Hung Out to Dry

"But in the end, the Spitzer fallout is more likely to damage the party than Hillary's candidacy. For the past eight years, most of the lying, cheating, child molestation, and public sex has been the proud reserve of Republicans (or at least they excel at getting caught). The Spitzer scandal could flip that story line toward Democrats. Just as voters recoiled from Mark Foley's indiscretions in 2006, they could easily cast Spitzer as the incarnation of Democratic hypocrisy."

Here's how two sisters see the debacle. First, Nora Ephron:

"I feel sad. I liked him. It's tragic. Etc.

"But having read every word of the indictment, may I suggest that should he stay on, Spitzer will probably have far more time to focus on being governor, in that he won't have to spend hours on the phone with someone named Temeka arguing over his 55 per cent deposit, his in-store credit, the cash limits on bank machine withdrawals in late-night Washington, and ways for Kristen the prostitute to get into her hotel room without her having to give her name at the check-in desk downstairs.

"Meanwhile, Spitzer, who a year ago had a shot at national office, is today a laughingstock because of his reckless involvement in . . . what? Let's just say this right out: in nothing. He arranged for a date with a hooker and she crossed a state line. This violates something called the Mann Act, which was passed in 1910, before women could vote. It's the legal equivalent of an old chestnut, it seems barely constitutional, and no one with half a brain could possibly think of it as anything worth prosecuting anyone for. Although Eliot Spitzer might. This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy."

Amy Ephron focuses on the other side of the marriage:

"Why do they show up? Why did Silda Spitzer appear at her husband's side at his press conference today? The picture in the New York Times is so telling, so sad, so perfectly humiliating. And you just want to ask, why? Why do political wives -- especially when they seemingly have no political aspirations of their own, it's not like Mrs. Spitzer is going to run for office -- show up for their husbands when their husbands have behaved so badly?"

Salon's Glenn Greenwald is one of the few to challenge the media verdict:

"Regarding all of the breathless moralizing from all sides over the 'reprehensible,' outrageous crimes of Eliot Spitzer: are there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn't their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?"

From the other side of the spectrum, National Review's Byron York raises the question of whether Spitzer might hang on:

"Could he pull a Clinton? Clinton was not accused of an underlying crime. While he maintained that he did not lie under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky -- he has never to this day admitted that -- his defenders argued that everybody lies about such things. Spitzer, however, has apparently committed an underlying crime, albeit one that is, if initial reports are to be believed, seldom prosecuted. If Spitzer were not indicted, his defenders could argue that he has not been charged with any wrongdoing. If he were charged, his defenders would argue that he was being selectively prosecuted. Neither argument is easy, but neither is impossible.

"Of course, even if Spitzer is not prosecuted, the people who ran Emperors Club VIP are being prosecuted, and even a cursory reading of the complaint and affidavit made public today suggests that the feds have a lot of sordid information involving Spitzer. Unless there's some sort of plea deal, the defendants in the case will go to trial, and who knows what might come out at those proceedings?"