Up until news of his involvement with a prostitution ring, Governor Spitzer was bred to run for president of the United States: Horace Mann, Princeton, Harvard Law, New York State Attorney General, and New York State Governor. Talk about a downfall. And yet it seems a recurring theme that no one other than the politician himself is responsible.

In the aftermath of this news, I am thinking two things. First, why did Governor Spitzer apologize and contemplate resignation only after the scandal became public? It may be a naïve question, but the only answer is that he thought he could escape the consequences. In a statement Spitzer said “I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong.” It troubles me that this violation of what is right and wrong comes a month after the alleged act. In a great article N.R. Kleinfield discusses this phenomenon of political scandals. The most fascinating aspect of this piece was citing Columbia’s Dr. Judy Kuriansky: “Even though Spitzer is a lawyer, when you get into a position of power, you think you’re above the law.” No one is above the law. We all know that scripture tells us that power corrupts and inflates the egos of man, and we’ve seen plenty of cases where men are evidence of this.

Which leads me to my next thought: What if Governor Spitzer were a woman?

For starters, he’d be called a slut, a whore, or any combination thereof both in public and in private.

Kuriansky says that “sex and power are extremely connected.” So why do we only hear about powerful men and these scandals? Can it be as simple as public women just don’t do this? And if this is the case, why don’t they? Probably because they understand the reality of gender power dynamics that exist even in this country that espouses equality for all people. They understand that the consequences for men and women are entirely too different.

Now, I don’t mean to advocate that women should be entitled to have sex scandals as often as men do (I doubt they would lower themselves to the status of some of our nation’s most influential men). But given that our society grants men incredible accommodations, as perverse as it seems, it only seems fair that this double standard be taken away.

But rather than simply removing that double standard, we should refuse to grant this accommodation entirely. Influential people who commit even the types of crime that Governor Spitzer so arrogantly referred to as a “personal matter” should not be kept in positions of power where they are held to a higher standard.

And elected officials are absolutely held to a higher standard. When an American voter goes to the polls, they are aware that there aren’t any perfect candidates. Everyone slips and lets the F bomb fly from time to time. But they do vote for who they think are good people who will be examples for their children at the dinner table, candidates who make them proud for having voted, and who inspire them to be better citizens and people.

This year’s presidential campaign offers us the important opportunity to really think about gender and the different power dynamics at play. While I support Senator Barack Obama for president, for reasons I will outline in a later post, I really admire Senator Hillary Clinton’s courage to become the first woman president of the United States.

If she is elected, I wonder how differently we would treat her compared to how we have treated every president in the past (re: men). More importantly, how have we already treated her?

As Americans, we have lowered the bar so much for men that to achieve any sense of balance we have subconsciously and unfairly raised it that much higher for women. All public officials, regardless of gender, should be held to the same high standards. The unfortunate truth is that this is hardly the case.

And let’s not forget that Senator Hillary Clinton was an unfortunate bystander in her husband’s own sex scandal not too long ago. There were times during that ordeal when it seemed like the press scrutinized Hillary Clinton more than they did her husband! The appearances of wives standing with their husbands at press conferences, as was the case yesterday in New York, are nothing but political, as their sole purpose is to ease the public and political scrutiny on the man who put his wife in a position she should have never been in to begin with.

In addition to the people who choose not to vote for Senator Clinton in the current campaign because she is a woman, many choose not to vote for her because she chose to stay with her husband. If she left President Clinton, I’m sure she would lose just as many votes. And what if Mayor Rudy Giuliani were a woman? Now on his third marriage, I doubt he would have been a leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, let alone Mayor of New York.

This particular sex scandal involving Governor Spitzer is just one of too many examples of how our society perpetuates the double standards when it comes to men and women in power.