I have assiduously avoided commenting on the Spitzer Scandal, even telling one TV booker that my only strongly held opinion is that the governor should not have to resign – he should have the option of being waterboarded instead as his punishment.

But it occurs that there is a dog not barking here: Why have the media been so reluctant to compare Spitzer’s transgressions to those of Bill Clinton? Is it not clear which are the more egregious?

Spitzer paid high-dollar call girls in exchange for sexual favors. Leaving aside the question of how a low-paid public servant affords that, what Spitzer did is surely immoral, illegal, hypocritical, and embarrassing.

By contrast, Clinton exploited the power disparity between the American president and a young intern in his office. Earlier in his career, Clinton allegedly used state law enforcement officers to procure women for him. He allegedly sexually harassed Paula Jones. Juanita Broaddrick alleges that he raped her.

Also: If Clinton were advising Spitzer what course might he counsel? Perhaps something like this:

Tough it out. Say you are sorry to have let your family down and disappointed your supporters. Say you gave in to temptation and that you are disappointed in yourself. Say you want to stop talking about this now publicly and instead devote your time to healing the wounds you’ve inflicted on your family. Say you also want to get back to the people’s business – which is more important than any personal failings you may have demonstrated. Consult a clergyman and/or psychologist. TV producers will soon be at their doors. They should say that addictions are tragic – and that anyone can fall into their clutches.

I could go on but you get the idea.