Clinton paid the price... but the United States Senate (all one hundred and one members present, too) found the man "not guilty" of both perjury and obstruction (the only charges to make it past the House of Representatives). Thus, by our own Constitutional system of government, the man was determined to NOT be a "bad character"... at least not bad enough to remove from office. No "high crimes or misdemeanors" in other words.

Furthermore, character is most often proven by judgements made and acted upon by the individual. Obviously, Clinton's judgement was questionable, to say the least... but he surely wasn't alone in that arena, was he?

President Richard Millhouse Nixon actively and knowingly obstructed an FBI criminal investigation via the CIA, and lied about it for more than two years. He resigned rather than face impeachment and conviction by the Senate (a certainty, I think)... but more than a dozen jurisdictions were gearing up for criminal cases within hours of his getting off of Marine One on August 9, 1974, at Andrews Air Force Base.

Which leads us to "judgement call #2"... President Gerald Ford giving Nixon a full, blanket pardon on Sept. 8, 1974. I'm sure all of us here agree that Ford's actions were the best actions for the nation... but "right" or not, he gave an alleged felon (on as many as 11 counts, too) a free pass, and many in this country (to this day) still think it was the WRONG thing to do. I'm convinced it is the single biggest contributor to Ford's loss in the 1976 general election.

Nixon's actions were politically motivated... of that I am utterly convinced. He wasn't "evil" and his crimes can't be equated with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh... but he was WRONG in his judgement and he was WRONG in his actions.

By extension, the same stain is cast on Gerald Ford... who am I to say that he was right when faced with the argument that he was wrong? Only someone as dense as granite would actually believe that the man could have beat a Senate conviction in an impeachment trial, or that he could have gotten out of a Federal obstruction and perjury charge once out of office... the man was hung by his own words on the tapes he tried so hard to keep hidden. Ford can justify his actions as "healing the wounds" of the nation, but it doesn't mean the argument that he was keeping an ex-President and a fellow GOP hack "SAFE" doesn't have weight, does it?

Your point that there is a price to be paid for letting "poor judgement" run wild in our government is perfectly valid. The point I am making is that there is a price to be paid for airing these cases of "bad judgement" in the manner and means that the Wiener-gate scandal has been handled, too... and it isn't the sort of price that can be measured easily, or quickly.

If you doubt me... ask Gerry Ford.