My judgement of Spitzer is based on my being in a committed relationship, with someone I trust not to do something so stupid. Our marriage is something I take very seriously, and I expect my husband to act in a way that would never disrespect me, or cause me to feel less than the center of his life. Just as I would never do anything to cause him to doubt me or my commitment to him.
As for me getting my information from the media, I admit that I have read and listened to most everything related to this subject. I usually give the underdog the benefit of the doubt, until something happens to make me rethink the issues. In this case, I would probably say the first encounter with his prostitute was perhaps experimental, maybe a mistake, definitely a lack of good judgement. So, what is the excuse for the rest of the encounters?
Then, there is the double standard issue. Don't do as I do, do as I say? What is that all about? And then, what about the legal issues of transporting people across state lines for sexual acts? I understand there are laws against this. So, let's recap what we have: 1) a married man having trysts with a prostitute, not once, but many times. 2) A governor who fought against prostitution, condemning those who frequented these establishments and those who profited from these types of businesses, and 3) an attorney who knowing breaks the law hoping not to get caught. Hmmm...uh huh...maybe you are right... let's not judge yet. In my humble opinion, I still think he is a skuzzball, and did the right thing by resigning. But, in your defense, if everyone played by the rules, you wouldn't have much of a job, would you?

At what age is it determined I am old enough to know better?