The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Clinton should reject and denounce Spitzer endorsement.

I will go one better...Hillary Clinton whole heartedly endorsed Spitzer. Hmmmm....so much for good judgement...wouldnt one say. And yes you are right...how come she hasnt denounced this pervert. Boy if it was Obama we would never hear the end of it.

Why isn't anyone talking about the relationship between HRC and NY Governor Spitzer. Governor Spitzer is a Hillary supporter who is now allegedly under investigation for being involved with a prostitution ring. I have not seen a single story questioning her judgment for supporting and associating with such a person. Meanwhile, Senator Obama has to answer questions regarding legal awards that his pastor has given? SNL was right about they're being a double standard for the candidates. It's too bad they don't realize who is getting the special treatment.

I guess, Hillary needs to convene a 3AM meeting to find out where she stands on prostitution.

As a supporter of equal rights, I cannot believe, that Clinton could look the other way at this exploitation of women... again.

Unbelievable, Shrillary has no comment on Spitzer's extramarital activities. Having tolerated Slick Willie's dalliances lo these many years, one would think she is an expert in this arena by now.

I am just and 83 year-old Demo who hoped to live long enough to see a Demo in the White House again; but with the antics of this high-level Demo, the GOP spinmeisters will have a field day in the general election.

Finally, let us see if the media wakes up long enough to press Shrillary on the Clinton's tax returns, and whether she plans to publicly condemn Spitzer.

Omyobama:

Hey, you missed Gavin Newsom. All these "special" people raised money for Clinton and spoke at Clinton rallies-- Cisneros, Newsom, and Villaraigosa most recently in Texas.

The question Americans need to ask is: do we really want people as corrupt as the Clintons to represent our country?

She has responded in her own, special way by removing him from her list of endorsers. However, traces - at least as of now - remain:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007537.html

On a more serious note, perhaps the WaPo would care to connect the dots between the personal scandals involving Spitz and AntonioVillaraigosa and their support for illegal activity: in the case of Spitz rewarding those who've come here illegally, and in the case of TonyVillar constantly supporting illegal immigration.

Of course, considering that the WaPo explicitly supports illegal immigration, their hands might get a bit shaky when trying to connect those dots.

No big deal. He's already prostituted himself to Clinton.

And what possible comment could she make? Invite Spitzer to pose for a photo op with her other "special" Super Delegates -- Antonio Villaraigosa, Henry Cisneros ... Bill Clinton? Of course, no one in the Clinton campaign would ever seek to tar another candidate for their connections to some unsavory, indicted supporter, would they? Hmmmm...

Hillary Clinton should denounce and reject her superdelegate's actions.

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/client-9.html

"Monday, March 10, 2008
Client 9

Or, as is likely to be said in the coming media Schadenfreude, Emperor's Club R. I. P.

The question will be asked repeatedly: How could someone of such seeming moral recititude, who seemed not only to base his career on such rectitude but to be driven to it, commit such an act?

In such a question, people make a simple but understandable error--they look at the fact that someone has embraced the mantle of morality--rather than the reasons for it.

There are many reasons why people adopt a particularly moral stance. For some, morality is method of controlling an otherwise fearful world, allowing one to keep a sense of predictability and control over what would otherwise be a rush of panic in the face of life's unpredictability and chaos. For others, morality serves a kind of tribal purpose, a tie to family and origins, maintaining a sense of stability and permanence through clansmanship. For others, it is a weapon of sheer opportunism, a way, among the human weapons seen across millenia, to evince power and dominion over others.

None of these are, of course, mutually exclusive, and people will often display several of these forms and bases for morality.

For Spitzer, however, morality appears to have had a particular been powerfully yoked to twin and inextricably tied purposes: competition and ambition.

Driven from an early age, morality seems to have been inextricably yoked to Spritzers remarkable drive to indicate that he was stronger, better than his competitors. Spitzer went after morality with a relish--and a tendency, which he struggled to fight down over the years, to rub victories in the face of those he had vanquished --that suggests a drive to morality as a form of competitive victory and evidence of personal superiority--the relish of a perfect score against those who would do lesser--of winning.

This is not to say that Spitzer did not see his targets as morally wrong--indeed, their moral flaws provided the spark and impetus for battle-- nor that he did not wish to correct moral wrongs. However, it is to say that the most powerful and persistent motivation driving this each day, was Spizters drive to compete, to emerge perfectly victorious over those who were thus proven as lesser, and the division of people into rather simplistic and binary forms of good and evil to serve the sense ones own victorious perfection.

Such a moral stance--of victory and defeat, of good (Spitzer) and bad (his vanquished enemies)-- can lead to a particular (and likely rapid) form of inner moral accounting and comparison: One can feel that they are so far "ahead" in moral victories as compared to the vastly less moral and vanquished others, that they are allowed a structured, narrow, and quiet deviation. After all--they are still far ahead in the moral contest, with so many victories, as compared to those that they have turned out as far less moral. Given such a margin, one can be allowed a flaw--and still be winning. It is no wonder that many of Spitzer's enemies viewed him as, at times, embracing a double standard.

Regardless of how one may view such a standard, it is different than a morality that views moral failure as human flaw; where one recognizes that there are not good people who win (Spitzer) and bad people (others) who, in a rush of competitive self-enhancement, must be defeated, but that all people must fight against human flaw. In such a moral scheme, one includes themselves. As a reformer embracing this moral approach, one would work to expose immorality for its social harms, rather than as a route to personal and professional competition and victory--and would also recognize the tendency to such flaw within themselves.

This will burn like a brushfire. Spitzer, despite the desire to fight to the last, will, in the crush of revelations, and in the unending march of human hubris, irony, and folly, likely have to resign.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/client-9.html

New York Stock Exchange commented, sort of:

Stock Exchange Cheers News Of Spitzer's Involvement With Prostitution Ring:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/item.php?itemid=519149