[Photo via Rush Limbaugh]
With our gubernatorial train wreck of the last week, a recent spate of Clinton-Spitzer comparisons have been circulating, none of which can be very good for Hillary's prospects. We've been barraged with side by side accounts of precisely how much sex (free or otherwise) our politicians feel they need to keep their head in the political game. Does it matter that Spitzer was so blatantly careless about his exploits while Clinton, himself a chronic womanizer, seemed to conduct his affairs with something bordering on *discretion*? Our favorite choice bits from the scandal roundup:
"Here you had a guy who saw himself as a Jewish Kennedy in the making—combining the dash and idealism of John with the self-righteous ruthlessness of Bobby—and imagined his family at the center, one day, of a kosher Camelot. Is it any wonder that a man harboring such conceits would come to believe that he could dip his wick with impunity? (And at the very hotel where JFK is said to have, er, entertained Judith Campbell Exner!) I think not." - NY Mag
A Pants Down Primer [NY Mag] Hillary Clinton's Spitzer Problem [Washington Post] How Is Spitzer Different From Clinton [Slate] What It Means To Be A Fighter [Daily Kos] The Clinton-Spitzer Comparison [Volokh Conspiracy]