Good grief, not someone here, too. No, the only "difference" is that Clinton broke the law and Gingrich didn't.
Clinton, even though he wasn't convicted, was found in contempt of court, lost his license to practice law and was fined nearly $100K. Other than that, sure, there weren't any differences between what Clinton did and what Gingrich did.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I was responding to Newt’s explanation of his adultery vs. that of Clinton. Yes I’m very aware that Clinton lied under oath. What I meant was if Newt had been under oath and asked if he was committing adultery, would he have lied? I kind of think he might have. I’m not excusing Clinton - just saying that they both committed adultery - Clinton was put into a position to lie under oath about it, Newt wasn’t.