-
sponsorship
No, this is not cool. Asked to comment on Spitzer, Hillary Clinton told reporters, "I obviously am sending my best wishes and thoughts to the governor and to his family."
What? This is all she can think of to say? Mr. Ethics turns out to be patronizing pricey prostitutes, a sleazy, sexist, act which may yet cost him his career, and Hillary sends him ... her "best wishes?" (Is there a Hallmark card for this?)
Asked if she thinks Spitzer will survive politically, Hillary would comment no further, saying, "Let's wait and see what comes out of the next few days."
Noreen, you commented that Spitzergate makes you less dismissive of the idea that there might be a "feminist 'obligation' to vote for a woman." I understand your reaction—my initial, visceral reaction to Spitzergate was also something along the lines of "Men! I've had it with the bastards! Let's toss 'em out, girls!"
But. Here's why that does not, in the end, lead me toward Hillary. To say that her history with sexual peccadilloes isn't uncomplicated doesn't quite capture the reason so many feminists feel queasy about HRC. She stood by Bill—but standing by him required her to become complicit in the trashing of "that woman's" reputation. (Not just that woman—there was also that woman, that woman, and a whole bunch of other women.) Married to a guy who couldn't keep his pants zipped—and who had an unpleasant habit of getting into sexual relationships with women who tended to be much younger and much less powerful—Hillary consistently sided with Bill.
On one level, fair enough; marriages and marital loyalty are complicated, and hey, he was the president. And she believed that there was a vast right wing conspiracy. (And, whaddaya know, there kinda was one, at that!) But on another level, she didn't have to let Bill off the hook quite so easily, and she sure didn't have to look the other way (at best) while her political allies demonized the women in question as cheap. That, though, seems to have been the Faustian (and not exactly feminist) deal she struck with Bill: I'll stand by you now, Bill, but the deal is that I get to run for president and you have to help make it happen. Sure, it's good that Hillary "learned other ways of manipulating power" than sleeping with powerful older men—but the "other ways" she learned were also time-honored and not exactly great: stand by the powerful older men; pretend their sexual misbehavior is just boys being boys; let the "cheap" women be the ones who pay any price that gets paid.
That's what's so depressing about Hillary's reaction, so far, to Spitzer: It's just more of the same. Hillary has an opportunity here to say something from the heart: about what it's like to be a woman in a world where too many of her male peers think sex is a perk of the job—about what's wrong with a society where so many powerful men, including "progressive" men, secretly think it's fine to just buy a women's body on the open market—about the factors that drive young women into prostitution—about sex and power and money and inequality—about the nasty links between these high-toned escort services and global sex trafficking, an issue she's crusaded on in the past.
But instead, she sends Spitzer her "best wishes."
-
sponsorship
Like lots of other twentysomething women, I’ve been an unswerving Obama girl from the get-go. Oddly enough it’s taken Spitzergate—not Hillary’s tears, nor her scolding—to make me less dismissive of the feminist “obligation” to vote for a woman. The Spitzer scandal reminded me of a comment a friend repeated to me after her (married) boss from a political internship flirted heavily with her at a fundraising event, something that clearly disturbed her a little despite the gossipy retelling. The comment, from her (nonwhite) father: The most powerful people in the world are old white men and pretty young women. The subtext, of course, was that she should learn to manipulate power.
There are all kinds of reasons why that very bald statement is infuriating, but perhaps chief among them is the very reason it stuck in my head—that it seems true all too often. That’s been something that’s easy to forget in a primary race between a middle-aged woman and a younger black man, but during my supposedly post-feminist lifetime, the women who’ve created the biggest political stir have been the young women who’ve ruined the careers of powerful old men. The Madeline Albrights and the Nancy Pelosis, no matter how much they work to build something of substance, have never grabbed the headlines the Monicas and Paulas got from tearing something down, in a very passive fashion. Obviously, power and sex (in both its meanings) are never going to be fully disentangled, in Washington or elsewhere, but Spitzer’s yet another ugly reminder of the sort that has dotted the political landscape pretty much since I started paying attention to it. I have to wonder if lots of women and girls haven’t internalized certain lessons along the lines of the one my friend’s dad spelled out.
There’s always—rightly—lots of talk about the wife’s perspective when scandals like this happen, but it’s certainly not a great feeling if you’re a twentysomething or younger, trying to figure out the way things operate, to be told, implicitly or explicitly, that your chance at having any sort of real influence might already be on the wane. I’m not saying I’m for Hillary now, and I’m not saying that Hillary’s history with sexual peccadilloes is uncomplicated, but it certainly makes me appreciate the fact that she’s learned other ways of manipulating power.
-
sponsorship
I remember thinking a profile of Silda Wall Spitzer in the New York Times a year and a half ago was very interesting, and I just went back to look at it again. Reading it now is an uncanny experience. The anti-corruption crusader gets cast as a man of boorish manners and "brash" impulses—and she is his "even-keeled" foil with a real challenge on her hands. Their friend Jim Cramer's characterization of the pair has an all-too-prophetic ring: ''Silda is poised; Eliot is a maelstrom.'' You could almost think their circle worried about an accident waiting to happen, counting on a wife lauded for "her remarkable ability to rein in" her husband to be able to stop it. So here's a question being debated here at XX: Whatever Hillary does, or doesn't, say, will all this resonate in her favor? At last, just put the woman in charge. Or will it give people pause, as Emily Y. suggests, as they cringe at four years of worrying what Bill might be up to?
-
sponsorship
Dahlia, it's interesting that you used the word bride instead of wife in your post: It's much less likely, I think, that you would have slipped groom in there for husband had the genders been reverse. That itself points to just how differently we view female and male extramarital affairs. The woman in the marriage is supposed to remind bridal and quasi-virginal, a paragon of good faith. While a man who cheats is a familiar type, the guy who can't keep it in his pants, etc, etc. We don't like him, but we find him familiar—enough so that the supporting role of stand-by wife with pasted-on smile is by now a type itself. I, too, can't think of any counterexamples of a cuckolded husband clasping his wife's hand. Instead, I conjure up all the news items about Paula Zahn's "betrayed" husband and her "lurid" and "shocking" affair.
-
sponsorship
When politicians are caught cheating, I'd wish they'd leave their wives in the green room while they address the press. You're in the dog house, and it should look that way.” At best, Option A means you were lied to along with the rest of the country; at worst, it means you knew about it and sucked it up for the sake of his career.
I keep going over and over the thought experiment in which a cuckolded man is forced to stand there and look aggrieved yet supportive while his bride cops to an affair. How would that play? Has it happened and I’ve repressed it?
-
sponsorship
How great would it be if Client No. 10 was Bill Clinton?
-
sponsorship
In defense of the political wives who go to the press conference, smile forced smiles, and say nothing:
Speaking (ahem) as a political wife myself, I can see one clear advantage to this option: It's all over quickly. And no one asks you for a follow-up interview. You appear once—and then you vanish forever, along with your husband's career. If you've been clever about it, you've kept your maiden name and can thus return to your own career. Those who make other, more attention-getting choices will later be forced back into the limelight to explain themselves, which is gruesome.
And you can, of course, quietly change the locks the next day. Though I hasten to add that I've never had to.
-
sponsorship
Right here on Page 1 of the political-spouse handbook, it says that in event of scandal, you will show up, preferably in pearls, medicated if necessary, and manage at least a small smile while the father of your children explains that he never, ever meant to let you down. Oh, and it strongly suggests that unless he leaves you, you will stay married. Sometimes, you hear women in political life vow that would never be them—as when Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's wife, Wendy, said in 2000 that if her husband ever carried on the way Bill Clinton had, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me.'' Last year, though, after Vitter was linked to the D.C. madam, she stepped right up to the microphone and said this: "David is my best friend. Some people said to me they wouldn't want to be in my shoes. I stand before you to say I am proud to be Wendy Vitter." Her business, of course, though like Hanna I'd like to think I'd say time for a new best friend. So, what is Hillary supposed to say about her governor? As voters seem to like her better when she's misty-eyed, wronged, or shaking her fist at the heavens, she might help herself by even glancingly referencing her own Silda Spitzer moments. But I really hope she doesn't—and for her, of course, the handbook no longer applies.
-
sponsorship
They ALWAYS choose A. I've already informed my husband that if he gets caught being involved in a prostitution ring, gay, straight, or otherwise or even your average affair, the answer will be NOT A. It's sort of my version of a prenup.
-
sponsorship
Emily Y and Rosa—I knew I’d been carrying this thing around in my pocket all week for a reason. Ripped out of an airplane magazine last week an ad for www.firstclassmatchmaking.com. Not to be compared to the Emperor’s Club, but I do wonder—as did Emily Y—the difference between the $5,500 nookie and the kind that costs the same as putting the soap powder in the dishwasher? At any rate (so to speak), the ad for firstclassmatchmaking.com on the plane promised “affluent men” assistance in “finding serious, committed relationships with 8s 9s and 10s." I wondered if the 10s cost more. My husband found himself wondering whether you could maybe get two fives for the same price?
-
sponsorship
Normally I think Americans should tolerate more separation of sex and state when it comes to politics; I'm not convinced that sexual morality has much bearing on political judgment or efficacy. But when it comes to Spitzer, well, you nailed it, Hanna: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You can't make a career out of policing others' crimes while lapsing lustfully yourself. There are gonna be a lot of people out there glad to see Spitzer humbled (or humiliated) like this. Which almost makes me feel sympathetic.
Tim, you ask about Silda's decision to stand by her man: Marriages do create a wall between the public and the private. Though the feminist in me thinks there's no reason she should feel she had to stand by him—your Option B sounds pretty good to me—I can see how she might feel there is some honor in maintaining the public front while dealing privately with the fallout. Marriage is a funny institution that way. The bonds between husband and wife are so complex that it can take a while to sort out where one's loyalty to oneself and to your partner overlap or diverge.
-
sponsorship
Maybe the $5,500 that clients paid for the prostitutes with the highest ratings at the Emperors Club VIP was not for special acts, but to help the young women pay off their student loans. These "companions" according to the club are of "fine family and career backgrounds" for clients "accustomed to excellence." Each is a "well-educated and accomplished success in her own right." In other words, they sound just like these guys' wives. I guess at the Emperors Club (can one of the well-educated employees let someone know the club needs an apostrophe?) no Paula Jones' need apply.
-
sponsorship
One upside. How about we nominate Hillary for governor of New York, in exchange for dropping out of the race. They'll need one.
-
sponsorship
Here is my overwhelming impression of that press conference. I would like to see Eliot Spitzer's face if one of the white-collar creeps he so loved to bust gave this speech at the sentencing hearing. "Judge, Mr. Spitzer, this is a private matter. I have violated my obligations to my family and my own sense of right and wrong. I have failed to live up to my own standards, and now I must dedicate time to repairing the family wounds I have caused."
And what would be Spitzer's response to this: "Yeah, how about you dedicate some time to that orange jumpsuit I am about to put you in? Private matter, my ass. If you want to make it up to your wife, you can write her a nice letter. From jail."
-
sponsorship
A guest post from our colleague Tim Noah, who presents us with an important question.
Your governor husband is going to a press conference to announce that he got caught in a prostitution ring. He asks you to come with him to show moral support. Do you say
a) "Of course, sweetheart"
b) "Not a chance, you son-of-a-bitch."
c) "I'd love to, hon, but my favorite soap is on."
d) "Goody. I have a few things I'd like to say, and I don't care who hears it."
e) "No, and I'll be changing the locks while you're gone."
It seems to me that the only answer here that is plainly incorrect is "a." But apparently that's what Silda chose.
OK, let's hear what everyone thinks.
Update: Read what the XXers' answers to Tim's question here. Read the whole Spitzer conversation here.
-
sponsorship
A few thoughts on the Spitzer bombshell.
1.How do these guys get their wives to stand by their side? Think of Bill Clinton, New Jersey Gov. Jim "I'm a Gay American" McGreevey, Gary Hart. At least Silda Spitzer looked hurt but composed. Better than Hillary's righteousness and less painful to watch than McGreevey's wife's utter confusion.
2. At the risk of sounding naive, what can someone do in bed that's worth $5,500—the top price for a "top" prostitute at the Emperor's Club VIP? I have the feeling the money is less about sex than economics. This is how convicted Tyco executive Dennis Kozlowski pays $6,000 for a shower curtain. Rich people want to feel their are getting something really special when they meet their most basic needs.
3. It's more delicious when the person being caught is a moralizer—Jimmy Swaggart, conservative scourge Rep.
Bob Bauman getting caught with a 16-year-old boy.
4. Farewell to our first Jewish president.
5. Are men nuts?
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton needs superdelegates, but maybe not this one. Will today's revelation that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer—a Clinton ally—was a client of a high-priced prostitution service generate any response from the Clinton campaign? Should it?
I think it should. On the one hand, Spitzer's failings are Spitzer's failings, and not Hillary's responsibility. On the other hand—is she or ain't she gonna stand up and tell us what she thinks of men who think it's OK to buy sex?
The prostitution service at issue is "Emperor's Club VIP." Their Web site has been taken down, but the cached site is here.
They promise "unique introductions" that "offer a sincere connection while providing you with the freedom of private, risk-free dating and companionship without long-term-commitment intricacies" for "clients who will not compromise in any area of their life." (Eliot, that's you! Or, that was you, anyway ...) "Our meticulous standards of beauty, intelligence, presentation and charm ensure that you always encounter the high quality you’ve come to expect in a woman."
Quick reaction: I think this is actually a complicated one for Hillary. Spitzer isn't just any prominent Democrat who happens to support her; he's a close ally from her adopted home state of New York. And prominent men caught in sex scandals isn't a new one for Hillary. How she handles this will tell us something, perhaps, not just about Spitzer, but about how's she's come to define herself ... as a woman in a world where a few too many of the prominent men around still think it's OK to do this kind of thing.
-
sponsorship
Deborah Tannen, a linguist who writes about the differences between men and women, had a piece in the Washington Post about the double standard Hillary Clinton is subjected to. She cites the fact that when the New York Times endorsed her (how sexist of them!), they noted she was "brilliant if at times harsh-sounding." What is unfair about this? John McCain regularly gets accused of having an out-of-control temper. I've seen his (male) colleagues quoted as wondering if he has the temperament to be president. There is constant speculation as to whether Obama is tough enough. And John Edwards got tagged as a phony pretty boy. Is Tannen saying you can only say Clinton is "brilliant" but it's sexist to mention that she can also be a human threshing machine? Tannen goes on cite references to Clinton's years as first lady as another put-down of her—instead people should spend more time talking about her work as a senator. Well, Clinton explicitly and implicitly makes references to her years in the White House as a way of assuring that she has the experience to be president. That's why this knock on her supposed involvement with the Northern Ireland peace process was so cutting. And Tannen says talking about Clinton's failure to reform health care as first lady is unfair because as a senator she has been able to pass worthy, incremental changes in health-care policy. Again, what is unfair about pointing out that when Clinton had the executive power and the mandate for wholesale reform, she botched it? Surely Tannen does not mean to imply that simply criticizing a woman's personality or record is off limits.
-
sponsorship
BBC News reports that a court in Rome ruled that “Women in jeans 'cannot be raped.' “ What a wonderful coup this information will be for parents of girls. Just imagine, you no longer have to worry about preserving your daughter’s virtue—just buy her a pair of jeans. And to think of all the things that young women have had to avoid for years: staying out late, walking home alone after dark, perusing dark alleys, dressing too provocatively, letting a boy drive her home. No longer a worry! Just put some jeans on under your prom dress! This could also be a terrific boon to the clothing industry, although I suspect that while chastity jeans would be a big seller among parents, not so much for the teens.
-
sponsorship
The Toronto Star has an extremely graphic photo (h/t How Appealing and Carol Rosenberg at the Miami Herald) of Omar Khadr, the 21-year-old Canadian at Guantanamo Bay, apparently being treated by U.S. soldiers after being injured in a firefight. In a sidebar. the editor of the Star explains his decision to print the “brutal image” and scolds the Canadian government for its “failure to follow the lead of Britain and Australia, which demanded the repatriation of their citizens to face due process at home.” Khadr was 15 at the time of his capture in Afghanistan and he is, at least periodically, on trial at Gitmo for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier. Human rights organizations worldwide have condemned the U.S. for failing to distinguish between child and adult soldiers.
The accompanying excerpt from the Toronto Star’s Michelle Shephard’s upcoming book about Khadr's life describes Damien Corsetti, one of the interrogators at Bagram who “had been given little training and lots of responsibility.” Having “logged more than 3,000 hours in the interrogation booths,” Corsetti was eventually charged with beating and sexually humiliating a detainee at Bagram. But in 2006 Corsetti was acquitted and given an honorable discharge. His lawyer’s defense strategy? He “portrayed Corsetti as a foot soldier led by a commander who demanded results at any cost: "The President of the United States doesn't know what the rules are. The Secretary of Defence doesn't know what the rules are. But the government expects this Pfc. (private first class) to know what the rules are?"
This weekend President Bush vetoed the Congress’ attempt to clarify the rules for CIA interrogators. Because when nobody knows where the line between aggressive interrogation and genuine torture lies, the only one left to blame for the cruel treatment of prisoners is the detainees themselves.