The exposure of an extramarital affair does not invariably end a public service career. Just ask former President Bill Clinton. The storied career of one of our Country’s most celebrated modern day military figures came to an abrupt end last week with the resignation of General David Petraeus as the director of the CIA. He said he exercised “extremely poor judgment” in becoming sexually involved with his biographer. Poor judgment is one of the last things we can tolerate in the person in charge of our international and domestic intelligence. Harsh? Perhaps, but it is the truth.

Political leaders of every persuasion have heaped praise on the general since his departure but as the investigation continues to widen, it appears it was for the best. Petraeus might have weathered the storm, but only at great cost to the CIA, the Obama administration and ultimately, to the country. By quitting, he salvaged what he could of his honor, rather than acting as though a reckless and dishonorable act could be overlooked.

Petraeus made the case for resignation himself. He told Newsweek in a recent profile that Lesson No.1 to him is always “Lead by example from the front of the formation.” Any course other than resignation would have set a poor example for the CIA and all those Petraeus influenced in military and civilian life.

To his list of leadership lessons Petraeus needs to add another, “Never say anything in an e-mail message that you wouldn’t mind seeing on the front page of a newspaper.” All of this came to light after his mistress sent anonymous e-mails to another woman she thought was trying to vie for the attention of the general. Agents soon found voluminous and compromising electronic correspondence between Petraeus and Broadwell under assumed names. The director of the CIA should not need to be told that e-mails last forever, and that the identities of their senders can easily be determined.

Petraeus has enjoyed rare bipartisan support in Washington, D.C. Though he served under President Obama, he was sometimes mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate. It is unlikely that either party would have gained if his affair had come to light before the election. Petraeus will still testify about the Benghazi killings.

Unless further information comes to light, the story is an old one of power and weakness. A man with the experience and stature of Petraeus should have recognized the warning signs early on regarding Broadwell. He became her advisor and the subject of her doctoral dissertation. Broadwell, as an Army reservist, was his subordinate and at the time of the affair was compiling an admiring biography. Even without the sexual element, the appearance of it all was questionable. Both Petraeus and Broadwell were disloyal to their spouses, and both took risks that show poor judgment.

Disloyalty and recklessness are disqualifying characteristics for a CIA director, as Petraeus recognized. He leaves a legacy of effective leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his ideas on how to wage war under those difficult circumstances will long survive him. However, he made big, dumb and dangerous mistakes, and the only route to redemption is through full acceptance of responsibility and the consequences that come with it.

The timing of the probe, which began last summer, and the resignation, which came days after last week’s election and shortly before Congressional hearings into the killing of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, naturally raises some questions. One caution however. Republicans must tread lightly on pursuing a conspiracy theory that would have Petraeus be some sort of fall guy for the Benghazi killings. There are legitimate questions to be raised about security, the motives of the terrorists involved and what the White House knew in the aftermath of this tragedy and their disclosure of that information to the American people.

 However, General Petraeus’ fall from grace had everything to do with his shortcomings and nothing to do with our nation’s foreign affairs. 

President Obama and Mitt Romney didn’t deliver their post election speeches until early Wednesday morning, Eastern Time. By then, only the hardiest political buffs were likely watching, but their remarks deserved prime-time attention. That is because both the winner and loser graciously put country over partisanship and urged Americans to come together.

Mr. Obama, re-elected for a second term, vowed to begin “the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward.” He said he was “looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together.”

Despite an election campaign filled with images of red states and blue states, he said, Americans are “not as cynical as the pundits believe.... We are and forever will be the United States of America.” He invited Mr. Romney to the White House to discuss how they might work together to move the country forward.

Romney, even though obviously deeply disappointed by his narrow defeat, was equally gracious. “At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work,” he said. “We look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.”

Romney also twice urged Americans to pray on behalf of the president, including that he “will be successful in guiding our nation.”

How can these lofty words be converted into badly needed actions? With Democrats in control of the White House and Senate, and a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, neither party can solve our challenging problems alone.

Major decisions will have to be made about how to cut costs, decisions that almost certainly will be unpopular with many Americans. Can national defense bear some of the cuts in an age when having the best technology trumps having the most planes, ships or personnel? Can Social Security be curtailed in a way that won’t destroy its role as an indispensable source of income for many retirees? Can Medicare undergo a make over, cutting costs while ensuring seniors still receive necessary care?

The President and Democrats say some new sources of revenue, such as raising taxes on the wealthy, are a necessary and logical part of the formula. Republicans have widely taken a pledge not to support any tax hikes. They are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle.

President Obama can explain to the American people how important avoiding the fiscal cliff is to our own wellbeing and urge us to tell our representatives in Congress not to permit it to happen. He must put every part of the budget on the table and live up to his rhetoric that he is someone willing to compromise.

The GOP must do the same, and put its “no new taxes” pledge on hold for the sake of the country. It is long past due for our representatives in Washington, including the president, to put petty politics and gamesmanship aside and be the grown-ups we desperately need.

A compromise plan to avert the fiscal cliff that includes spending cuts that are far larger than the size of any new taxes, as an example, would be in line with the broad Republican goal of reducing the size of government.

If the president and Congress work together to come up with a plan that is fair to all Americans, and explain together why any hardships it may bring are necessary, Americans will take it in stride. We have been managing tough cuts in our own households— we will understand.

Watching the president, the House of Representatives and the United States Senate pull up their sleeves and be able to move beyond bickering and act decisively on our  behalf could give the American spirit the lift it needs. 

As a resident of Maryland, some people have expressed the viewpoint that their vote really doesn’t matter. Our state is as blue as it gets and it will go for President Obama. That’s a fact!  

In your mind you might have a thousand reasons to justify you are not participating in the electoral process next week. You might even tell yourself that your vote doesn't matter, that neither presidential candidate speaks the truth or speaks to the issues that matter to you. You might feel that the system is corrupt, that Wall Street runs the country anyway, and so why bother?

First, voting is both a right and a responsibility as a citizen. Our democracy is founded upon the principle of free and fair elections in which every eligible citizen casts a vote. We must work to ensure that our electoral process is conducted in accordance with this principle and that those who seek to derail the process do not win the day. It is our responsibility to protect the process itself and that will not happen by withdrawing our participation. As messy as it may be, our participation is required.

You might be absolutely correct in your assumption that not voting is a way to register your disdain for the process or the candidates.

It seems that the political process in our country has become woefully off track. We are bombarded daily with television ads, radio spots, text messages, and e-blasts that tell us very little about why we should vote for a candidate but in hateful, spiteful and vicious detail gives us a laundry list of why we shouldn’t vote for the other guy. Politics is no longer a sport of gentlemen and ladies— it has crept into a place of bare-knuckle attacks and gotcha sound bites. No one is arguing that the process is without serious problems. That the system needs reform is without question.

However, you still have your one vote, and if you don't exercise it, you give up your right to have a say in the matter. That, ultimately, is the premise upon which this country was founded. Thousands of people have given their lives so that you have that right.

If you think your vote doesn't matter, consider what the outcome would have been if our founding fathers felt that way. They faced down the nation of most of their births and created one of the greatest countries on the planet, not perfect, but truly great.

Imagine a scenario where we were given an opportunity to talk to some of the Americans who stood up against injustice at a time when our nation was divided.  Could you seriously explain to Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks or Medgar Evers that you just can’t be bothered with casting your vote this year because it just doesn’t matter anymore?

Then there are the ones whose names most of us don't even know: the first black man or woman to be served at an integrated lunch counter or the mothers of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who sent their boys to Mississippi to register blacks to vote only to have them murdered by racists.

What's the difference between any one of these people and you? Absolutely nothing! Except, these people chose to matter. No one gave them permission. Many of them chose to do so in the face of far more difficult circumstances than most of us will ever encounter in our daily lives.

So as you consider whether or not you will vote in this election, ask yourself if your vote matters. If you are honest with yourself, you will push past the cynicism, the broken political system and the far from ideal candidates. On November 6, whether you cast a vote for President Barack Obama or Governor Mitt Romney, you will be among those who showed up and let their voices be heard and their votes be counted.

This week’s presidential debate once again highlighted the importance of women in today’s political culture.

In politics, where there are more men than women in elected positions, it is easy to get the impression that men matter most.