As per the previous post, there are different kinds of sexual scandals. The electorate will generally ignore garden variety adultery, unless the politician involved was critical of another politician for having done the same.
An extramarital affair which results in a child is viewed more seriously, especially if the politician is a Presidential candidate (think John Edwards).
Harassment (a la Bob Packwood) is not forgivable.
Homosexuality is viewed differently in different areas. Larry Craig's Idaho's constituency would probably have taken a dimmer view of his shenanigans than Barney Frank's Massachusetts constituents did of his.
Having sex with an underling, as Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky, is not acceptable. And lying about it, as Clinton did, makes it worse.
Actually putting someone on the federal payroll expressly for the purpose of having sex with them, as Wayne Hays did with Elizabeth Ray back in the 1970's, is completely unacceptable.
Obama, as I've pointed out before, is pretty obviously gay. If you accept that -- and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to accept -- then it appears that several of the people he's put on the federal payroll -- both of his "body men," Nick Colvin and Reggie Love, as well as Kal Penn -- were hired so that he could have sex with them.
Technically, having an affair with someone who works for you is considered sexual harassment these days. I'm sure Obama's male paramours were perfectly willing, and didn't feel harassed; in fact, they undoubtedly got an extra thrill from knowing that the man they were having sex with was the President of the United States.
Nonetheless, having sex with one of your employees is a technical trespass. And hiring them expressly for that purpose is worse.
Why is this not a scandal? Does it not count if the employees are men? Or is Obama just particularly skillful at hiding in plain sight?
My guess is, it will probably all come out in the future. But in the meantime, Obama gets a free pass.