Pols Behaving Badly: Does It Matter?

By CBSNews.com's Melissa P. McNamara.

This, of course, is exactly what happened. The star-crossed Democratic presidential candidate was linked to Donna Rice, and a love boat named "Monkey Business."

Hart's candidacy instantly vaporized. A swarm of pundits came forth to ponder the meaning of Hart's political death. Had the rules of the game changed? Would future presidential candidates see their ambitions destroyed by previously out-of-bounds news stories about their marital indiscretions?

The answer, as we now know, was a resounding "nah."

Americans may love to gossip about the marital misdeeds of their presidential candidates, but when it comes down to pulling the lever in the voting booth, they have proven to be surprisingly forgiving.

This has been true even though the escapades of some later presidential candidates make Gary Hart look like George Washington. Exhibit A is Bill Clinton, a man some regard as the Einstein of extramarital affairs.

While the energetic president's reported dalliances were no secret to the public, Bill Clinton managed to take things to a whole new level by romancing a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. The philandering commander in chief was roundly and widely denounced. The GOP even attempted to impeach him.

The result? The voters punished the Republican impeachment effort by handing the Democrats a victory in the 1998 congressional elections. And when Bill Clinton appears at campaign events these days, he's a celebrity, surrounded by throngs of admirers.

The misadventures of Hart and Clinton shouldn't be taken to mean that the Democrats have a monopoly on infidelity. Indeed, the Party of Lincoln is on a roll. The GOP's top presidential contenders, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are card-carrying two-timers.

And many political observers believe that Newt Gingrich will give the party of family values a trifecta by entering the race later this year. (Monogamous Mitt Romney wallows in the single digits in most polls, despite his eight-digit fundraising numbers.)

The political success of these wayward presidential wannabes underscores a unique double-standard among Americans: What we would not tolerate in a spouse, we are willing to tolerate in contenders for the most important job in the land.

"Americans understand that political marriages are complicated, that they're not exactly like every other marriage or romance under the sun," says Steve Mintz, co-chair of the Council On Contemporary Families. "Usually, politicians are very ambitious. You have to be driven in ways that most people aren't. I would never say that all of these are marriages are of convenience, but it's more common than in normal marriages."

Ronald Reagan made Americans more comfortable with divorce — his marriage to Nancy was his second. Since then, the marital histories of some of our most esteemed politicians read like bad soap operas.

Take McCain: The Vietnam war hero was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while courting a 25-year-old former cheerleader, according to published reports. McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, married his new (and current) wife months later, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money.

Then there's Gingrich: His first divorce came in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to discuss the divorce terms while she was recovering from cancer surgery, according to her account.

Gingrich divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he. He acknowledged his affair was carried on while he was pushing for Clinton's impeachment.

And who among us could forget Rudy Giuliani's amazingly messy and public divorce? The then-New York mayor announced the end of his marriage to Donna Hanover at a press conference in 2000, before she says she knew anything about it.

Hours later, a wounded Hanover told reporters she had tried to save their marriage despite the mayor's "relationship with one staff member," later identified as his former communications director, Cristyne Lategano. (Lategano and Giuliani deny conducting an affair.)

His first marriage to a second cousin ended in annulment and divorce, and his current marriage to Judith Nathan, herself married three times, has alienated Giuliani from his own children. His son, Andrew, told the New York Times that he would be too busy working on his golf game to take part in his father's presidential campaign.

Why don't Americans expect more from their politicians? Mintz, of the Council on Contemporary Families, says voters are preoccupied with finding a strong leader.

"People place less weight on personal morality than perceived leadership," he says. This might be more true in a post-9/11 world, Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics notes, when voters are concerned about national security issues and terrorism.

"These are complicated times. Perhaps a highly unpopular foreign war, economic troubles, and other matters will take precedence over doubts about candidates' private lives," Dr. Sabato says, but cautions that character still matters. "Philandering, multiple marriages, and unhappy children from broken homes do not exactly create a positive personal image for a potential president. Americans think of the White House not just as a government center but also as a family home."

One reason Americans look at character is because they are less likely to examine politicians' policy records, says professor Stephen Hess of George Washington University and the Brookings Institution. "There is no doubt that the United States is one of the least political countries in the world. This is not what is on people's minds, all the time. Therefore, when they get around to thinking about these things, usually forced by an election, they measure what they like about candidates as a whole."

But Duke University professor William Chafe, author of "Private Lives/Public Consequences: Personality and Politics in Modern America," says that "even if a relatively small minority feels intensely about such issues, they could turn out to be decisive."

In fact, recent polls indicate that a small minority of voters actually do care. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 62 percent of Republican respondents and 25 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to support a candidate who had an extramarital affair in the past.

A USA Today/Gallup poll showed that fewer than half of those who attend church weekly would be "completely comfortable" with a candidate who has been married three times.

And the issue is even more important for evangelicals. A recent Newsweek poll showed that 26 percent of evangelicals said they would not vote for a candidate who was involved in a nasty public divorce, and 43 percent said they wouldn't support a politician who had extramarital affairs.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from Hanover.

"Philandering ... still has the capacity to undo a candidate — particularly if the candidate's personal life is seen to be generally messy," says historian Alan Brinkley of Columbia University. "Given some of the candidates in this year's race (Giuliani in particular), we will probably soon have a real test" of whether Americans would vote for a candidate who has had an affair.

And most analysts agree, while an affair — or two or three — may not doom a candidate's White House dreams, it certainly doesn't help. So stay tuned. This presidential race could be one for the history books, and guaranteed to be filled with enough gossip to get even Americans interested in politics.
By Melissa McNamara