Or woman, Pyg. Women can both be elected to office, and be cheaters.

Now as for the question... yes. Because a candidate's "job" is to portray him or herself as an honest person who will stick to their word and. You don't vote for a person. You vote for their image. You vote for their style, their cute children, the promises they make, the promises they say that they have already fulfilled, their accomplishments and things they hope to accomplish....

It is my opinion that a person who cheats on their spouse is someone who can rationalize anything into being acceptable. I would say that I would not trust that person to make the right decision, keeping in mind the mass' best interests, every time.

It of course depends on the candidate, and the circumstances:

For instance, the woman who John Edwards cheated with stalked him and waited outside his hotel for him, and frankly I feel like he was a victim...

But more often than not I would not vote for a candidate who has been unfaithful.

Well.. define qualified.

I see two definitions: 1. Policy and politics etc. 2. Getting my vote.

Even if I agree with everything they are for politically, I'm not gunna like them cheating on their wife, because 1) that shows them breaking a promise. And that's basically what candidates do, make promises. And 2) it's just kind of trashy and low.

I not one to vote on character, hype, image, and "cute kids" etc. but that would cross the line for me.

So my answer is yes, they are less qualified.

No, as awful as it is to say that. Most other people do not lose their jobs or have less of an opportunity at securing a new job if they are unfaithful or promiscuous. Though politicians are granted many unfair liberties and privileges themselves, the privilege of having a closed and personal marriage life is generally up to themselves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had mistresses out of marriage, yet he was one of the greatest leaders that America had, and he did not act like Bill Clinton did in that whole ordeal. In fact, he and Eleanor did not even life with one another and she had mistresses as well. Few people can say that F.D.R. and Eleanor Roosevelt were not qualified to run the country at such a horrible and terrifying time, and certain no one who does believe so blames it on extramarital affairs.

Well if he cheats on his wife it shows two things: that he doesn't care what the people he represents thinks of him and that he is careless and focused on things he shouldn't be focused on.

I think how people act in their personal relationships definitely carries into their work life. It affects their decisions at work and shows their true colors.

Firstly, I am glad Pineapple noticed the fact that you didn't even acknowledge women in office. I probably wouldn't have noticed, I'm a little embarrassed to say, but props to Pineapple for catching it.

Also, for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use genderless pronouns. I'm not trying to be annoyingly PC, I just think the English language really needs these, if only for simplicity's sake.

Secondly, to answer the question, I would take it into account, but I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone based solely on that. It does reflect someone's character, but only a part of it. And it could mean various things about the person: 1. The person is dishonest and sleazy in general. 2. Ze lets hir emotions(or body) overwhelm hir sometimes in their personal lives. 3.Ze made a personal mistake that is not typical for hir.

Now, if the person is dishonest and sleazy in general, that is ideally not a person you'd want to give power to, but realistically, if they are going to put the right policies through, and if there are enough checks on power, it might be okay. And if ze simply has a few personal weaknesses, all you need to know is whether or not, or to what extent, those will effect hir leadership.

With all of the exposure this past year we've come to understand that cheating on your wife knows no boundaries...not Democrat or Republican and if, as Pyg says, they're all a bunch of scumbags why should it matter? It matters because it should. That's why most of the peopple who get caught doing it are now out of office.

We have a love affair with those who present themselves as honest, upstanding citizens running as candidates. We want them to be squeaky clean and if we find out anything about them that would alter that impression they're gone and they know it. That's why they try so hard to hide it.

Does it make them any less qualified to do their job? No, it doesn't but I wouldn't trust them again in any area of job or life.

If he is not faithful to his wife, how can he be faithful to his country?

If he does not lead his house in right standing, how can he do the same for his country?

He who is faithful in little can be trusted with larger responsibilities for he has proven himself.

Adultery is wrong from just about any perspective. While his faculties are still there, he has lost a great deal of repect (if, indeed, he ever had any). Look at Tiger Woods, does he have any honour left? If it came out that some official had as many mistresses as him, they would be thought of as lowly as Woods, crazy.

if you like messing around with other women. then dont get married. american society has a very backward view on marriage, as in they think people should get married.

Well all of these politician cunts cheat in everything they do.

Getting CAUGHT would mean he's not as smart as those who've managed to get away with it.

Which I think means he's more qualified so that he'll find it harder to cheat us common people...