…I hail from the land of the NYPost, ya know?

Does David Vitter’s Madame problem help his 2008 man, Rudy? If this is the common reaction, maybe.

Here’s Dionne today:

We should judge public figures by how they meet their public responsibilities, and leave it to spouses, pastors, children and friends to praise or punish their private behavior. This isn’t easy. As voters, we judge politicians by a standard that inevitably includes a view of who they are as people. Like it or not, that view is influenced by our sense of their private behavior. For example, I greatly admired the late Paul Wellstone not only for his boisterous brand of liberalism but also because of the profound bond of devotion, respect and love that existed between Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were married for 39 years. The Wellstones didn’t talk about family values. They just lived them. In their reticence and humility may lie an answer to our conundrum. Politicians could exercise more care and restraint in their public talk about morality and convey a sense of understanding toward those with whom they have moral differences. In turn, the rest of us might agree to keep the public conversation focused on the larger questions — how to proceed in Iraq, how to fix the health-care system — about which elected officials can actually do something. As voters, wouldn’t we forgive a politician many private sins if he or she handled those two issues successfully? Typically, we make fun of public figures who seek our sympathy by admitting to “sin.” But maybe a politician who admits to sin gains a certain degree of humility in the process. Let’s grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on.