Eliot analyzed

My friend Suzanne sent me this link to a fun (though long) asessment of Eliot Spitzer by Mona Ackerman. Here's an excerpt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mona-ackerman/eliot-spitzer-why_b_91286.html

But I'm a shrink. With your permission, I'm going to try to superficially psychoanalyze Eliot Spitzer.

1) Yes. There's a possible addiction. Yes, there is arrogance. Yes, he pushed the limits. Yes, he is self-destructive. Yes, he thinks rules don't apply to him. Yes, he likes sex. Yes, he is obviously quite adept at compartmentalization and, yes, he compartmentalized so well that he was able to seal off what he had to know about the Mann act, the responsibility of banks to report the suspicious movement of funds and other laws relating to prostitution. He was the functional equivalent of the pickpockets who circulated at the public hanging of pickpockets -and picked the pockets of onlookers. Tells you something about human nature.
[. . .]
3) But, to me, the most interesting aspect of the Spitzer saga is not the sexual one or even his internal contradictions. It is what it reveals about his true personality. Does he have any moral compass at all? What role does love or family play in his life? How does he relate to others? And how does all of this information help his wife and daughters?

For some reason, despite many clues to the contrary, Spitzer was mostly seen as the hard-charging, moralistic, crusader for good government. He won a landslide victory in New York because the voters believed that both he and his marriage were nearly perfect - certainly incorruptible. But alongside that portrait were troubling signs that something was seriously amiss. He was too rigid. He could explode with anger. He seemed crazed in his attempts to destroy others, and he could be cruel, bending others to his will. His clean and rigid exterior (those white shirts again, that neat tab collar) made us ignore hints that the man was troubled. It was easier to buy the image.