Let's call these idiot politicians for what they are and that is, IMATURE A--HOLES No. 1. It seems to me that it must be one of those special "silent" codes that governors have that allows them to think that they can get away with ridiculous shenanigans such as what we've witnessed with Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey and now Eliot Spitzer. And that's not to take anything away from all other politicians that have been doing this sort of thing for years. But it is sad to see how the people with titles of power just go about their merry way to abuse this power entrusted to them by the public. Each one actually thinks that they will somehow escape the law in satisfying their insatiable lust for sex and power! But even more disgusting is their respective spouses who stand by their "man" and encourage their husbands to stay on the job. These losers sure like being humiliated in front of all the world. Their lust for power or better yet, the perks they get from being the first lady of the state overshadows any form of humiliation that is thrown their way. Hillary was so adamant that all the allegations against her husband was nothing more than a concerted witch hunt by the republicans. Which made her look like a complete "FOOL" when those allegations were proven to be true. She never apologized for her stupid comment that is was a "right wing conspiracy". But as mentioned before, she stood by her sleaze bag of a husband and was focused on the ultimate goal of having a shot at the presidency of the United States, which she is currently in the fight of her life for, to an opponent she dismissed way before the race began.

We also have Mrs. McGreevey who also was standing by her "girlieman" all because she didn't want to give up her status as first lady of New Jersey. A total loser that we just found out was involved in a "threesome sexual escapade" with Jim and another bisexual man. How steemy this relationship got as reported by the partner is pure tabloid fodder. And Mrs. McGreevey knew all along that Jim was a homosexual. She claims she didn't know. What a bunch of crap!!! Loser to the bitter end!

Then we have Eliot "client 9" Spitzer who couldn't spend enough to satisfy his libido. But yet there again we see a spouse who according to news reports, knew of Eliot's extra-marital activities. Even by her own admission, Eliot's mother-in-law also knew what was happening. And once again, the Mrs. told 'Happy" Spitzer not to quit his job. She couldn't stand losing her position as first lady of New York. Can these ladies be more pathetic in their lust for power than what their apprearence is to all the world.

It is amazing that life doesn't change over the years. These same indescretions plagued the Romans, Greeks and all other empires. This "Empire" is no different. People are people and so long as temptation exists, there will be "suckers" ready and willing to step in and claim the "fools gold".

Spitzer sounds like a prince compared to Bill Clinton. Poeple gloss over these facts with statements like Cris's about the "relationship with Monica Lewinsky" that Bill Clinton had. He DID NOT have a relationship with her. He used her and threw her away with no intent on her being anything except a receptical (unfortunately for him some got on her dress). Whether you like Hillary and Bill or not let us not forget how incredibally wrong what he did was. Any executive that did the same and got caught would have been fired immediately!!!

Posted by: dyork
__________________________________________

In point of fact, the Starr Report stated that Clinton would not ej@culate with Monica, but would go to a nearby toilet and m@sturb@te to climax.

It is interesting that factually discussing a matter of political import brings one up against the WaPo comment censors. A sad commentary.

Poeple gloss over these facts with statements like Cris's about the "relationship with Monica Lewinsky" that Bill Clinton had. ... He used her and threw her away with no intent on her being anything except a receptical (unfortunately for him some got on her dress)....

Posted by: dyork
__________________________________________

In point of fact, the Starr Report disclosed that Clinton would not ejaculate with Monica. He would go into an adjacent toilet and masturbate to climax.

Pamela, your reply and this from the London Times raised my cynicism level above my empathy level.

From the London Times:

"A hard-driving corporate lawyer who met her husband at Harvard Law School...

Mrs Spitzer specialised in mergers and acquisitions at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, billing 3,300 hours one year, or 9.04 hours a day. She then joined Chase Manhattan Bank as an in-house counsel. In 1994 she put her career on hold for her husband to pursue his political ambitions. In 1996 she set up a charity called Children for Children to get young people involved in community service.

When her husband became New York Governor he gave her an office in the Governor's wing of the state Capitol in Albany. He declared her a trusted aide."
------------------
Will she wait until she is near 60 to claim her "35 years of experience?"

"Why do politicians further humiliate their spouses by dragging them out on stage with them for their instant apologies?"

Good question, Mark, you had to feel sorry for her, but I wonder if Silda Spitzer was "dragged out"? The NYT is reporting she's been encouraging him to try and hold on...as NY waits...

The press is wrong to single out Governor Spitzer for his sanctimony, for here is
a trait at which Americans excel; he is only a middling practioner.

Should sanctimoniousness become an Olympic event, we will bring home the gold, silver and bronze every time.

Imagine the Dream Team we might field.

A shortlist of potential contenders would surely include William Bennett, Cokie Roberts, Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Carter, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Oprah Winfrey, Senator Hillary Clinton - and the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

In Beijing's smog, our team would atomize the competition with their all-American
not-so-secret weapon: smug.

how do you know Spitzer is a Democrat?

the illicit sex was with an adult woman

Why do politicians further humiliate their spouses by dragging them out on stage with them for their instant apologies?

Is there any way the Clintons can wait until after the election to start up with the scandals again ??? First Hsu Now Eliot the Spitzer.

The worst part is that apparently he didn't want to use a condom.

This guy prosecuted a case just like this a few years ago - the charges for hypocracy should have an add-on of about 20 years, what do you think?

In a number of ways I feel sorry for Spitzer. He reminds me of guys in the military. You're a scared kid, survive some action, get your mojo, handle the next run, get a kill or two, and suddenly your Sgt. Rock.

You become overly agressive, sometimes brutal. You start hand picking your "team". Trash those who disagree with your methods. Win/Kill is the game. You go over the top. Everyone covers for you because you're, well, Sgt. Rock.

At some point in time, you're faced with a choice. Tougher men usually do an about-face. Weaker men -- often the little guy that only started off to prove himself, keep pushing harder. And then, some, make that fatal mistake.

It doesn't matter who. It could be you, your men, foreign innocents, forign combatants whith their hands in the air. But someone dies because of your arrogance, beleif in your own superiority. Belief that you can do anything and walk away.

Just like Eliot Spitzer.

And just like Bill Calley.

Fortunately, no one died. Mr. Spitzer can quietly walk away. Deal with the casualties -- and there are many -- and go home. If there is a home to go home to.

A part of me feels bad for the man. Part of me doesn't.

Jack Heismann

Democrats are the party of felons. 85% to be exact according to hilary rotten clinton. Democrats suck. I laugh at you cry babies whining about Vitter. Your party of perpetual fraud is a joke , deal with you Un-American losers.

svreader: here's the all-time in self-righteous lying:

"I've been married for 29 years to a wonderful woman and never even been tempted to cheat on her or on our children."

That's from our friend mibrooks. Never even tempted, in 29 years. Not that he ever did it, but that he was never even tempted. LOL

Get more on the Spitzer scandal from the New York perspective. Check out Thirteen/WNET New York's special Spitzer report:
http://www.thirteen.org/insidethirteen/?p=24

The panel of guests included political commentator Fred Siegal; Andrea Bernstein, Political Director at WNYC radio; former New York City Parks Commissioner Henry Stern; Susan Arbetter, host of WHMT/Albany's New York Now and Errol Louis, political columnist for the New York Daily News.

The self-righteous hypocrisy of Obama supporters that are "shocked, shocked" about Bill Clinton's BJ is usually only seen in closeted gay republicans.

Give the rest of us a break, fellas.

We know that most if not all of you have gotten something on the side at some point in your lives.

If you haven't, its probably because you're so ugly that nobody's offered.

Americans care a lot more about Obama's Cocaine abuse than Bill's BJ.

Watch Obama's numbers drop like a stone when Middle America finds that one out.

So this might not hurt McC at all.

------------------------

You may indeed be right.

One item that I have yet to see posted is the possibility that a subsidiary of HALIBURTON once did work for the Mayflower Hotel. That would explain a lot of things.

"The Boeing caper could come back to hurt McCain big time" according to wpost.

But it might not. The Boeing bids were subject to GAO criticism as was the Pentagon's insistence in using "other transaction authority" to take bids on major projects when that process was meant for small projects only.

"The Government Accountability Office had raised the issue of significant risks in this contracting process. Its representative said that the Army's decision to proceed with the contract had been "premature" because the individual components had not been fully examined before the contract was awarded."

I suspect that McC might wish he had not taken contribs from these folks after the contract was let, but I also suspect that the GAO will back him on his claim that the contracting process was improved and costs were reduced.

And Boeing gave him more contribs before the contract was let.

Biden once said that everybody contributes if you are on a committee deciding an issue among potential contributors. What strikes me is how much Boeing gave to apparently bend the rules and how minimally "grateful" Airbus's American partners were after the fact.

So this might not hurt McC at all.

What is worth noting in the transcripts of the wiretaps is the true nature of prostitution.

While the company advertised the "escorts" as young women with degrees, careers, etc etc, they were nothing of the sort...although I'm sure the johns liked the fiction...and the owner of the company himself said in one conversation that most of the women end up involved with drugs and self-destruct.

This is the truer view of a business where human beings are treated as commodities.

It is not a victimless criminal activity.

Spitzer may have felt aove the law before, but it's coming back to haunt him now...

"If early reports are right, it's not the Mann Act angle (arranging for the girl to cross state lines) that's captured the attention of federal investigators so much as the money angle.

In particular, the probers are said to be looking at what are known as "structuring" charges against Spitzer, based on the possibility that he subdivided or mislabeled cash transfers so as to evade bank reporting requirements or other scrutiny."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzVjMjVjN2IzZjI4ZDRiMGQ1N2Y2YzAzMDBkNDFiZDc=

drindl - I am not following the McCain "issue" so you'll have to explain it to me. On one hand, "McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus". Miniscule contributions began to flow in 2007, after he had already taken action and signaled his intentions during the previous five years! So, is the criticism that McCain tried for years to incorporate competition into the bidding process (instead of sole sourcing it) and provide for a fair and open competition and then got a few contributions after the fact? The other part missing is the amount of contributions he may have received from Boeing:

Boeing (1989-2008 )
Clinton $46,748
Obama $35,053
McCain $39,540

So he received substantially more from Boeing but yet did not do them any favors. The nerve!

Now, this makes Spitz look a saint:

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,57158

I'm going to take a different approach to this scandal. In 2006 Chuck Shumer stumped for Tom Souzzi because of a personal rift between him & Spitzer. Shumer never liked Spitzer & still doesn't. Think about the times you saw Shumer & Souzzi side by side in the 06 Democratic primary race. They knew no well known Republican was running so D's had the seat in the bag, and Shumer really didn't want to see Spitzer as governor. Could is be possible that Shumer had Spitzer investigated by the FBI? Does anyone know how deep the Spitzer vs. Shumer feud runs? There has been absolutely no press coverage on anything that resembles this as a Shumer vs. Spitzer personal feud, but that's not to say it's not.

One experience with a foreign affair ...

Because of the Spitzer affair, Hillary will now be asked by the media about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica by the media. She is no doubt be highly qualified to answer them - given her experience!

Boeing Co. said it plans to protest the Air Force's decision to award a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers to a team comprising Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent company of rival Airbus.

The move sets up a protracted political fight over the use of foreign contractors for U.S. military jobs.

Boeing said it will file a formal protest today for the first time this decade, asking the Government Accountability Office to review the Air Force's decision to give the contract to Northrop and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120518751897125441.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

This delays Air Force acquisition of a badly needed airframe (most of the current tankers are 50+ year old KC-135s), it forces the winning bidders to waste resources playing defense, and it's a PR disaster for Boeing. Every day that this story is in the news, it reminds the American public that the reason the Air Force is still flying such an ancient fleet of tankers is the Boeing corruption scandal of the early 2000s.

Now they're further delaying the deployment, in what looks to be a chronic case of sore loser syndrome. John McCain played an improtant role in blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. The deal was killed in 2004 after a former Boeing executive improperly recruited an Air Force official while she was still overseeing contracts involving prospective Boeing deals.

The former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials. McCain was right - it was a corrupt deal and he courageously stood up against it despite many of his foes in the R party vowing payback.

McCain has always been in the trenches fighting "pork" such as the tanker project , this time is no different.

Bottom line: Boeing is smarter than this. They should recognize a losing battle when they see one, and let the Air Force get those new planes into the war.

I think this development in NY State gives an out to those Democratic primary voters and superdelegates sitting on the fence who are attracted to Obama, but don't want to see Clinton humiliated.

With a clear path for her to move up in NY, they will be free now vote for Obama with a clear conscience, knowing Clinton can save face and continue her own personal ascent.

This idea is based on the same theory whereby Clinton has offered Obama the vice presidency--if he's got a safe place to go, his supporters are more free to spread their loyalties.

The Boeing caper could come back to hurt McCain big time.

CC-- you must be joking [or smoking] if you think Rudy could win the governorship of New York. Perhaps you didn't notice, but his presidential bid totally bombed here--it was a joke. He's just an embarrassment to himself--he'll never be elected to anything again.

bloomberg, maybe. but I sincerely doubt he will get the support of many Dems after propping up the floundering NY R's with a little half million bucks to help them stay in power:

ALBANY-- News that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg quietly provided $500,000 to state Republicans to help them retain control of the Senate triggered anger among Democrats in the Capitol on Monday, with some predicting that the mayor had badly damaged his legislative agenda.

Critics on Tuesday questioned whether Sen. John McCain catered to special interests when he aggressively threw his support behind a $35 billion Pentagon contract for a European plane maker.

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, played a crucial role in blocking the deal to build air tankers from going to U.S.-based Boeing, instead paving the path for EADS to score the loot. He framed his decision as an example of political integrity; Boeing has previously been exposed of contract abuse. But a review of campaign finance donations and lobbying records suggests that money and personal lobbying may have also been in play.

On January 15, 2007, McCain appeared at Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's gubernatorial swearing in ceremony and formally called for multiple bidders in the tanker deal. The push for an open process had only one true beneficiary, however, and that was the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium, which was poised to be Boeing's sole competitor.

A day after McCain made his proclamation, the contributions began to flow. John Green, a lobbyist for EADS donated $2,100 to the senator's presidential campaign. Ten days after that, Michelle Lammers, the "Chief of Staff" for EADS North America, gave $250 to the McCain campaign. It was her first political contribution ever. Less than a month later, the long-time head of EADS' government affairs program, Samuel Adcock, made a $2,100 donation to McCain. And eleven days later, Ralph Crosby, the head of EADS North America, donated $2,300 himself.

All told, as documented earlier by CQ PoliticalMoneyline, McCain received more than $15,000 from EADS and its subsidiary, Airbus North America. Not only was this the highest amount received by any federal candidate, but prior to 2006, not a single employee from EADS had ever contributed to McCain. Two Airbus employees did donate nearly $4,000 for his 2000 run at the White House.

More corruption from McCain's lobbyist-riddled campaing staff:

'Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.

Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.

EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on Feb. 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company "found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal."

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon's yearslong attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus.'

to answer my own question...

I just saw LT Gov. Paterson is already committed to HillBilly. But that could change

Does anyone think--forgive me--'Spitz-gate', will have any damaging effect that overflows into HillBilly's campaign?

Being that its HillBilly's governor (superdelegate).

Will the soon to be second black governor in US History...NY's Lt Gov. David "Legally-Blind" Paterson throw his suport as a superdelegate towards Obama?

wpost4112

You make a good point. There is A LOT MORE bagagge that Hillary will bring to the White House then just Bill's unfaithfulness. My point still stands this bagagge will limit her ability to do the job. And we don't need that.

And again, I don't care if she leaves him but I do care if this bagagge makes it's way into the White House and gets in the way of the President's ability to do his/her job.

--------------

well, the strange thing is...Willy's strong libido didn't effect his job...it was Hillary's inability to work with the Media that caused the problems.

If you do the research, the Wash Post wanted info on Whitewater and Hillary threw up a wall...which led to the Post getting much more aggressive, which led to their finding out about Willy's sexual habits in Arkansas, which led to special prosecutor which led to Monica which led to Willy's lying under oath.

Hillary was always the problem, not Bill. If she had given the Post some info on Whitewater, they would have never pressed for more info.

"spunctator?"

Ooh that was a good one. Should I call you bumjerky or something equally clever?

If you had been around here for more than a few hours you'd know that I plan to vote for whoever is the Dem nominee against the doddering McCain.

...well she also has a bigger set of Balls than a lot of the men in politics.

She's like Jamie Lee Curtis.

...other than a Vagina.

bsimon

I can answer that.

NOTHING

"What's interesting is that she could be in better shape politically if she had left Bubba. She'd still have the last name, with none of the baggage."

But also none of the experience. Without Bill, what does she have?

The Spitzer's scandal is nothing compared to the scandals that will be highlighted when the Clintons will have released their records (tax returns, White House records, big donors to their foundation, etc.). Hopefully, the Clintons will be pressured to release the irrecords before the nomination; if Hillary is part of a ticket and these scandals come to light, then John McCain will be the next president and the GOP will take the House and the Senat, regardless of the Spitzer's scandal.

"I'm surprised such a perfect person as yourself still supports an admitted drug user like Obama (that being a serious crime, of course)."

So long as we are weighing transgressions, the Bill Clinton is an adulterer AND drug user.

But enough of the name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Reconcile for us the right of females to be empowered as symbolized by the possible first female leader of the free world with being walked all over by a serial adulterer.

What's that? I can't hear you! Oh yeah, because the only two explanations for Hillary's behavior is that she is a doormat to timid to do what 99% of the planet, self-righteous or otherwise would do; OR she is a conniving Lady Macbeth willing to subvert her family (yet get mad when someone hints at Chelsea being pimped out) for a chance at ... what? History? This sounds like what I would want in a president!

Obama and Hill are virtual twins when it comes to policy. His problem is experience, hers is likability. Obama is smart enough to learn quickly on the job, whereas Hillary will never overcome the perception that she is either timid or untrustworthy (probably both).

But this is all moot, since in Denver right now the DNC is brewing up a Rocky Mountain sized can of whoop-ass, to be opened on Hillary. And you know what spunctator? THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spectator2:

I also disagree with:
"...supports an admitted drug user like Obama (that being a serious crime, of course)."

Admitting to using drugs in one's past is hardly a serious crime.

After all, current drug laws may very well be unconstitutional.

Anyway, some people drink alcohol; others smoke pot.

To Each Their Own.

Violant crimes that violate the rights of others are the only 'serious crimes'. Everything else is just Tabu.

Spitzer needs to resign, and leading Democrats with some influence on him need to call for his resignation. This is not just a case of cheating on one's wife, as unattractive as that behavior might be. This is a case of breaking of the law by a leader sworn to uphold it. If Democrats want to establish their "brand" as being standing for principles, not just partisanship, they need to hold their own to the standards to which the Republicans didn't hold their own (except in cases where the behavior looked gay).

What Spitzer's wife chooses to do--forgive, support, excuse--is neither a legal nor a political issue, however. It's her business.

Spectator2

Do you see a difference in a adulterer (say a couple discrete flings) and someone who is a serial adulterer and a sexual predator and accused rapist like Bill Clinton? Can you admit that he has really pushed the envelope in this area. I agree that a spouse should not just up and leave but when is enough enough in your view?

And again, I don't care if she leaves him but I do care if this bagagge makes it's way into the White House and gets in the way of the President's ability to do his/her job.

Spectator2
I disagree with:
"hat's interesting is that she could be in better shape politically if she had left Bubba. She'd still have the last name, with none of the baggage. Just one of those tantalizing What Ifs."

In US History there have been 41* men elected president (Grover Cleveland was #22 & #24).

Of the 41 men only 1 Buchanan was a bachlor. Rumored to have been gay lovers with Senator/13th Vice President William King. And that Buchanan's neice destroyed all of their love letters.

My point Hillary is too smart to have ever thought Americans would elect a divorced woman as US President.
Ergo
She needed Bill.

Everything she has achieved, has been on Bill's coattales. Is that feminist? I doubt it.

Eliot Spitzer has been a great help to ordinary investors on Wall Street and as such he should be kept in office. I personally had over $1000 returned to me from a mutual fund I invested in where the manager acted criminally and eventually went to jail.
Stopping crime on Wall Street is a seriously good thing to do. Buying sex from a high priced prostitute is stupid but is very minor. Let's legalize prostitution and keep Eliot Spitzer. We just don't have enough people monitoring illegal activity on Wall Street.
And by the way, giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses has worked very well in New Mexico and other states. What is the big deal in New York? Spitzer should have been applauded, not booed.

Spectator2

You can't seperate public and provate. She either condones the behavior or she doesn't. I can care less what she does in her private life. If he wagged his finger at Hillary at home instead of us, and sent her out to lie instead of his Cabinent, and she had told him it was a 'Vast rightwing consiracy' not us then it would be okay. But they lied to us and made excuses to us and tried to tear down other people. That makes it public.

"Cuomo is anoher one of those go after folks types like Spitzer. So what's he hiding?"

Are we going to now assume that every aggressive attorney general is hiding something? Interesting turn of events. Sort of undercuts the whole idea of an attorney general or even prosecutors.

Even though it would involve a reduction in income, what about Bill running for Gov in NYS ? He's not doing much good these days.Hillary will still be in the Senate and he can check out all kinds of new state employees. "Go Baby !!! "

"You must have grown up in a b0rdell0 to let your morals slip so low. I can see why you support the Clintons."

What an a-hole you are. I guess whenever you hear of someone cheating on their spouse, you immediately demand that the other spouse leave.

I'm surprised such a perfect person as yourself still supports an admitted drug user like Obama (that being a serious crime, of course).

Cuomo is anoher one of those go after folks types like Spitzer. So what's he hiding?

"Oh please, you self-righteous clown. Let us know when you get back to the real world."

You must have grown up in a b0rdell0 to let your morals slip so low. I can see why you support the Clintons.

"Remember the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' charge she threw out?"

I was talking about their private life. The VRWC was for public consumption.

"Any self-respecting spouse and parent would throw a bum like Bill out."

Oh please, you self-righteous clown. Let us know when you get back to the real world.

"Nah. The country may be ready for a female president, but not a divorced female president. imho."

That's why there's a genre of literature called alternative history in the science fiction category. If Hill had dumped Bill, the world would be very different. You just can't say, take the world as it is, and plug in a divorced Hill.

Well, Mr. Clean can always get a job as attorney for Bill Clinton.

The point is that the crux of each of these stories is the same: High-level politician using prostitution ring. Bill Clinton's sex scandal didn't even rise to this because the sex wasn't illegal.

-------------------

And the only reason for that is because the WH is exempt from the legalities concerning sexual harassment in the workplace to which we common people are subject, including "consensual" sexual relationships with those over whom one has power.

For Mrs. Spitzer to "stand by her man" makes some sense if this is the first time such an allegation has been made against Gov. Spitzer.

But for Hillary, Bill Clinton has had multiple allegations and lawsuits surround affairs and sexual harrassment. Why would a woman who is supposedly as intelligent and independent subject herself to 10 to 15 years of public humiliation that had truth to it? Yes, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, and others. Hillary has a conniving and devious side of her character that needs to be explored by the media.

excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior";

I don't think any of us know if she did any of those things.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 11, 2008 01:48 PM

I won't respond in kind to your earlier post and call you names but how can you seriously look at just the known history in this area and say that we do not know if she excused, overlookedd, or made allowances for his behavior. Remember the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' charge she threw out?

"I don't think any of us know if she did any of those things."

This sounds like Wolfson spin. Or is it Penn? Any self-respecting spouse and parent would throw a bum like Bill out. If you can't respect yourself, how can you respect the office of the president or the people you serve?

Do you think Monica was a first offense? The big creep admitted on national TV in 1992 that he caused pain aka shtupped hairdressers during his marriage. Either Hillary is a big dope for being oblivious to her husband's indiscretions (and if she can't keep tabs on her husband with the help of the Secret Service in her own house, how will she keep tabs on Al Qaida in a cave on the other side of the planet?), or she shrewdly condoned Bill's behavior with an eye towards the presidency. Is this your hero?

" ... or gettin' poked on the side."

well, not the side, exactly!

" she could be in better shape politically if she had left Bubba"

Nah. The country may be ready for a female president, but not a divorced female president. imho.

It's about time a Democrat got caught fooling around on the missus - it was getting to be like a broken record, reading and hearing about all the Republican hypocrites blathering on about family values while their were pokin' or gettin' poked on the side.

Some obviously sexist comments (and I'm a former, not present, HRC supporter) overlook the fact that this is a net gain for Hillary. Paterson, according to most published reports, was slogging away in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states for Hillary while Spitzer was playing hard to get for his endorsement and barely, if at all, campaigning for her. In fact, this is a blessing in disguise for HRC. Paterson (spelled with one 't' from what I can tell) may become her highest ranking African American officeholder to support her. If Spitzer resigns, Paterson will be grabbing headlines and will continue his unwavering support of HRC.

I am sure that is why she stayed with him. But it leaves her vulnerable to being sidelined by it (the scandals) while trying to do her job. Personally I do not want to have that hanging over the Presidentcy again, keeping agendas we need from being completed. This risk is enough for me to not want a Clinton back in the White House.

Local (Rochester) Republicans are relishing Spitzer's disgrace - sort of the same kind of glee expressed on Wall St. yesterday.

I don't see any way Spitzer stays in office - he has only a small base of support b/c of his combativeness and unlike the senators and congressman who have been "caught" a governor can't simply blend into the background until the end of his term. If he's in office, no one will be talking about the state budget, his plans to cap school property taxes, etc. - it will 24/7 scandal. If he leaves now, at least he has a shred of dignity and a legacy of accomplishments as AG.

If Bloomberg was considering an independent run for president, why not for governor? I'm sure the Democrats could field some strong candidates - including Patterson, if he does well in the next 3 years (his profile in the local media is very positive - a smart, accomplished consensus builder, as well as the first African American governor). I don't see any strong Republican competition except possibly Giuliani, but it always seemed the "idea" of Rudy was more attractive than the actual candidate.

Bloomberg has 3 years to float the idea of an independent candidacy. Don't discount the disgust most New Yorkers have for the state government - both parties are inept. I think he could win.

"Maybe she doesn't condone Bill's behaviour rather she ignors it.

What could she gain?

It has already granted her a Seat in the Senate.

And now...
She is in shouting distance away from being ominated president herdelf."

What's interesting is that she could be in better shape politically if she had left Bubba. She'd still have the last name, with none of the baggage. Just one of those tantalizing What Ifs.

Most insightful remark in NYT column:

It is sometimes speculated that certain politicians, at least subconsciously, want to be caught and have their careers upended. But do they?

"I've never seen it," said Dr. Farley. "I don't believe it's a factor with these people. It's just in their nature to push things. I don't think they have a death wish. I think they have a life wish. They just love all aspects of life -- some of it too much."

This is as old as King David...or as far back as you wish to go in any culture/civilization.

The fallout of Elliot Spitzer will be far worse than Bill Clinton, because the legal issues surrounding the scandal as well as the amount of detail coming out about the scandal. When the Lewinski scandal came out it was paraphrased as a young woman giving oral sex to the President. The Lewinski scandal was framed to make us believe that Lewinski acted upon the president, and not vice versa. There was more scandalous sexual acts done by Bill Clinton on Lewinski.

The Spitzer scandal has unsavory details coming out without any allegations of law-breaking on Spitzer's part. The actual details of the acts performed captured from wire-tapping are available and will immediately turn-off many voters once more details are released.

Many voters old enough to remember the Lewinski fiasco need to be reminded of the public embarrassment and distraction that scandal led America into.

Say no to the past and yes to the future...OBAMA in 08!

"If she didn;t condone his behavior I doubt she would stay in the marriage."

Unless she wanted to run for President herself someday and she made the politcal calculation that it was worth it to stay in. It was her only chance and she knew it.

Sounds like a bad deal to me, but what do I know?

excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior";

I don't think any of us know if she did any of those things.

dyork

Maybe she doesn't condone Bill's behaviour rather she ignors it.

What could she gain?

It has already granted her a Seat in the Senate.

And now...
She is in shouting distance away from being ominated president herdelf.

That's likely why she stayed with Bill; Self-Preservation.

The definition of Condone is below, which fits Hillary to a 'T'. If she didn;t condone his behavior I doubt she would stay in the marriage.

excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior"; "She condoned her husband's occasional infidelities

I'm a New Yorker...

Speaker of the State Assembly Sheldon Silver. Is a longshot. But why not, with over 30 years experience in the Assembly?

But perhaps after Obama wins the nominations, and passes her up as his running-mate, Hillary Clinton could choose to run.

Or better yet BILL CLINTON a New York resident could make History by becoming not only one of a small number of Governors who have governed multiple states. But also as a former President turned governor.

"Hillary obviously condones Bill's behavior or she would leave."

What a silly comment. If someone does something you don't like -- at work, school, home, etc -- do you just "leave"? There is a middle ground between condoning and leaving, simpleton.

kdecker, The fact that Mr. Spitzer is a lawyer and former Attorney General means that he knew full-well what he was doing was illegal. His (alleged) illegal actions have little to do with the actual sex and much more to do with violation of public trust.

He was doing this many times (allegedly) and over a period of time, and was planning to do it again, as evidenced by his pre-payment to the "club". This wasn't some fling he decided to consensually have. It was a premeditated expenidture of the taxpayer's money to fund an ongoing illegal habit, one that involved breaking Federal law.

When Rudy Giuliani caught flack (and rightly so) for squiring his then-mistress around town and to liasons, and bilking the public for the expense, it was a violation of public trust ...not just the illicit affair, that was the core problem. Same with Gov Spitzer.

To Digital_Voter:

"Rudy-9/11 is well situated to run for Gov as he could be more of a law-order Republican with a strong record as NYC Mayor."

Really?!?!?!?!?!? Rudy -- with his own adultery problems, and the recent allegations that he misused City resources in furtherance of his adulterous affair with his current wife (which is probably what ultimately tanked his presidential bid) -- couldn't be a less marketabale candidate at this point ... no matter how thick the coat of shellack they try to put on him! Not to mention the fact that he and his wife came off as being so incredibly phony during his comical presidential campaign.

Kdecker

Hillary obviously condones Bill's behavior or she would leave. And it is our business because of the profound impact it has already had on his ability to do his job and her ability to do hers. If they were private citzens then her marriage to a sexual predator (remember that Paula, Kathleen, and Juanita were not consential contacts and Monica was inappropriate conduct with a young intern) and serial adulterer would not be our business. But the fact that it can affect us greatly (and be a potential blackmail tool) makes it our business. It isn't tied to femenism it is tied to moral bankrupcy.

To amitai:

Who says that Democrats find nothing wrong with adultery? Many do, but the fact is that it is a futile effort to try to legislate morality. Human beings are not infallible. That said, the wisest course that each of us can take is to live our own life and not worry so much about how everyone else lives his/her life. We all know that Hillary Clinton does not approve of the affairs that Bill Clinton has had. But that is a private issue between the two of them. I find no fault with Hillary Clinton for making a decision to remain married to her husband, despite his indiscretions. She knows her own heart. I do not. As for Mayor Newsom, Mayor Villaraigosa, Governor Elliott Spitzer, and the numerous other human beings who make mistakes (including moral lapses) and still support Hillary Clinton, I cannot imagine what one has to do with the other. However, I'm positive that their support of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with a perceived tolerance by Hillary Clinton of another person's questionable moral attitudes.

It shouldn't amnaze you that woman stand in line to vote for a woman who, in your opinion, "cannot condemn the conduct of men who are cheating on their wives with prostitutes, city employees, or White House staff." To begin with, Hillary Clinton never said that she approved of that sort of behavior. I would be willing to place a wager that she does not condone that behavior at all. But the reality is that Hillary Clinton does not present herself to the public as a moral policewoman. Instead, she concerns herself with national and international issues are that are vital to America and its citizens. And isn't that really her job, as opposed to preaching to adulterers?

Finally, what does adultery have to do with feminism, anyway? You speak as though women have never committed adultery. You also speak as though Hillary Clinton (or any other woman) has any control over whether a person -- other than herself -- commits adultery. The reality is this: People are going to do what people are going to do, and there is very little that we can do to stop them. We may not like what other people do, but that does not mean that we can control their actions. Honestly, I believe that things such as adultery do not determine whether a person will be a competent politician. This country worries far too much about other people's sex lives. The sooner we stop worrying about sex and all its ramifications, the better off we as a country will be.

This is a bit off topic but I just saw you Chris on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell. I had to make a brief observation about something you mentioned. You said that Obama will not get much credit - or momentum - from his win in Wyoming or his expected win tonight in Mississippi. Here is what I don't understand. Ohio was always said to be a Hillary-type state demographically. Blue collar, lower educated, etc. She led in the Quinnipiac poll of just a few weeks before by something like 25 points over Obama. YET - when Obama cut her lead to 10 points in just two weeks in a state everyone in the media said was tailor-made for her, SHE WAS THE ONE WHO MADE A COMEBACK! So let me ask you this. I just heard you say that PA is a good state for Hillary. Right now she is leading in the polls Should she not, then, be EXPECTED to win? If she DOES win - but by a small margin - will you say it was a HUGE COMEBACK?? And just one more thing. WHY is HILLARY UNABLE to WIN in CAUCUSES - except Nevada? I see many elderly ladies at her speeches and rallies - are they not able to get out twice in the same week to attend a caucus? Just doesn't make sense. So it just seems that there is a HUGE double standard. You DON'T give credit to Obama for winning Wyoming and Mississippi - two VERY different states - nor do you give credit to Obama for CLOSING HILLARY'S LEAD IN OHIO - BUT YOU GIVE HILLARY HUGE CREDIT FOR WINNING OHIO, A STATE EVERYONE SAID WAS TAILOR-MADE FOR HER, BY A MUCH SMALLER MARGIN THAN SHE HAD JUST TWO WEEKS PRIOR. And now I can just predict that six weeks from today if Hillary wins by a small margin in PA you and the rest of the "double-standard" media will say "Oh,my! What a comeback!"

With respect to this episode's impact on the national race, I would think it would reinforce any doubts as to the wisdom of nominating a candidate like Barack Obama, who has not been fully vetted by the press or the opposition. While, my personal opinion is that Senator Obama seems to be an honest and brilliant person, the truth remains that I don't know enough about him.

We don't know if Vitter made a federal case out of it (transporting across state lines). It sounds like he simply shopped locally.

In the Clinton?Monica case: being "nearly" a minor doesn't count. The issue: was it worthy of Impeachment? Clearly not and we're still paying for that rabid politicization of the process.

Why haven't we legalized prostitution, empower the girls, and let consenting adults do whatever they want in the bedroom?

As for New York State electoral implications, at this early date I would expect Rudy to run for the GOP nomination, Cuomo and perhaps Schumer to go for the Democratic nomination (though Schumer also has to consider the advantages of remaining a powerful senator), and for Bloomberg to give serious thought to running for the job as an independent. Paterson, of course, may well have the time to grow into an effective governor in his own right, but that will depend on whether Spitzer resigns quickly or tries to serve out his term. (Spitzer reportedly faces some criminal charges, so hanging on may not be an option).

Keep in mind that the governorship of New York is historically one of the most important launching pads of presidential candidacies, successful and unsuccessful. Think: Mario Cuomo [who ultimately didn't run], Nelson Rockefeller, Averill Harriman, Thomas Dewey, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Al Smith, Charles Evans Hughes [after the Supreme Court], Theodore Roosevelt... and that just goes back to the end of the nineteenth century.

The Clintons are going to be watched very carefully as a result of this new scrutiny on sex-in-politics. How Hillary reacts to the Spitzer affair is already getting noticed (sounds like she hopes it will all go away ASAP), and of course everyone is on the lookout for the next Bill Clinton sex scandal. I'm sure that the FBI is checking out the identity of every other client to Empire VIP, or whatever it was called.

Now that Chuck Schumer has had such success and consolidated such a powerful position in the Senate, I can't imagine he risks it to run in a primary for Governor. *Maybe* he'd have given it a shot if he could keep the Senate seat, but that's not the case in 2010. He passes on Governor and cruises to a third Senate term instead (and a fourth, and a fifth...).

More generally, I think it will be hard to primary Patterson under any circumstances unless he is really screwing up. In particular Cuomo, who still suffers from the hard feelings left over from his race against McCall, will have a tough time primarying another African-American leader. I bet Patterson gets a clear field if he does an OK job.

Finally, the biggest impact may be a threat to Democrats' chances to take over the State Senate this year -- they are one seat away and it was looking more likely than not as if they'd do it. Now, who knows?

Upholding the liberal agenda over right and wrong is one of the chief characteristics of modern liberalism.

A conversation between Clinton and his Cabinet was leaked which proves this point about liberal ideology.

"Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala asked Clinton if he considered his policies and programs more important than whether he provided moral leadership.

"I can't believe that is what you're telling us, that is what you believe, that you don't have an obligation to provide moral leadership," she said, according to the leaked account.

Clinton apparently lost that famous temper of his and shouted that if her thinking was correct in 1960, Richard M. Nixon would have been elected instead of John F. Kennedy. Well, yes, he probably would have. And Kennedy would have been in big trouble at any point in his abbreviated presidency had people known anything at all about his "covert activities" in the White House.

Apparently, Clinton feels an agenda (which, in his particular case, usually serves to protect his hide) is the single most important thing in the world, and determines whether (in his mind) he should be held accountable for any criminal behavior.

Clinton stated that Kennedy should have been elected over Nixon because of his agenda. He more or less admits that Kennedy had less moral authority than Nixon. And Kennedy, considering his dealings with the mob, IRS audits of enemies, wiretaps, and his stable full of women, was at least as corrupt as Nixon, if not more so.

But none of that matters, according to Clinton. After all, Nixon was a Republican -- so that means that any illegal behavior, any sort of disgusting sexual act, is just fine and dandy if that politician has the right agenda."

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/zack15.html

Or rather a left one. After all, the alternative would have been a Republican, and we can't have that, can we?

The Judge involved has not yet accepted plea deal. Large fine, no jail time and resigns. But not permanently barred from office and can practice law. Judge wants felony plea.

I don't think it's a sexual peccadillo that brought people like Vitter, Larry Craig and Mark Foley down as much as their utter hypocrisy about sexual morals. The same with Spitzer. He went after wrongdoing like Torquemada went after heretics while himself living a secret life. He did it repeatedly, expecting he could not be caught or punished for it.

He billed himself as squeaky clean and then personalized law enforcement so that it became a vendetta. Now he may go to prison for money laundering, his career is kaput, his family is trashed. I wish I could see it as tragic but true tragedy requires some nobility. He wasn't noble any more than Bobby Fisher was noble. Both of them wanted to crush their opponents, not just defeat them.

I don't think it's a sexual peccadillo that brought people like Vitter, Larry Craig and Mark Foley down as much as their utter hypocrisy about sexual morals. The same with Spitzer. He went after wrongdoing like Torquemada went after heretics while himself living a secret life. He did it repeatedly, expecting he could not be caught or punished for it.

He billed himself as squeaky clean and then personalized law enforcement so that it became a vendetta. Now he may go to prison for money laundering, his career is kaput, his family is trashed. I wish I could see it as tragic but true tragedy requires some nobility. He wasn't noble any more than Bobby Fisher was noble. Both of them wanted to crush their opponents, not just defeat them.

Until the details come out, I hope Spitzer will "Larry Craig"-it and stay in office.

But proud, Bill is such a GOOD liar.

JAS25

You make a good point. It is a different type of solicitation between Clinton and Spitzer. One paid a professional for services provided in a Hotel and one took advantage of an almost minor intern subordinate IN THE WORKPLACE, sometimes while engaged in work. Add to that the at least implied promise of a personal relationship and the emotional impact that had on the young girl who worked for him. Spitzer sounds like a prince compared to Bill Clinton. Poeple gloss over these facts with statements like Cris's about the "relationship with Monica Lewinsky" that Bill Clinton had. He DID NOT have a relationship with her. He used her and threw her away with no intent on her being anything except a receptical (unfortunately for him some got on her dress). Whether you like Hillary and Bill or not let us not forget how incredibally wrong what he did was. Any executive that did the same and got caught would have been fired immediately!!!

I think the double standard is how we treat powerplayers vs. ordinary folks. Yes, Spitzer is tagged, but he's the exception. Who are #4, #8, #10, #87...We'll probably never know (like the phone "escort" records in the Washington story last year - what ever happened to those?) Simple folks end up on "Cops", etc. but the big guys are usually dealt with below the radar.

As the investigation of Eliot Spitzer proceeds I want to know what Hillary and Bill Clinton knew about this. She is a senator from New York. She is clubby with all the Democrats there. She and Spitzer are known associates. She has taken money from most of his contributors. Why aren't the media climbing all over her role in this?

And WHERE are those tax returns?

Dead girl, live boy - it was neither, he can survive if he wants too. Unless he goes back tomorrow for his remaining two hours.

Sure it's a bit unseemly, but he's a politician and it hardly rises to the level of scandal people associate with HRC. Definitely would have hurt more if he'd been an Obama supporter.

$4300 for two hours? I'm having problems seeing the criminal part unless you're his wife or kid.

PatrickNYC1,

You live in a fantasy world. Hillary Clinton will not be in the White House.

She is behind in the delegate count, behind in states won and behind in the total popular vote. She lost, Obama won.

There are only 9 states left and even if she won all of them, she'd still walk into the convention with way fewer pledged delegates than Obama. Do the math. Obama is going to take 65-70% of Mississippi today, giving him 23 delegates to her 10 in that state. That 13 delegate edge today means that even if she wins PA with 55% (her typical maximum margin in states that she wins), she'll still be right back in the EXACT SAME DELEGATE HOLE that she was in yesterday.

Pennsylvania can't save her, Puerto Rico can't save her. Nothing can. Do the math. She's finished. As for pie-in-the-sky dreaming about super delegates moving to her en masse, since Obama won Iowa in January, super delegates have been breaking for him 3 to 1. Hillary Clinton has about as much chance of winning a super majority of super delegates as you or I do.

Hillary lost. Oabma won. Get used to it.

Spec - Thanks, I think.
:)

But, do you really doubt that Bill Clinton has a personality disorder? The evidence of his megalomania and sociopathic need for attention and public adoration is fairly convincing. He is a narcissistic, sociopathic, pathological liar. The question is, is this news?

I think there is a big difference between the type of solicitation performed by Bill Clinton and Elliott Spitzer and the type done my Mark Foley and Larry Craig...the former being a far more social accepted variety.

Bloomberg has his successful record as NYC mayor and $12 billion.

He does not need a political party to win.

cornell1984 writes
"Let us not forget that Barney Frank... let his boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of their shared apartment."

Let us not rewrite history in attempting to make a point. Was not Rep Frank as surprised as everyone else to learn that his partner was engaging in illegal behavior?

Mark... Good analysis. As I understand it, things started going south when it was reported to the IRS that Spirzer was transferring large amounts of cash into shell companies which is illegal if done to conceal the purpose and source. The penalty on this charge alone is up to five years in prison.

When we will ever learn... many times the person yelling "foul" the loudest is merely trying to divert attention from their own identical actions.

Since Spitzer has already judged (of others) that such actions should be punishable by at the very least loss of stature and position, he needs to resign and update his resume.....crime fighter no longer applies.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I do think this hurts Hillary. CNN introduced the Spitzer story last night by showing images of an entire "Rogues' Gallery" of high-profile political sex offenders---Spitzer, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bill Clinton . . . In print it doesn't have much impact, but seeing those images on-screen dredges up memories of all the seaminess of the Clinton era. It may not last more than a few days, especially if Spitzer exits the stage quickly and quietly, but yesterday was not a good day for the Clintons who would much prefer the public to forget L'Affaire Lewinsky.

Seriously: Why not Hillary? It's a more graceful way out than mucking up the democratic party for the next 3-4 months.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM
-------------------------------------

Absolutely right. Hillary could be graceful for a change and opt out of the presidential race. Run for governor, get some executive experience and in eight years run for president.

A possible beneficiary is Tom Galisano -- former Independence Party candidate, billionaire, western NYer.

My darkhorse prediction: Galisano runs in the _democratic_ primary, edges out Andrew Cuomo (Schumer isn't going anywhere except up in the Senate), gets a lot of votes in NYC and captures a good percentage of the votes in western NY (Buffalo/Rochester area) due to home-field advantage. Good enough for the win.

Or maybe I'm just having a John McLaughlin moment...

Might Hillary Clinton see the Governorship as worth pursuing after this Presidential campaign is over?

She's been making a lot of enemies in national politics. Clinton is increasingly being seen by Democrats as effectively vandalizing the party and attempting to cripple the likely nominee in her efforts to grab a nomination that the simple math prevents her from doing in what most people think of as an honest manner.

It is very possible that she could emerge from this campaign as damaged goods in Washington. Particularly if Barack Obama wins the general election and she has to worry about the new party leader holding a grudge against her. 2009 could be a very awkward year in DC for Hillary Clinton.

Should this be the case, I could easily imagine Hillary Clinton wanting to get out of DC and be lord of her own castle for a while. As Governor of New York, she would not have to depend on the good will of anyone outside of her own state to get anything done.

While her brand is becoming tarnished elsewhere in the US, Hillary Clinton is still very popular at home. With Spitzer now out of the picture, she is probably the biggest fish in NY politics. She could win that seat.

But what if he Doesn't resign?

I don't know if that will be the case, but remember he is a fighter through and through. Plus New Yorkers will forgive alot.

Also The impact on Hillary is that it reminds everyone of a similar sex scandal that occured about 10 years ago.
How many hits do you think Youtubes video of Bill saying "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" got today?

Let us not forget that Barney Frank, now the of a powerful congressional committee for the democrats, let his boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of their shared apartment. Mel Reynolds, congressional democrat, had sex with congressional, underage pages (Heck, even Foley didn't do that).

Fallout:

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

"Monday, March 10, 2008, 5:14pm
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

Patrick: proud is one of our fine female posters, and compared with some of her fellow rightwingnuts she is downright sane.

Fallout:

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

"Monday, March 10, 2008, 5:14pm
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

As much as Bloomberg is loved by many here in NY, I don't think he could become governor, for the following party-strategic reasons:

1) He wouldn't run as a republican (just left the party)

2) He wouldn't win as an independent (although his best chance - amazing what money can by)

3) He can't run as a democrat. Party loyals wouldn't let a guy who over the past 8 years has been first a dem, then rep, and finally an independent run on a democratic ticket for the highest office in the state. All the people who have been faithful to the party over the years would be pissed...

.... too bad though

Interesting proud, you've done psychoanalysis of Spitzer, Clinton, and Vitter. Very impressive.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 11, 2008 12:13 PM
--------------------------
Now if only he can have himself committed.

One name not on the list is Hillary R. Clinton. If she falls short for the nomination, or in the national election this fall, she might consider a run for governor as a stepping stone back into the presidential race. Governors, not senators have been elected in the past several decades.

Don't know but could this be part of the data gathering by you know who and be unlawful? Hm! I wonder. If it is all of us had better mind our P" and s'.

Mark and others: Noam Scheiber finds an analogue to Spitzer in Roth's Alexander Portnoy: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/11/eliot-spitzer-as-alexander-portnoy.aspx

Sordid but fascinating.

proud channels freud: "And, because of that shared sociopathic personality trait, he has much more in common with former president Clinton than with Vitter."

Interesting proud, you've done psychoanalysis of Spitzer, Clinton, and Vitter. Very impressive.

OK, mark_in_austin, let's look at your list.

#1) David Vitter was Mr. Family Values Republican. Thus, he's a hypocrite, too.

#2) All politicians (or almost all) are "law-and-order" guys. David Vitter did not walk around saying that he was a dirty politician.

#3) What is this even referring to? It was a prostitution ring in both cases.

#4) I don't see how you can argue this. There aren't even any indictments, let alone convictions.

#5) Huh? Transport of women? We have no idea what David Vitter did -- BECAUSE no one has bothered to do much of an investigation.

In fact, that is my major point about all of this. When David Vitter admitted doing the same thing as Spitzer, the media sort of yawned and no big investigations took place, particularly at the criminal level.

If you don't believe me, go back and look at the evening newscasts and see how much time they spent on Vitter compared to this. Compare Washington Post front pages. You'll see it all clearly.

The point is that the crux of each of these stories is the same: High-level politician using prostitution ring. Bill Clinton's sex scandal didn't even rise to this because the sex wasn't illegal.

If Paterson does a good job, and the Dems take the State Senate in November, he's got the job if he wants it. If this killed the Dems chances however, watch for a giant fire storm to form over the party, and Schumer may be the only one able to win for the party in 2010.

If Schumer jumps, let the real fun begin: of those 23 Dem congresscritters, I'd say half probably want that seat. Watch for Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy to run, but who knows. I'd like Bronx Rep. Jose Serrano: good ethnic choice for the NY Dems, and a good complement to Clinton, but he may be too old. Do they go upstate or City, Long Island or Westchester? Does Suozzi try this one? This is where the fun will be.

I think CC is misjudging the impact in a few ways

1.) In terms of Hillary Clinton's campaign, the last thing she needs is any Democratic sex scandal in the headlines -- voters are clearly not sold entirely on the idea of a return of the Clintons to the White House, and this will remind them of some of the unpleasant memories of Bill Clinton's presidency. The fact that the scandal is happening with her home state Democratic governor makes it seem more immediate.

2.) It does involve the potential loss of a superdelegate vote if Spitzer ends up resigning. The Lt Gov, David Patterson, is already a superdelegate because he is a member of the DNC - Patterson could only vote once, so unless he steps down from the DNC in time to be replaced under NY and national Democratic party procedures, she would lose one net delegate vote. (There have also been hints that despite Patterson's public endorsement of Clinton, he may actually favor Obama -- but as a statewide elected official in NY, he seems very unlikely to bolt to Obama under any circumstances.)

3.) Patterson could be very well positioned to be re-elected in 2010 -- he would have almost 3 years as sitting governor to establish his own record and prove to voters that he should be re-elected. By all accounts, he is a very capable leader, would have a great deal of good will coming into to office, and would have much better relations with the legislature than Spitzer has. If he succeeds as governor, it may be very hard for Cuomo, Schumer, Suozzi or anyone else to try to take the nomination away from a sitting African-American governor.

I don't see Mayor 9/11 climbing back after his lame attempt at the White House, that and the upcoming trial of Bernard Kerik will be a hard one.

I think Bloomberg would be a great choice but will it be wise to run against a popular first time black governor? Paterson is very well liked here, for good reason. Hillary will be in the White House.

Chris, while I agree that the impact to the Presidential race will be minor it will have some affect. It brings up two three words in the same sentence "Clinton" and "Sex Scandal". Agaon, the impact wil probably be minor but it does bring this bagage back into the conversation.

Sounds like the Governor made some stupid mistakes, and he should be prosecuted like anyone in the same position would be--no more, no less.

That said, I'd like to know more about the role of the banks and Bush's DOJ and IRS. Apparently, several banks (read: Wall St. firms) brought to the attention of the IRS some "unusual" movements of cash by the Governor. Once the IRS and DOJ (i.e., FBI) realized what they might have on their hands, they pursued it extremely vigorously.

My question: do the banks, the IRS, and the DOJ follow EVERY money trail with equal vigor, or just those of their highly effective political enemies?

Hillary after she loses to Obama would be i