TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says AIG's Sullivan joins the "formers" at Citi and Marsh & McLennan as Eliot Spitzer's appointee failures.

Three strikes, and Spitzer's guys should all be out.

That's my thoughts about this Martin Sullivan/AIG (NYSE: AIG) (Cramer's Take) scandal. Remember that Sullivan was basically appointed to run AIG by Eliot Spitzer after he kicked out Hank Greenberg for a laundry list of bad deeds. Just like Chuck Prince was appointed to run Citigroup (NYSE: C) (Cramer's Take) when Spitzer booted Sandy Weill, and Mike Cherkasky was appointed to run Marsh & McLennan (NYSE: MMC) (Cramer's Take) when Spitzer axed Jeffrey Greenberg.

All three men were brought in to clean up the mess. Both Prince and Cherkasky were lawyers who were way over their heads as operators.

Prince presided over the destruction of a great American bank -- although it was kind of a re-destruction in light of how bad it was in 1990 -- when he allowed billions in off-balance-sheet borrowings that he simply did not understand.

Hank Greenberg is an old man now. His stated age is 82, but he must be closer to 90. He was the CEO of American International Group (NYSE: AIG) from 1967 until 2005. He was pushed out because of an accounting scandal and federal prosecutors are still looking into that.

But Greenberg does not want to take his hundreds of millions of dollars and retire. In a filing with the SEC yesterday he was pushing for "strategic changes" at the big insurance company and perhaps the spin-off of some businesses. Through various funds and foundations, Greenberg controls over 13% of AIG's shares and the filing with the government states that he "believes that there are opportunities to significantly improve [AIG's] performance and strategic direction, as well as the value of their investment." The Wall Street Journal writes that (subscription required) Greenberg and the funds he controls "anticipate holding discussions with stockholders and third parties that may address a number of issues," including whether to spin off some operations, and "concerns over the direction and management of [AIG] generally."

In his desire to exert some control over his old company, Greenberg may get himself into more hot water. AIG has already filed a suit against him for damaging the company. Lashing out at AIG will clearly make the government look harder at its case against him. Prosecutors certainly don't want more headlines about the fight between the man who made AIG and the company itself. The government would not want it to appear that they aren't addressing problems at AIG in a timely fashion.

Greenberg does have at least one leg to stand on. AIG shares are down over 10% in the last two years while the S&P is up almost 30% If the old man can get the company's board to take action by raising its dividend or buying back shares, it might drive the stock back up.

Greenberg. Old but not yet infirm.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

AIG (NYSE: AIG) is recently down $0.56 to $63.28. Smith Barney says, "AIG has yet to provide investors with an earnings release date for 3Q '07 results. In the wake of the subprime meltdown, investors are eager to asses the fate of AIG's $29 billion of subprime mortgage exposure and its credit guaranty business." AIG call option volume of 13,468 contracts compares to put volume of 36,042 contracts. AIG November option implied volatility of 44 is above a level of 33 from last night and above its 26-week average of 22 according to Track Data, suggest larger near term risk.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

There are two kinds of CEOs: innovators -- who come up with growth ideas -- and janitors -- who cut costs and instill discipline. There are times when it's best to invest in an innovator, and others when a janitor generates superior shareholder returns. What does this mean for stocks? Potential buys include Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), and American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG), and potential holds include Hewlett-Packard Co. (NASDAQ: HPQ), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), and Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL).

This thought came to mind after reading an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray's new book -- Revolt in the Boardroom: The New Rules of Power in Corporate America. It's a measure of his clout that he got the front page [subscription required] -- albeit of the Saturday edition. Murray's argument is that "boring" CEOs are now on the rise "in the wake of ... Enron" (a hackneyed expression that should be banned from the journalistic lexicon).

Following journalistic convention, Murray extrapolates a trend from three cases. He argues that boards have appointed "boring" CEOs -- I call them janitors since they are the executive equivalent of a clean up crew that comes in after a rock concert -- to avoid their predecessors' scandals. He cites the "boring" examples of Jim McNerney at Boeing, Martin Sullivan at AIG, and Mark Hurd at HP. They can boost the stock price for a while by cutting excess cost and instilling process discipline.

But they often fall down when it comes to generating revenue growth ideas. This is where investors can benefit from an innovator CEO -- the archetype of which is Apple's Steve Jobs. For investors there are two problems with such innovators:

Ben Berkowitz is the business news editor for AOL. His weekly column looks at news stories with long-term significance that were initially overlooked.

The story you didn't read this week but should have is the almost off-handed way that super-billionaire Sam Zell said he'd perhaps like to buy Tribune Co. (NYSE: TRB). And if that wasn't enough, now everyone's favorite even-bigger billionaire Warren Buffett is said to be snapping up shares of the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT).

These titans of industry understand something that even the Internet has not changed: owning a newspaper is both a mark of prestige and an easy way to have a very loud voice. Anyone who thinks their motives are altruistic has perhaps been sniffing too much newsprint.

Sam Zell is a real-estate baron. What on earth would he do with a newspaper chain? (Yes, Trib also owns the Cubs, and some TV stations, and a few other properties, but the same question applies. There are easier ways to own a baseball team.)

Keep asking: why does housing developer and art patron Eli Broad want the Los Angeles Times? Or supermarket magnate Ron Burkle? Why would insurance heavyweight Hank Greenberg want the New York Times? Why does Jack Welch want the Boston Globe? Hint: remember the rumors about Welch trying to steer election coverage in various NBC newsrooms in 2000.

Simple: they want to control mainstream media outlets to push their agendas. Broad has a vision for changing the future of Los Angeles. Burkle is a big Democratic supporter. Greenberg has been abused mercilessly in the press for the financial doings at AIG. Welch's wife is a journalist.

The motives for Zell and Buffett are less clear; maybe Zell wants to take a crack at Trib for the sake of it? Great businessmen love challenges. And Buffett, well, just do what the man says. He buys it, you buy it. Really, he didn't get rich on his looks or fashion sense.