Hung Out to Dry

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:55 PM

The big news, of course, is that Eliot Spitzer will no longer be a superdelegate if he steps down as New York's governor, as several news outlets are now predicting he will do.

Really, isn't that punishment enough?

What's striking, in the avalanche of news coverage about Spitzer's secret life as Client 9, is how no one is cutting him the slightest bit of slack, including liberal outlets that might ordinarily be sympathetic to a Democrat. Not the NYT editorial page: "His short, arrogant statement simply was not enough, not from the Sheriff of Wall Street, not from the self-appointed Mr. Clean who went to Albany promising a new and better day."

And not the Daily News: "Eliot Spitzer brought his once-promising governorship to a crashing end with a display of recklessness and hypocrisy of such magnitude that you had to question his sanity. Three words to the man: Just get out."

Now, I'm not suggesting we should waste a smidgen of sympathy on a man who betrayed the public and his family with the shockingly self-destructive act of hiring hookers (and inducing one to violate the Mann Act!). But usually there's some kind of debate. The argument over Bill Clinton's conduct (and yes, he made the famous finger-wagging denial) convulsed the country for more than a year. Hey, Marion Barry was elected mayor again after being videotaped smoking crack with a woman not his wife.

You could, if you were so inclined, argue that most johns aren't prosecuted for what Spitzer did, so going after the guv would be selective enforcement. Or you could argue that prostitution is a victimless crime (and a lucrative one for "Kristen" and her fellow escorts).

But it seems that Spitzer had no allies left. Both parties in Albany had tired of his arrogant, self-righteous style. This was a man whose office targeted the Senate GOP leader in the "Troopergate" scandal. A man who told the Assembly's GOP leader, Jim Tedisco: "Listen, I'm a [expletive] steamroller, and I'll roll over you and anybody else."

Roll back the tape, however, and you find immense media praise for Spitzer as state attorney general, such as the 2002 Time cover story on "Wall Street's Top Cop" that explained "how a rich kid from the Bronx became the people's champion."

To be sure, Spitzer's probes of Merrill Lynch and other brokerages revealed that analysts were lying about stocks to win investment banking business, an effort that Time said was "fundamentally reshaping America's markets." Now, however, much of the focus is on the extent to which Spitzer overreached: driving CEOs to quit without evidence, demanding that New York Stock Exchange chief Dick Grasso give back $140 million in allegedly excessive compensation. To fit today's narrative of power-crazed overreaching, Spitzer's accomplishments are downplayed or erased.

He won the governorship with the biggest landslide in New York history, and now has blown up his career. No one can truly answer the question: What was he thinking?

This can't help: In a quickie Marist poll, 70 percent of New Yorkers say Spitzer should quit. And the state GOP says it will begin impeachment proceedings within 48 hours.

"Gov. Eliot Spitzer remained in office Tuesday evening, offering no public statements on whether he would resign following allegations that he was linked to a high-priced prostitution ring," says the New York Times.

"The lack of news from the governor's office seemed to steadily increase tension throughout a day in which questions about the state leadership swirled through New York State's avenues of power. Albany seemed to hold its breath as both political parties speculated about the governor's next move, and crowds of reporters flocked to the Capitol Building . . .

"A law enforcement official said the governor spent tens of thousands of dollars on the service. Mr. Spitzer, 48, a first-term Democrat, was said by aides to be considering resigning."

And the embarrassing details keep on coming: "Disgraced Gov. Spitzer dropped up to $80,000 on sex with prostitutes, sources revealed tonight," the New York Post reports.

"Spitzer, a millionaire, was hopping into bed with harlots for as long as 10 years and traveled as far as Florida for call-girl trysts, sources said."

And the News turns its investigative energies to one of the harlots:

"A brunette knockout with the name and looks of Gov. Spitzer's hooker has gone into hiding -- at least in cyberspace.

"A New York escort 'model' named Kristen took down two of her Web sites less than 24 hours after the scandal broke, and her photo disappeared from another site.

"Before that, she revealed plenty about herself and her services. 'I deeply enjoy indulging the desires of successful and discriminating gentlemen with whom I have a mutual connection,' she wrote. 'So whether we meet for a sumptuous meal in Manhattan or choose to order in, my goal is that our encounter be simply spectacular and undeniably worth repeating.'

"She boasted of being an 'intelligent, sensual woman -- a college-educated 27-year-old who is 5-feet-8, a size 2 and almost a D-cup. She likes peonies and will never go skydiving again."

How long before she's chatting up Barbara Walters?

Could all this hurt Hillary Clinton, who Spitzer endorsed? Slate's Christopher Beam sees far broader damage:

"Addressing the Spitzer flap raises the ghosts of scandals past, namely Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has so far managed during this campaign to avoid public mention of her husband's diddling. If the Spitzer controversy drags out, it could become a painful reminder of the final White House years. (Of course, you could argue that it would make people sympathize with her all over again.)

"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?"

The cable networks last night, distracted by Spitzer, treated Barack Obama's win in Mississippi as minor, predictable news, and Fox and MSNBC soon went back to Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann.

"Barack Obama rolled up a commanding victory Tuesday in the Mississippi primary, padding his delegate lead and gaining a psychological boost ahead of next month's big Democratic showdown in Pennsylvania," says the L.A. Times.

"The results reflected a stark racial divide; more than nine in 10 African Americans voted for Obama, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the votes of seven in 10 whites, according to exit polls. Black voters accounted for roughly half the turnout." Late returns put the margin at 61-37.

Another day, another surrogate, another flap, as the Boston Globe reports:

"Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic nominee for vice president, is the latest high-profile supporter to ignite an uproar in the Democratic race with a controversial comment.

"Ferraro, who backs Hillary Clinton and is raising money for her, was excoriated yesterday by Barack Obama's campaign for suggesting that he wouldn't be a contender if he were a white man or a woman of any color. 'He happens to be very lucky who he is,' she told a newspaper in California last week. The country, she said, is 'caught up in the concept' of the first African-American president.

"Yesterday morning on MSNBC, Obama adviser Susan Rice called the comment 'outrageous and offensive' and called on the Clinton camp to repudiate it."

Hillary expressed regret, but Ferraro called back the Daily Breeze to say: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up."

HuffPoster Seth Grahame-Smith, a self-described Hillary apologist, has had enough:

"If she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?

"However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites . . . She's proven that she cares more about 'Hillary' than 'unity.' More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her."

What about Obama's attacks on her? Big Tent Democrat takes it in stride:

"I am not shocked. I am not appalled. This is a political campaign.

"Do I wish he did not attack Clinton? Of course. I wish Clinton did not attack him. But all this shock and outrage going around about political attacks in a political campaign is a bit much."

How can Obama close the deal? Andrew Sullivan has some advice:

"Obama needs to get out there door-to-door again, talk to the working poor, engage Reagan Democrats, explain his positions on the war, and the economy and healthcare, reiterate why he can get stuff done in a way that the polarizing psycho-drama of the Clintons cannot. Save the great speeches for later. More round-tables; get on a bus; show you can work as hard as she can. Stop looking so aloof."

Yesterday, we took a stroll through the Democratic veepstakes, but the game isn't limited to one party, of course. Fred Barnes has a running mate for John McCain, and his name is Mitt:

" Romney is a known quantity. Romney has three other add-ons. He's acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns. He's unflappable in debates. With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain's admitted weakness on economic issues . . .

"President Bush favors him as McCain's veep."

Really! Barnes doesn't say how he knows this.

"But there's just one problem: McCain doesn't like him."

Oh, that.

Marc Ambinder all but rules it out:

"No amount of assurances, cajoling, convincing, pressuring and persuading can build a level of trust between Mitt Romney and John McCain."

But Romney says he'd do it.

In the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg suggests a different veep choice--Condi:

"It's true that her record in office has been one of failure, from downgrading terrorism as a priority before 9/11 to ignoring the Israel-Palestine problem until (almost certainly) too late. But this does not seem to have done much damage to her popularity . . .

"Choosing Rice would be a trick. Her failures would be buried in an avalanche of positive publicity for a personal story as yet only vaguely known to the broad public. (One of the little girls who died in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing was her playmate? We didn't know that!) But the trick would not be an entirely cynical one. Her ascension, though nowhere near as momentous a breakthrough as the election of Obama or Clinton, would be a breakthrough all the same."

At Real Clear Politics, Blake Dvorak couldn't disagree more:

"We've already seen how the Democrats are going to tie McCain to the administration, and choosing someone like Rice -- or anyone in the Cabinet -- would only hurt McCain's efforts to blunt those attacks. Moreover, whether we're talking about Rice or any other potential minority pick, Republicans aren't going to win the identity-politics game against Democrats."

Bill Kristol says a great running mate would be . . . Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas? Is he going to appeal to swing voters?