I think you are confounding a few issues in this list. Mixing them up makes it hard for us to think clearly about them.

One, that interests me, is why powerful men get involved in vastly destructive complex illicit sexual situations; some with prostitutes (famously Mr. Spitzer), some with anonymous men in airports rest rooms (Mr. Craig), some with underage partners (Rep. Barney Frank, as memory serves.). Why do people in public life engage in risky sexual behavior? I don't know. Should they have been driven from public life? Well, of course, only Gov. Spitzer has actually resigned. The other two seem to have escaped political punishment.

That issue -- seems different to me from the complex sexual private love affairs of people who happen to be elected officials -- Gavin Newsome and Antonio Villagarso. Many of us engage extra or non marital sexual activities. Sometimes we hurt others when we do it.

Even more different are the perjury issues which surround Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who -- it appears lied under oath about his love affair. His statement's however seem more to the point that the coverup is worse than the crime (or in this case the affair).

Completely unrelated, as I see it are public officials who steal money -- a category into which both men and women fall. Former Newark Mayor Sharpe James is accused of using his position as Mayor to enrigh himself. NYS Assembly Member Diane Gordon is at present on trial on similar charges. (NYS State Senator Efrim Gonzales is facing also in trouble for manipulating public money for himself.) If true and proven, these men and women are crooks. But the facts that there are crooks in public life is no more shocking than that there are crooks in private life. People steal from need and from greed.

The least blame-worthy guy in the pack, in my view, is former NYS Comptroller Alan Hevesi. He assigned a state employee to drive & accompany his sick wife. If anything, that was a very minor misuse of public funds (which he repaid). Yet he was driven from office and forced to plead guilty for an offense that arguably is not a crime at all.

More Important is to find out the character of current politicians9 Spitzer is in the past). What is the content of Obama's character? Are they represented by his words which have gotten him many votes? THe irony is that these votes prove that the hate filled anti white anti America actions of his church are wrong. Is his character represented by his actions of attending and suporting this church for 20 years? He donated and only mildly disasociated himself from on the day he ran for president and more strongly disavowed AFTER it became a problem. Those actions seem political. Do we judge him on the content of his character or the color of his words?

I think the lesson is that we're all fallible. There are good people and bad people, honest people and corrupt people, loyal people and disloyal people. Politicians get elected based on other qualifications, such as education, success at their previous work, oratory, and acceptable policy positions. People like to hide character flaws, so it stands to reason they'll expect politicians to have none.

Is it only American politics that lure flawed personalities? Or is it politics in general? Or people in general?

Your assumption that the best and the brightest are more ethical isn't necessarily the case. Maybe the best and the brightest are smart enough to know that their lives would be destroyed by entering politics, and they want to continue living those lives, with whatever moral or ethical choices that they have made. The American culture of judgment and sentencing in the media seems to be a perverse version of Sharia Law, just as unforgiving as the fundamentalism that we rail against in other cultures.

I think the common thread is that those who are elected to make judgments on behalf of the public at large should have exceptional judgement themselves, which is clearly not the case. Those like myself who work in politics and well and in the private sector know that the type of individuals attracted to both spheres are vastly different (with some exceptions, of course).

Not to sound too much like John McLaughlin ("What's your opinion? Wrong!"), but there is a right answer here (actually, there are at least two I can think of) but no one has gotten them yet. If people think that politics attracts the same quality of individuals as the private sector with the same characteristics, you are wrong. It attracts people who are much better and people who are much worse, with the latter (sadly) being the far more common of the two.

Keep the opinions coming! There's got to be some good theories out there!