Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer choked up on Tuesday morning discussing the “pain” he endured over the last five years, under intense questioning from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” hosts. 
 
 Spitzer was asked by Mika Brzezinski to give a personal, unrehearsed answer on how he had changed in the past five years after a prostitution scandal drove him from office. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Haberman reports on comeback 
 
 “A lot of pain. A lot of pain. … You go through that pain, you change,” Spitzer said, visibly choking up with watery eyes. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Eliot Spitzer's career) 
 
 Brzezinski wrapped the interview there, but at the end of the show, the hosts discussed an already brewing debate online about whether Spitzer’s tears were real. 
 
 “They felt real to me. I was sitting there, it felt very real to me,” panelist and Republican adviser Nicole Wallace said. 
 
 No matter what people think of Spitzer, Brzezinski said he deserved credit for coming on. 
 
 “He was raw and all there. It was pretty powerful. Don’t know if it’ll change things for him, but I do appreciate a person who’s made mistakes coming and facing the cameras and facing the questions. That’s actually a test of character. There are those that choose not to do that,” she said. 
 
 During the interview, Spitzer said whether he had done enough in the five years to overcome distrust of him was up to the voters to judge, but he asked voters to “look at the totality” of his life and career. 
 
 “All I can say to the public is look at the totality. Look at what I’ve done, what I’ve said, what I’m saying now, look at what I stand for, and then make a judgment. … I will trust the verdict of the public, yes or no,” Spitzer said. 
 
 The exchange came after the hosts repeatedly steered Spitzer away from his now-familiar account of his record and hopes for the comptroller office and back to the scandal that caused him to resign as governor. 
 
 “What I did was not only wrong, but was a consequence of hubris and a failure of judgment and self-indulgence, which is absolutely inexplicable and unjustifiable, improper, and I would agree probably with most of Mika’s characterizations about me,” Spitzer said, asked what flaws led him to break the law. 
 
 Host Joe Scarborough asked, then, if voters will see a less arrogant, more reflective new Spitzer. 
 
 “Hopefully I’ll be more reflective, you know, I’m not sure, the arrogance, I’m not here to quibble about characterizations of me, I’m really not,” Spitzer said, turning the conversation back to “substantive” issues. ||||| When Eliot Spitzer resigned as New York governor amid a humiliating prostitution scandal, no one cheered louder than Wall Street. 
 
 More than five years later, the industry’s outspoken antagonist is attempting to make a political comeback – one that could cause serious headaches for bankers and across corporate boardrooms. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Eliot Spitzer on comptroller race, Wall Street reform 
 
 Spitzer, 54, is vying to be the next New York City comptroller. The job carries far less public prominence than governor or attorney general, the post from which Spitzer earned the nickname “Sheriff of Wall Street” for his battles with American International Group and the New York Stock Exchange, among others. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Eliot Spitzer's career) 
 
 But it would provide Spitzer with enough power to get back in the face of corporate America and the finance industry. 
 
 As comptroller he could play the role of activist investor while managing the city’s almost $140 billion in pension funds, pressure money managers to accept reforms if they want to do business with New York and audit city agencies’ various dealings with financial companies and make headlines if he thinks the taxpayer is getting a raw deal. 
 
 “Any time you are exerting influence on where to place well over a hundred billion dollars in assets, you have power and influence,” said Jon Lukomnik, a former deputy comptroller for New York City who is now a managing partner of Sinclair Capital. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Spitzer explains his return) 
 
 Since his surprise announcement via an interview with the New York Times Sunday evening, Spitzer, who left office in March 2008 shortly after details of his involvement in a high-end prostitution ring became public, has made clear that he would use the city’s shareholder position to be a watchdog of corporate America. 
 
 In an interview on the Brian Lehrer Show on Monday, Spitzer offered several examples of corporate principles he would advocate as comptroller. 
 
 At the top of the list: Separating the roles of CEO and board chairman at large corporations. 
 
 The issue gained attention earlier this year when some investors unsuccessfully sought to have JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon give up his chairman’s role following the bank’s “London Whale” trading debacle, which resulted in billions of dollars in losses. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Spitzer launches political comeback) 
 
 “The argument is that Jamie Dimon is a good CEO therefore we don’t want to separate,” Spitzer said. “Look, George Washington was a great president — we did not eliminate checks and balances even though we thought he was a great president.” 
 
 Spitzer added, “Structural checks on decision-making are important in corporate governance as well as in the Democratic arena.” 
 
 John Liu, the current comptroller, was active in the push for Dimon to give up some of his powers, but given Spitzer’s history and reputation, the ex-governor could give the issue of corporate governance added heat and attention. 
 
 As comptroller, Spitzer could also exercise influence over financial institutions that do business with the city to manage its public pension funds. ||||| POLITICO caught up with former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer Monday night to talk about his just-announced candidacy for New York City comptroller. Here’s what he had to say about how he thinks his record will stand up to scrutiny, his hopes to move past the prostitution scandal, and how he sees himself as the anti-establishment candidate — and what he meant when he said prostitution is like smoking dope. 
 
 Q: You have four days to get on the ballot and just over two months to convince people you should be comptroller. How do you convince people to support you in that amount of time? 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Eliot Spitzer on comptroller race, Wall Street reform 
 
 A: I think the argument is, look what I’ve done. I don’t say that with any degree of hubris, but I think what I can say is look what I did to the attorney general’s office. Look what we did in a series of substantive areas, from the well known such as Wall Street, obviously, to the less well known — community gardens. The low wage labor cases. The proposal I had when I was governor to let undocumented immigrants to get drivers’ licenses. It’s now the law of the land, being rolled out across the nation and of course back then was a lightning rod issue. 
 
 So I think I can say I have been on issue after issue — same sex marriage, even in New York, I was the only candidate running for statewide office in 1998 and 2006 who was for it. I’ve been ahead of the curve. I’m not a traditional politician. I am not one who takes the measure of a political issue and calibrates to the public opinion. I’m tough enough to stand up and do what needs to be done. And I think the public knows that. I don’t need to make the case on a tabula rasa. I can point to a record. That doesn’t mean I win, I’m not saying here it comes on a platter, but I think the public does get that. And that’s important. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Eliot Spitzer's career) 
 
 Q: But is two months enough time to do it? 
 
 A: For most people, there’s a visceral response that is generated reasonably quickly as we approach election day or based upon inputs over multiple years. Frankly, I think the larger reality I face is that it’s going to be hard for me to change the public perception of me and the public perception will either win or not. But changing it with even the best communications strategy in the world probably won’t accomplish a whole lot. People remember me looking through the prism as attorney general, as governor and how I left — the good, the bad and the ugly. But I have stood up in front of the public and said I’m seeking a second chance. So we’ll see. 
 
 Q: You’ve repeatedly compared the city comptroller’s office to the attorney general’s office. Given all the differences of powers and staff, is that comparison fair? 
 
 A: I won’t know until I’m there. But do I think that there’s a real metaphor there? Absolutely. Do I think that the opportunity to use the buckets of jurisdiction that I’ve been discussing in the comptroller’s office? Absolutely. I hope to find out. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Spitzer explains his return) 
 
 Q: Have you spoken yet to your new opponent, Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer? 
 
 A: No. I have not had the chance. 
 
 Q: Do you think you’ll speak to him before you meet in a debate? 
 
 A: I hope so. I have not had a chance to call him quite frankly. It’s been a little busy. Having said that, I look forward to it, and I’ve always thought of him as a decent guy and friend and colleague in government. I hope it stays that way. ||||| Journalist Sally Quinn, the veteran Washington observer, reflected on the common thread between Spitzer, Weiner and Sanford: “The essential thing that these politicians all have is an absence of shame. 
 
 “We keep hearing about redemption and forgiveness — these are all religious words,” said Quinn, who now writes a column on faith. “There’s nothing religious about what’s going on here. This is strictly about ‘me, me, me,’ and it’s a neediness that I don’t understand but we see all the time in Washington.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Anthony Weiner announces NYC mayor run Sanford ad outlines ‘mistakes’ 
 
 The sex scandals of the past decade have come with such frequency that one could almost set them to music, a la Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”: Mark Foley’s emails, John Ensign’s coverup, David Vitter and the D.C. Madam, shirtless Chris Lee, Herman Cain’s harassment, Jim McGreevey as “gay American,” John Edwards’s love child. And this is by no means a comprehensive list. A common theme is a mingling of professional positions with sexual adventurism, and a seeming conviction that huge vulnerabilities in private lives would somehow not come to public light. Edwards ran for president even after lover Rielle Hunter was carrying his baby — one Edwards claimed was fathered by an aide — and still nurtured fantasies that he could maneuver his way into being Barack Obama’s attorney general after the National Enquirer disclosed his affair. 
 
 Of course, the historical record, dating from JFK to FDR to the Roman Empire, offers many examples of leaders who mixed public service with private extramarital indulgences. What is much more common now is their ultra-public disclosure — and the accompanying ability of politicians to rebound from what once were almost always career-ending scandals when personal lapses became known. 
 
 On sexual matters, Bill Clinton of course set the modern standard for resilience after being impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky uproar and seeing his poll numbers rise. Like Richard Nixon before him, said historian Michael Beschloss, Clinton embraced the importance of never giving up and always being seen as a survivor. Contemporary politicians like Weiner and Spitzer may be making a similar calculation, he said, that perceived character defects can be turned into assets through perseverance — “that people will admire their determination to not be defeated.” 
 
 But the ease with which politicians recover from scandal says less about the character of politicians than the character of the times, said Doug Sosnik, a close adviser to Bill Clinton in his second term. Because of the “coarsening of our society” — with voters subject to constant news of bad behavior among leading figures in sports and popular entertainment, as well as politics — “it is almost impossible to disappoint anyone…The expectation is that everyone does everything.” 
 
 In addition, with respect for leaders in nearly all sectors of society at historically low levels, voters look at candidates through a practical prism, not a sentimental one: Are they competent and effective? If the answer is yes, Sosnik said, the response to personal failings is often, “Who cares?”
– Eliot Spitzer is back on the political scene—just like Mark Sanford and Anthony Weiner—and apparently tearing up over his past transgressions this morning on Morning Joe. Which makes Politico wonder: What makes these guys tick? The simple answer, from Washington insiders, is egomania. "The essential thing that these politicians all have is an absence of shame," says journalist Sally Quinn. "This is strictly about ‘me, me, me,’ and it’s a neediness that I don’t understand but we see all the time in Washington." A political psychologist agrees, saying the new runs for office are attempts to redeem bruised egos: "It’s not that the public needs ... them back in office. It’s much more that they need to be back in office." How some are reacting to Spitzer's run for comptroller: Whether or not Spitzer stands a chance, Wall Street won't want to see him back again, Politico notes. "He’s had these legendary duels and battles with a number of people in the sector,” says an industry official. “Should he be elected, you’ll just have another official who’s antagonistic towards the sector." Indeed, as a financial manager for New York City, he'd have a powerful weapon against corporate heavyweights. Spitzer's own argument is that he's a gutsy progressive; he notes his backing for gay marriage in 1998. "I’ve been ahead of the curve. I’m not a traditional politician. I am not one who takes the measure of a political issue and calibrates to the public opinion," he tells Politico. "I’m tough enough to stand up and do what needs to be done." Adds a former Bush administration official: "When people say his name, it’s usually preceded by a four-letter word."