One more point, please...

Allow me to ask this one question... I've never gotten a good answer, no matter how often or to whom I ask it:

Why was what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky so morally and ethically unjustifiable, yet what Newt Gingrich was doing at the same time is not worth a second thought?

Both had affairs with interns while in office, both lied about them to their spouses and the voting public, and both have admitted to these lies openly since then. One is to be dismissed out-of-hand because of it, while the other is a serious contender for the nomination for the highest office in the land... how is that justifiable? How is that even rational?

If Clinton's lack of character and judgement was enough to warrant an attempt to remove him from office, why wouldn't Gingrich's actions be enough to exclude him from consideration for the same office? Neither was forthright or honest prior to the information about the affairs leaking out, and neither "resigned" their office once the information was out... why should I assume that Gingrich is any better suited for a position that Starr's investigation convinced so many that Clinton was unsuited for?

If the answer is that the character associated with each of these "judgement calls" is fundamentally different based on political positions, I can assure you that this discussion is going to get heated... very fast.

Hehe.