Hillary Clinton's unofficial surrogates in New York City have wasted no time trying to smear Barack Obama with the alleged involvement of Eliot Spitzer with a prostitution ring.

Specifically, less than 30 minutes after news of the Governor's alleged involvement with the high-priced Emperor's Club broke on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, I received an e-mail from one of the most persistent Hillary backers in New York.

To wit, "As a reminder that a scandal can always be brewing around the corner -- especially for those politicians who like to project that they are 'above it all' -- see Eliot Spitzer. The hypocrisy is rich."

My receipt of this opportunistic and jaw-dropping e-mail was almost as shocking as the revelations of Governor Spitzer's misjudgment itself.

The speed and ease with which Hillary Clinton's unofficial surrogates have sought to benefit from the personal and professional troubles of a fellow Democratic - and the leader of her home state party no less - is mind numbing and frankly disgusting. While the e-mail does not mention Senator Obama by name - the implication is clear.

To quote Don Corleone – “How did things ever get so far?” That’s the question regarding Albany’s latest fiasco involving Joe Bruno’s political travel at state taxpayers’ expense. The answer to the question and the festering problem is this, a specially created independent commission.

Another commission? Are you kidding? Albany needs another commission like a hole in the head. All too true, however, the four potential investigations into “...gate” (supply your own moniker – i.e., Trooper, Spitzer, Bruno, Travel, etc.) have shown that no one in Albany is interested in getting at the truth or moving onto substantive issues of policy.

As foreshadowed two weeks ago, Joe Bruno and his Republican cronies together with entrenched Democratic insiders are using these “sideshows” to avoid the important policy issues that the Governor intended to address when he took office seven months ago. As a result, the public is left with wheel spinning and obsessing about who had subpoena power and when – classic Albany obfuscation.

It’s day 14 and the Governor and his agenda are officially being roasted by no less than FOUR potential investigations into allegations of wrongdoing regarding Joe Bruno’s travel on state aircraft. Meanwhile, the public is left with platitudes and bromides about cooperation coming from Albany and the Governor.

Clearly those that thought everything would change on Day One – can’t remember where they got that idea – are to blame. The only thing that seems to have changed are the faces – and not too many of those – in Albany. With competency and learning from mistakes so rife in the news and among the chattering classes of Albany and Washington, you would have thought that the Governor and his crack team would be on top of the trend.

State Senator Diane Savino offered a quick fix for this problem over a week ago when she suggested that Darren Dopp, the Governor’s embattled communications director, be fired. Of course, firing Mr. Dopp does not mean that he is guilty of a crime. Certainly his recently retained counsel made that point abundantly clear in an article in Friday’s New York Times.

Last Tuesday morning the phrase being uttered around New York was, “Not a good day for the governor” – if only. A week later and the story continues to garner news ink. Now, whether you are down on Wall Street reveling in the governor’s reversal of fortune or a supporter left grasping for words to explain what seems to be well, unexplainable – stop for a moment and contemplate the larger picture.

This week, a multi-issue agreement was reached in Albany. The agreement covers congestion pricing, campaign finance reform, long-overdue salary increases, and possibly some legislation.

The bad news is that nothing (or almost nothing) was actually accomplished.

The congestion pricing debate will shift from the usual three men in a room – plus one (Mayor Bloomberg) to a 17-member commission. This commission will “study” several alternatives, then report early next year, after which the legislature may or may not act.

Whenever political leaders don’t want to take the heat for an initiative, they generally create a commission; this gives them cover, allowing them to claim that they’re just following the recommendations of the experts, while they hope nobody notices who appointed the members of the commission. (Note: the difference between a “committee” and a “commission” is still a mystery, except that a “committee” is usually created to bury an issue, while a “commission” is supposed to render an “independent judgment” that just happens to coincide with what its creators wanted.)