You say that:

Hillary has an opportunity to 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 actually, she doesn't have an opportunity to say anything of the kind. We don't know what Spitzer did or didn't do. He admitted to making a mistake of some kind, but that isn't quite the same thing as admitting that he's guilty, and I don't think it would be appropriate for anyone in the public spotlight to be blasting what Spitzer did before we have the facts. Hillary's not a pundit on slate.com who can say whatever she wants however wrong it may turn out to be; she has to be a lot more careful with her words. I imagine if the Duke lacrosse story were to have broken today, you'd be calling for her "to say something from the heart" about rape and inequality and white privilege. You would've been wrong. I'd also point out that Obama only had this to say:

“I really haven’t seen the details of it, so I don’t know what’s going on,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m a little in the dark.”

Quite the ringing denunciation of misogyny there. And McCain just said this:

“I was just watching, as all of you have, this information about the governor of New York,’’ Mr. McCain said. “I don’t know what to make of it.’’

Mr. McCain said that he would wait to see more of the facts before weighing in on it. But he did say that it seemed to be something that “nobody ever expected.’’

When he landed in St. Louis, Mr. McCain said that he had no further comment on the Spitzer matter except to say “our prayers go out to his family.’’

Thanks for a note of sanity. No wonder political campaigns seem so superficial. The well-mannered "no comment" comments all three candidates expressed are the only way to take the high road this early in an unfolding story. Reporters expecting substantive responses should be asking substantive questions -- not waiting breathlessly for a juicy sound bite in lieu of real discourse.

As far as Rosa's characterizations of the poor "younger women" Hillary was supposed to support -- are you nuts? Staying with a man you have a long, complex and caring relationship is one thing -- as several have said, no one is qualified to judge the inner workings of someone else's marriage no matter how public the outer layers are -- but to expect a woman to protect the women who have chosen to disregard her feelings, dignity and safety (those darned potential STDs, not to mention the poltical destruction these poor waifs wrought) is simply bizarre.

Hillary responded to the brutal, dehumanizing exposes and the truly ridiculous political spectacle of the impeachment with dignity and composure. Perhaps her very strength is the source of the viciousness of the attacks on her ever since. What we can't tear down we are afraid of, and if we are afraid, we attack....

Anyway, it amazes me what passes these days in Slate for commentary -- perhaps the days of a columnist having to plan, write, think, rewrite and edit before posting are gone -- but come on women of Slate and think a little before hitting send.

Right on. Rosa's rather long post is entirely predicated on the assumption that prostitution is inherently sexist without bothering to argue that point, while saving the relevant issues until the very end of her discussion, in the closing passage you quoted. But the problems cited there -- mostly having to do with sex slavery -- could be dealt with another way as well, by legalizing and regulating the sex business. As a couple commentators have pointed out here on Slate, Nevada, where it's legal, does not seem to have a real big problem with sex workers being impressed into the trade.

Thanks for that post, I was thinking the same thing.

And it does distinguish her from Obama and McCain, because unlike the other two candidates' "no comment" comments, Hillary openly expressed compassion for the real-live people involved in the controversy. She took the time to acknowledge the suffering and shame that the Spitzer family must now be experiencing, both in the glare of the public spotlight and behind closed doors. That she'd take that extra step in the midst of a presidential race in which every syllable is scrutinized by the media, is remarkable.

Hillary made a gentle "I'm thinking of you" comment for the family (and press) and moved on. It was probably the kind of comment she wanted people to make about her personal life.

This isn't about her and any attempt to make this a referendum on her, her marriage or her campaign is just stupid.

.

I'm amazed by the judgmental superiority of Rosa's comment and others like it in Slate XX. Why on earth does the judgment turn to the wife who tries to mitigate her family's humiliation or the flawed presidential candidate who expresses some empathy? It's nice to see how sure Rosa Brooks, Hanna Rosin, etc. are about how they would behave in a hypothetical situation they've no doubt never faced. One thing to learn from this terrible scandal is that it's a dumb idea to lord your own moral superiority over others.

And for that matter, why so many posts on this issue rather than, say, Nancy Pelosi's ambivalence on telecom immunity? If you have to talk about sex, how about focusing on the sexual abuse and torture we're inflicting on Guantanamo detainees, including at least one minor? How would Hillary address that? That's where your moralizing should be focused.

And it does distinguish her from Obama and McCain, because unlike the other two candidates' "no comment" comments, Hillary openly expressed compassion for the real-live people involved in the controversy.

Actually, nunquam, McCain said that his prayers go out to the Spitzer family.