We learned almost immediately that Client 9 was Eliot Spitzer. And that his $1000 an hour rent-a-gal "Kristen" was really 22 year-old Ashley Dupre. But that 800 lb. pink polka-dot elephant lurking in the shadows of The Mayflower's room 871 turns out to be none other than Bill Clinton. Not that the media pretends to notice.
Unfair! you protest. Slander! The Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy once again at work! When speaking of the Eliot Mess, seems like it's OK to evoke memories of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, or hapless Larry Craig or even to dredge up Gary Hart as examples of powerful men who at one time or another did more thinking with their little head instead of their larger one.
But all of a sudden, comparisons to Bill Clinton and -- dare I say -- Monica Lewinsky seem to be out of bounds. That's a curious anomaly because if there's any two recent cases of reckless, high-wire American sexual politics that are most similar, they have to be those of Clinton and Spitzer.
Both were two extremely powerful men, rising political stars, one a Governor another a president, both brimming with ambition and hubris, both of them willing to risk not only their own political careers but also to put the interests of their larger political constituencies into play, as they indulged their personal, uncontrollable sexual compulsions and addictions.
And both of them with very young women, troubled young women, albeit in different ways. And both of the women barely of age, young enough to be their own daughters.
Ah, but you say, there's a world of difference between the two cases. Spitzer was into hookers, while Clinton's to-do with Monica was a consensual, voluntary relationship between two adults with no exchange of currency (indeed, it was Monica who was showering gifts on Bill).
Not exactly. I'd even argue that "Kristen" got a much better shake than Monica. Not only did she get paid -and rather handsomely--she got a couple of hours at a time, alone and in a luxurious hotel suite with the Governor of New York. She certainly wasn't in love with her high-rolling John. But at least he treated her with a certain dignity. Monica, on the other hand, got a only a few, sporadic, stolen minutes now and then with the President, hurriedly servicing him behind, on or under his desk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no record of them sharing any real intimacy, or spending as much as one night alone together. And Monica's payback was hardly at the five or even four diamond level. Instead, she was thoroughly trashed and somehow portrayed as the perpetrator - not the victim--by many of the same hired knife-throwers still working today for the Clintons.
Which reminds us of one other detail. By next week, Spitzer will have slipped into the swamps of political obscurity. But Clinton, through a strange alignment of political forces and by an exaggerated response from the Republicans, not only survived, but went on to politically flourish. Indeed, at times during the current presidential campaign of his wife, Bill Clinton seemed to loom as large as any player on the stage.
Except for this past week, that is. The media has turned downright skittish in noting the similarities of character shared by Eliot and Bill. The only implication I can draw is that too many editors think it would somehow be unfair -even unseemly--to muddy the Hillary Clinton campaign with such uncomfortable associations. This is absurd, of course. Those same neurotic compulsions to dominate at all costs that time and again drove Bill Clinton into so many sordid personal dalliances have been garishly on display over the past few months if only in a more constrained political rather than sexual context. And once again they flash before us, this time as played out by Bill Clinton's soul mate: Eliot Spitzer.
And I have to tell you, at one point I felt very sorry for Monica. Hillary got to play the stoic forgiving wife while the rest of America mocked Monica as a lowly stupid whore and Bill (the cad largely responsible for the mess) got to be cast as a victim of the Republican machine. Poor Bill, poor Hillary. They both knew he was incapable of being faithful and that was a bargain Hillary accepted so that she could advance her own political career.
Bottom line, both men acted dishonorably but I agree that at least the prostitute understood that her relationship with Spitzer was a business transaction and it's quite obvious that if he was Client 9; she had at least another 8 Clients on her books. But Bill's philandering and Hill's acceptance of it so that she could someday run for president is quite a bit less savory.
Less you forgot, this naive young star-struck woman already had an affair with a married man under her belt. Naive....yah sure!
We need a full listing of the membership! The public has a right to know! Were there any Republican members being prosecuted Uh , persecuted?
MULTIPLE CHOICE EXAM
"I did not have sex with that woman! blond lobbyist, prostitute, policeman!
1. Charming Billy Clinton
2. Johnny "Ride The Bomb " McCain
3. Eliot Spitzer
4.Sen. Larry Craig
5. All of the above!
Spitzer was motivated simply by sex. There is no need to psychoanalyze what we are all genetically programed to pursue. And while the media tut tuts and feigns horror and outrage it is clearly delighted with a story guaranteed to sell more newspapers and television advertising.
The fact that Spitzer got caught with his ding dong in the honey pot is delicious irony and glee for his many enemies, and self-righteous critics. And, yes, it is indeed poetic justice that Spitzer should have been caught in an activity that he himself so hypocritically pursued.
Does Spitzer deserve 20 years in jail for some ridiculous "money laundering" charge? I find this difficult to believe, because it just shows how screwed up the American justice system really is.
But either way, for God's sake, leave the girl alone. I thought you were better than that.
I expect the same nuts and bolts from HIllary.
When you are owned by people who want war, oil, government contracts, weapons sales, continued support and protection for Israel, legislation protecting their interests, and to continue to loan money, you make your contributions in more devious ways. Payments are made in the form of bias, exclusion, and secret promises of wealth and power.
Or maybe you're concerned that if he had chosen, e.g., one of the Kennedy womanizers to connect with Spitzer, it might have diminished the aura Obama has benefited from by Ted's endorsement?
If there's a connection to be made from Spitzer to a candidate, it would be to Obama who, like Spitzer, has presented himself as the morally superior crusader bent on cleaning up the corruption in our political system.
But wait! Perhaps Gore would have run in 2004 with Hillary or Barack as Veep, making this year's election a very different kettle of fish. It's all idle speculation.........but makes one wonder: what does "Taking responsibility" really mean? Spitzer did. Clinton didn't...and here we are!
Why do these comparisons need to be made? Because we Dems have a right to state how pissed off we are, with at least some hope that our anger will serve as some deterence for the next idiot who comes along to undermine the party. Their indiscretions have REAL effects on us. Here in NY, we are just one seat away from controlling the Senate. Now, thanks to Eliot, there is a substantial chance that we won't be able to make that a reality. As for Bill, his indiscretions were one of the factors that cost Gore the Whitehouse in 2000. We Dems need to send the message that we're not ok with this crap.
I agree that it's unfair to take down Hillary with this stuff, and I understand that it's hard to talk about this stuff openly without somehow making her look bad. But I just don't think we as a party can afford to not talk openly about how much the actions of people like her husband and Spitzer really hurt the party, and need to be addressed.