vertiginous

very familiar word but the root word (ergo the definition) is eluding me at the moment

Definition of vertiginous:
adj.

“Turning about an axis; revolving or whirling. Affected by vertigo; dizzy. … Tending to produce vertigo: “my small mind contained in earthly human limits, not lost in vertiginous space and elements unknown” (Diana Cooper). Inclined to change quickly; unstable. From Latin vertīgō, vertīgin-, a whirling, from vertere, to turn.” (answers.com)

How I ran across it:
2/13/08 NYT op-ed piece, “A Flawed Feminist Test" by Maureen Dowd. It's yet another political article. I am continuing to tire of politics, but I can't help it if this word is where it is!

“...We’re not just in the most vertiginous election of our lives. We’re in another national seminar on gender and race that is teaching us about who we are as we figure out what we want America to be...”

My two cents:
Well, I actually had to look this one up to be reminded that its root word is vertigo. Duh. Of course.

Maureen Dowd writes about our society’s undeniable biases and bigotry in this historic election, but moreover, she debates whether Hillary will win or lose based on gender bias, or on something else entirely: her spouse, and her political record. Dowd’s got the opinion that some people may not vote for Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because she is who she is - the woman indubitably attached to Bill Clinton; and a woman to be judged on her political record. Therefore, Dowd proclaims the gender issue "clouded" and not a true test. Well, hello. So race (Obama) and age (McCain) aren't true tests, either. Some voters think them a deciding issue (pro and con); some don't. Some fall somewhere in between and weigh all the issues. Despite the historically progressive, epic nature of this election, no one issue can - or should - be singularly responsible in establishing its outcome. Which brings me to wonder what voters would do with a divorced, or single candidate. That would challenge our staid notion of presidential archetypes wouldn’t it? But despite our progressiveness thus far, I don’t think we (or Hillary) are there yet, either.