Whores For Spitzer

Everyone's got something to peddle on the back of Eliot Spitzer's (are we still saying alleged?) prostitute problems. Low-grade P.R. firms and magazines have gone crazy.

Dr. Carol Cassell is available for comment! "As seen on The Today Show and Good Morning America, this author of Put Passion First: Why Sexual Chemistry is Key to Finding and Keeping Lasting Love, is known for her 'thought-provoking' and 'entertaining' interviews."

Why, that is "thought-provoking"!

There are some publicist-suggested discussion points with Dr. Cassell, which include: "Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant before him--can you make another person be faithful? No." No! Well, what kind of discussion is that?

Magazines were quick on the draw. "Time Out New York" sent out a tacky email blast yesterday—subject line: "Spitzer or Swallow?"

Has Eliot Spitzer been reading Time Out New York? This week's issue of TONY was focused on the secret lives of New Yorkers. We introduced you to a go-go dancing lawyer, a pot-smoking doctor, and -- oh wait, what's this? An ORGY LOVING DAD? A HAPPY-ENDING ADDICTED HUSBAND?

::cough cough::

Shame on you, Eliot Spitzer. You clearly did NOT read this week's TONY.

You know what, Time Out? FAIL. (By the way, the magazine has rejiggered the art for its cover story on the Web to look like it was tied to the Spitzer story!)

And then poor 02138, the magazine that is unaffiliated with Harvard but devoted to its graduates, tried it this morning.

Not long ago, Spitzer and his wife Silda Wall posed for the cover of the Winter 2007 “Power Couple” issue of 02138 magazine, the lifestyle magazine for Harvard influentials. The Harvard-educated couple, selected because of their influential careers and continued commitment to maintaining a strong and lasting relationship, seemed the picture of political marital bliss. The black-and-white cover photo showed a part of Spitzer and Wall’s relationship not often depicted in the public realm.

It seems a bit nuts that they're promoting that story—doesn't the fact that it's a profile of "marital bliss" mean that it's also a piece of terrible and inaccurate journalism?