A reader writes:

OK, I get it that it's bad that politicians lie to us. But I'm much more concerned about the political lies they tell us than the lies about their personal lives.  For me the lie "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" will never trouble me as much as "Our involvement in Iraq will be a matter of weeks, not months".

Let alone president Bush's repeated lie on a matter of far graver significance: "We do not torture." The Vitter analogy seems powerful to me. Vitter broke the law; no one is suggesting Weiner did. If Vitter is still in the Senate, why should Weiner resign? And think of the odd lies Sarah Palin has told the public in her brief career. Some perspective please. Rick Hertzberg finds the distinction between illicit sex and lying to be practically speaking non-existent:

The problem is that lying is an inherent part of adultery and, by extension, of any illicit or potentially embarrassing sexual activity or proclivity. By itself, the fact that a person has lied about sex tells you nothing about that person’s general propensity to lie. Unlike most citizens, prominent politicians like Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and Anthony Weiner make speeches by the hundred, give media interviews constantly, and have extensively documented public records. If the politician is a habitual or characterological liar, the public record will show it and the lying-about-sex is redundant. If the politician is not a habitual or characterological liar, his lying-about-sex is misleading—is itself a lie, in a way.