Inspired by a thread below... I always felt delighted that Bill Clinton survived the media "scandal" about Lewinsky and was a great President.

Why do we condemn people for moral "lapses"?

Surely, it's ability we want, not purity of personal life?

And some of the greatest leaders, musos, sporties, champions have strange libidos.

Hypocrisy? Who cares? If it would affect his or her ability to run a country well, I'm all for a bit of lying about whether or not they got a blow job.

I want my country run/hits made/sports won by brilliant exponents of those arts. I don't care whether they are straight or gay, missionary position or anal...

Choose our Prime Minister by how many times a week he or she wanks and our economy is in trouble.

Well-it's a pecularly British thing isn't it ?. Inherited by the Yanks and the other colonies-New Zealand and Australia.

It's part of this protestant moral work ethic and such.

If Bill Clinton had been French the people would have hailed him for getting down and having a bit on the side. Did the French throw their arms up in horror when their divorced president Nicolas Sarkozy married supermodel Carla Bruni?..no their chests swelled with pride.

And what it were Italy-a politician could marry an ex-porn star and would probably be declared president the next day !!

I'd condemn Clinton because he lied... which come to think about it is pretty much a definition for politician.

I think the majority of Clinton's critics were more concerned that he lied to the nation. The affair was just a sign of human weakness.

Very similar case to that of Lord Archer. He was not disgraced by having an affair but by lying under oath about it.

Once we catch someone in a lie, we tend to wonder what else they are lying about. Can we trust them again?

Why is lying such a bad thing?

If it is no business of anyone else (consenting sex between adults) but will ruin your career, why admit it?

Avoiding the reality is a vital essential for politicians especially when the media loves to twist GOOD facts into BAD headlines to bring you down because it's...

A GOOD STORY!

I think there is a difference between lying and not admitting to something.

If you are accused of something, the best advise is to say nothing. The burden of proof should be on the accuser.

Tell that to the Old Bailey RTM!

I would gladly, but I doubt they would listen.

That is why I said the burden of proof "should" be on the accuser. In reality it usually isn't.