Is it fair to measure a politician's public worth by his/her sexual behavior? This a question which has been brought before me and requires an answer, or a position on which I stand, fair or unfair? Well, I think it is fair.
             After a two-year scandal involving President Bill Clinton and his sexual escapades with different women besides his wife, I can't help but see a direct comparison in this question. Using President Clinton works as an excellent example as to why I take the position I do. For obvious reasons a politician's public worth should not only be measured by his/her sexual behavior, but this should be an important consideration. Every time a new president is elected they are sworn in, they raise their right hand and swear to approximately 272 million people to uphold certain duties as president. Each time a president neglects to uphold one of these duties or if he/she is found to be committing a crime, a process is followed to decide whether or not the president should be impeached. If the act is found to be minor or not an impeachable offense, business continues as usual, but the dignity or public worth of this individual has to be questioned by the public, because as the employers of these politicians it is our duty.
             Now even though it might not seem relevant to use the president, or any politician being sworn in as a valid example, in comparison to marriage vows, I think it is valuable. Along with marriage comes a word called fidelity, this is usually touched upon at the ceremony or even before, this means to be faithful and loyal. When a person such as President Bill Clinton, or any politician professes his/her love and fidelity to his/her life partner, which is only one person, then without any regret, completely disregards those promises. How can a politician like this make a promise or swear to uphold certain duties to approximately 272
             ...