I think Matt Yglesias's comments on today's front-page Sunday NYT interview with Eliot Spitzer are fine, but he misses what I think is the larger point: why is the New York Times giving Spitzer prime real estate to criticize Andrew Cuomo?
I mean, I could see giving Spitzer space if they needed his expertise in something, such as the banking bill, or prostitution, or disgraced politicians...but I'm really not sure what the news value is, here. I mean, "Gosh, if I hadn't screwed up as governor, I'd be a much better governor than him" -- why is that on the Sunday front page? Especially coming on the heels of their "Spitzer's Back" feature.
Really, I don't want to pick on Spitzer; I think it's totally fine that he's writing for Slate, and apparently doing pundit duty on various TV shows. I don't believe that he should be treated as a non-person, and he does have real knowledge of Wall Street. As an expert on how to be a good Governor of New York, however...well, I'm not seeing that, and I'm not sure why the Times is.