Former Democratic Senator Gary Hart of Colorado suspended his presidential campaign in 1987 following reports of an extramarital affair, becoming one of the first major candidates to see a White House bid derailed by personal conduct revelations in the modern media era. The suspension came after the Miami Herald published reports that Hart had spent the night with Donna Rice, a model and actress, aboard his yacht named "Monkey Business" near Bimini, Bahamas.
Hart, who had been considered the front-runner for the 1988 Democratic nomination, held a news conference in New Hampshire to announce he was temporarily stepping aside. The campaign suspension occurred just days before the New Hampshire primary, where Hart had been polling strongly. He initially challenged reporters to investigate his personal life, saying at one point: "If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead." The Herald took him up on that challenge.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive Democrats and political observers on the left have long debated whether Hart was treated fairly by the press. Some argued that the coverage represented legitimate scrutiny of a candidate's character, while others viewed it as an invasion of privacy that set a troubling precedent for future campaigns. The incident sparked discussions about the difference between a candidate's personal conduct and their fitness to govern.
Former Hart campaign staff members have noted in subsequent interviews that they believed the coverage was excessive and that voters should focus on policy positions rather than extramarital affairs. Some liberal commentators have argued that the Hart episode contributed to a culture of gotcha journalism that disproportionately affects Democratic candidates. The affair also raised questions about how the media handles allegations against women who come forward with claims about politicians.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives and Republican operatives at the time viewed the coverage as appropriate scrutiny of a major party's nominee-in-waiting. They argued that voters deserved to know about character concerns that could affect a president's judgment and decision-making. Some on the right noted that Hart had essentially invited the investigation by daring reporters to follow him.
Republican strategists have cited the Hart episode in subsequent decades as an example of how personal scandals can derail candidacies regardless of policy positions. Conservative commentators have argued that standards for candidates should remain high, particularly for those seeking the nation's highest office. The affair also became a reference point in debates about family values and political campaigns.
What the Numbers Show
Polling data from 1987 showed Hart leading the Democratic primary field with approximately 30 percent support nationally before the scandal broke. After the suspension, his numbers dropped significantly in subsequent polling. ABC News/Washington Post surveys conducted shortly after the revelations showed Hart's favorability ratings declining by double digits among both Democrats and independents.
Hart ultimately attempted to re-enter the race but finished fourth in the New Hampshire primary with approximately 11 percent of the vote, far behind front-runner George H.W. Bush on the Republican side and several Democratic competitors including Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson.
The Bottom Line
The Hart suspension marked a watershed moment in American political journalism, establishing precedents for how campaigns investigate and report on candidate personal lives that continue to shape coverage today. The episode raised enduring questions about the boundary between legitimate public interest and private conduct, particularly as it relates to fitness for office versus personal morality.
For modern campaigns, the Hart case serves as an early example of how quickly political fortunes can change in the 24-hour news cycle. It also highlighted the risks candidates face when making challenges to journalists that may be accepted. Political observers continue to debate whether Hart's treatment was fair or whether it represented excess, a question that remains relevant every election cycle.