Whatever the deficiencies of the American system of government—and there are many—it seemed to work well enough in the case of Richard Nixon. The Watergate scandal had uncovered widespread abuse of power and criminal acts at the highest level of the executive. Despite desperate attempts by Nixon and his acolytes to put a lid on the affair, the sordid secrets of his attempts to subvert the law came to light, exposing the president as a criminal.

Despite widespread media coverage of the Watergate scandal, it was the political system rather than the media that eventually forced Nixon from office. If the relevant checks and balances had not been in place it's likely that he would've tried to tough it out, hoping for the storm to blow over. That Nixon was unable to do that is because the American governmental system had the provisions in place to force him out of office.

Nixon only resigned because he knew that Congress would vote to impeach him and have him removed from office. Such a humiliation would've been unthinkable to Nixon; he would've gone down in history as the first president to be forced out this way. So he responded in the only way he could: by resigning. In this way—to his satisfaction, at least—he was able to save face.

I am writing the day after Rep. Weiner resigned his position, following the outcry over his sexting exploits were revealed. I think the power of the media and the social networking made possible through Twitter, Facebook, IM, and other electronic means of communication is going to put the lives of public officials in particular under an increasingly powerful microscope.

I agree that Watergate demonstrated the basic strength of the American system of checks and balances within the government and the citizens involved in that process. I wonder if the "plan" would have even gotten off the ground if the communications we have available now had existed in 1974...

I believe that it primarily demonstrated the strengths of our system; as a previous post noted, Nixon was forced from office because of the public outcry. It also served notice to future presidents that such deceit and shenanigans will not be tolerated. President Clinton also faced the real threat of impeachment because of his indiscretions, and with the increased media scrutiny and the rising power of the Internet to publicly detail virtually all information, our leaders will continue to be under the microscope.

I think there was an inherent weakness demonstrated in that the system itself neither guarded against Nixon's excesses of Presidential power, nor detected them when they happened.  I would bet that many if not most Presidents have done things beyond the Constitutional limits of their office and have not been caught or prosecuted. 

On the other hand, the Fourth Estate, the free press, was the element of our democracy that uncovered Watergate and followed it all the way to the White House, so as a check and balance of their own they functioned quite well.

I agree that it demonstrated strength.  The reason for that is that a sitting president was forced out of office for trying to use his position to cover up a crime that had been committed.  The Congress and the Courts (and most importantly the people) did not simply allow Nixon to do what he wanted.  Instead, they pressured him enough that he was forced to leave.

No system can ever prevent officials from abusing their power.  But a strong system can punish an official who abuses his power.  Weak systems (think Italy and Berlusconi) allow the abuse to continue.  The US had a system that was strong enough to punish Nixon for his actions and then continue on without faltering.