The ol' buzz-o-meter tries on Spitzer scandal
Last week we introduced you to the joys of the Google Trends tool. With an idle moment this morning, we decided to pop in three names -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Eliot Spitzer -- just to see if people are paying attention to the Democrat's downfall in New York.
Yep, they are.
We've already posted today about the travails of Silda Spitzer, and her decision to stick with her errant husband, at least for now. A lot of people wonder what they would do in similar circumstances. But a lot of people are also quite sure about what they'd do. You can weigh in here, and also toss thoughts on our comments section.
And as a refresher, here's a photo array of some of the transgressors and their wives. Looks like an awful lot of pain in some of those faces.
Hey.....Why not insist that Eliot spend the rest of his days
and fortune on an all out effort to assure the triumph of
the Ron Paul revolution.
Posted by: Always Right | March 12, 2008 at 01:37 PM
A lot of people are talking about Slida Spitzer and her supposedly politically coerced reaction --- but it seems to me a lot of commentary is very patronizing, critics assuming they know what she's thinking and she can't be trusted to make her own decisions about what she wants to do, that she's some sort of weak woman who is incapable of taking her own life into her own hands. All the reports say that she was the one person most vociferous about not wanting her husband to resign. Aggrieved wife? Perhaps: but let her speak for herself, as she has, apparently, don't make her into a martyr just because you assume she is being pressured into supporting her husband against her will.
Posted by: Mitsu | March 12, 2008 at 02:02 PM
The problem with the multiple choice question about "what would you do if you were Silda" is that there is no option to refuse to be trotted out at his press conference, not to mention the possibility of leaving him altogether.
Posted by: kat | March 12, 2008 at 02:25 PM
My heart simply aches for Silda Spitzer and for their children; their lives are forever changed, and certainly not for the better. From now on, whenever they meet someone, the first thing that comes to mind will be their father's shameful behavior.
That said, I don't understand what motivated Mrs. Spitzer to stand dutifully by her husband's side; his betrayal of her and her resultant humiliation negated any obligation she may have had to "make him look good." I'd have stayed home in a darkened room - maybe forever - but I certainly wouldn't have "supported" him.
Posted by: AgentProvocateur | March 12, 2008 at 02:41 PM
I wonder how she, as a Harvard-educated attorney, feels about her spouse seeking sexual entertainment/companionship from a 23-year old with a high school education or a Bachelor's degree.
I look forward to the day when political spouses who are in Silda's position, no longer are in attendance at news conferences announcing that Gov/Pres/Congressperson So-and-So are apologizing/resigning/arrested due to sexual misconduct. Seems to me the officeholder needs to keep their announcement between themselves and the People.
Perhaps a younger generation will be the ones to change these protocols since older people are unwilling to do so using the "best for the family/children/myself" explanation. And by the way, can we just keep "the children" out of it?
Posted by: MG | March 12, 2008 at 03:15 PM
I don't believe that these men changed from the day they were married. These women married them out of ambition and now they have to take the consequences.
Posted by: candide | March 12, 2008 at 03:19 PM
Methinks that what would make great drama is for the wife to drop the political correct BS and really speak her mind. Stand by his side? For what? For his constigants? Let him have it. Show the world what we all really want to see. It would make fantastic TV and people would rally around her. The truth can be a beautiful thing.
Posted by: M | March 12, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Fear is why she did it.
Fear of the unknown, of the future, of how the children will fare.
Let the dust settle a little bit, and anger will take over and replace that fear. Enough so, that she will not stand by her man, but stand on, and grind her high heal into his throat in the divorce settlement.
Opening up a family to that humiliation and disease is pathetic.
Posted by: John | March 12, 2008 at 03:27 PM
Just wanted to add:
Can there some sort of State/Federal law enacted that restricts appearances at resignation/apology news conferences to the elected official only? I see no reason to involve a family member in making a co-appearance in something that is between the official and the people/voters.
Posted by: MG | March 12, 2008 at 03:36 PM
To me, she's an attractive lady, so I don't get any of this. Why would any man spend $5000 an hour on a prostitute is beyond comprehension.
Posted by: troy | March 12, 2008 at 03:55 PM
She is doing what she needs to do and that is stand by her husband through it so she can end up getting the most MONEY after the divorce. It is about keeping the family unit stable, protecting the families assets, keep all dignity in tact. When the dust settles, get a divorce and get at least 75% of the assets. In order for her to get the most money, she needs to protect it first.
But the 22 year old girl appears to be trying to profit from it as she is a singer and has been promoting her MySpace page. Here are her photos
http://centerline.tv/2008/03/12/ashley-alexandra-dupre-alleged-female-escort-for-eliot-spitzer/
Posted by: TaraW | March 12, 2008 at 04:18 PM
If he were my husband, I would have put on my jacket and pearls and stood beside him just like Mrs. Spitzer did.
http://strictlyanecdotal.com/2008/03/11/stand-by-your-man--why-is-that-a-bad-thing.aspx
Posted by: LCSusan | March 12, 2008 at 05:05 PM