The NYT and Spitzer

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.

Chutzpah

Some guy named Eliot Spitzer, writing in Slate, notices that Democrats had problems in local elections across the Empire State last Tuesday. As an ace political analyst, Eliot Spitzer tells us:

These races offer a deep and troubling message for the White House. Voters may not be enthusiastic about the hard-right agenda of some Republicans, but they are very dissatisfied with what Democrats have been doing.

Not just Democrats, expert analyst Eliot Spitzer tells us, but the President of the United States himself:

All this has real meaning for Barack Obama. A year after the elation of "change we can believe in," there is as sense of drift and loss of leadership. The president is seen as too much the bystander as Congress wades through a multitude of mind-numbing debates, compromises, and amendments, apparently reducing any bold idea to a lowest common denominator. This may be the legislative process, but it has sapped the public admiration of a president who was so recently viewed as embodying vision and strength.

Hmmm...could be. Let's check:

Hey! This latest SurveyUSA poll seems to have Obama with a 63% approval rating in New York. Well, gosh, perhaps it's not the president after all.

Well, let's put our thinking caps on...is there any other reason that New York voters might be less than thrilled with the Democratic Party? Something, perhaps, more statewide than national?

C'mon, Eliot Spitzer. Surely there must be something else that could perhaps have upset New York state's voters. I could have sworn there was something.