Eruptions of the day
Elliott Spitzer has got to be the dumbest person on eart... no wait. He looks like Einstein compared to Bush.
But it's literally mind-boggling that someone in his position, who had fought his way to the top in the intense knife-fight of New York politics, that was sitting in one of the most presigious political platforms in the country, one which is often a springboard for presidential runs, could be so reckless and stupid.
It defies all logic that he'd do something like he did, and apparently has been doing for some time.
It begs the question of why politicians seem to almost have a death wish when it comes to enjoying sexual pleasures.
In his defense, and in contrast to many fundementalist Republicans, at least he's accused of having consentual sex with an actual woman.
All one can assume in this bizarre episode is that the women he was paying huge amounts of money to be with must have been REALLY exceptional at her job for Spitzer to essentially risk his entire life's work to get another shot at it. (not to mention that he was allegedly paying almost four grand for the pleasure.)
And then there's Geraldine Ferraro.
Her comments were stupid, though nothing approaching the metaphysical stupidity involved in Spitzer's case.
Her initial comments sounded weird, dumb, and potentially offensive.
Her subsequent explanation and clarification of her remarks on the "Today" show made much more sense. She's also said that if she weren't a woman, she never would have been on the Mondale ticket. She also makes a valid point that often-times political types and media tend to see racism in even completely benign and innocent comments.
What do you think? What makes a person in Spitzer's position throw it all away for some mind-scorching sex?
Was Ferraro's comments racist or offensively dismissive of Obama's accomplishments? Was Clinton wrong to initially refuse to boot her off her finance committee?
And for that matter, was it necessary for Obama to give the boot to his foreign policy adviser when she used the word "monster" in describing Clinton's clear willingness to do or say nearly anything to win? Should he have had a stronger attitude and demonstrated that he would stand by those loyal to him by disaproving of her comments but keeping her as an advisor?
Any thoughts on the most recent dust-ups and tempests in teapots?
And what are your views on the state of the Dem election contest?
Has Hillary gone too far in trying to attack Obama?
Was it even sane for her to suggest that maybe she'd make Obama her V.P. when SHE'S the one in second place?
If he's prepared and qualified to be vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency, then why is she arguing that he's not qualified to be president?
Is she approaching the duplicitous and craven "say anything" status of a Rove or Bush?