Political whore?

Turns out that, at least according to a New York Times report, Silda Alice Wall Spitzer (Can I use her full name? Or is that racist?), wanted her husband Eliot to stay on as Governor.

Wait a second.

The wife wants him to stay in office?

I've been married twice and can testify that not all women are the same.

But I'm trying to understand what's going on here.

This seems to me to be another example of the Hillary Syndrome.

You know. Woman married to a major political figure, who has marital troubles, but they stay together for political expediency.

Hillary stuck by Bill throughout all his affairs before and during his presidency. She blamed everybody but Bill.

Why?

Because she's forgiving? Or because it was the political expedient thing to do.

Could she have become Senator from New York or a leading candidate for President of the United States without Bill?

I think not.

She needed him for political reasons.

Is that the same thing with Silda?

Was she urging him to stay on for either her own political ambitions or because she liked being wife of the Governor? I think it's possible that it's one of those two.

Sure, she might be a loving, forgiving wife. Or, she might be a doormat. But I don't think she's a doormat. A doormat wouldn't have told him anything. She'd have done as she was told.

A political whore would want him to stay in the Governor's mansion so she could stay in the Governor's mansion.

If I'm wrong, Silda's one heckuva woman and more than Eliot deserves.

But I'm of the suspicion she's exactly what he deserves.

Name that party

The New York Times ... among other news outlets ... is reporting that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has been caught in a prostitution ring.

Spitzer is a Democrat, which really doesn't mean anything, since sexual misconduct isn't the domain of one party or another. Prostitution has been around a lot longer than Democrats and Republicans.

But here's why I mention his party.

The New York Times mentions it in paragraph nine.

In a late February story on a New York city councilman's rape charges, the Times mentioned the party of Dennis P. Gallagher, a Queens Republican, in paragraph two ... at the first mention of Gallagher's name.

Why the difference?

It certainly couldn't be because one's a Democrat (paragraph nine) and one's a Republican (paragraph two), could it?

That would mean the New York Times is biased.

Oh, wait. It is.