Jenny Sanford -- the soon-to-be-ex-wife of South Carolina Gov. Mark "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" Sanford -- has been all over the media promoting her memoir, Staying True, about her life with the man who humiliated her by going on national television and tearfully declaring that his mistress was his "soul mate."
Sanford's the anti-Good Wife, the lead character of a CBS drama about a wife who has remained married to her philandering politician husband (who slept with prostitutes) who's incarcerated on charges of political corruption. Jenny Sanford decided she wasn't going to put up with her husband's insane behavior any longer, after several attempts to reconcile with him. So she's divorcing Mark Sanford and wrote a book about their experiences together. Jenny Sanford, who took time off from her career to raise the Sanfords' four boys and provide political advice to her husband, says she wants to return to work soon, but in the meantime, she's promoting Staying True and fielding criticism for doing so.
When she appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning, co-host Mika Brzezinski said that Jenny Sanford "chose a public route with this book" and asked how her four children are handling all of this publicity. Sanford responded, rightfully so, by pointing out that it was her husband who made this all public in the first place, whose e-mails to and from his lover were read from coast-to-coast. "It would not have been my choice to bring this scandal out in the light," Sanford said. (She also appeared on The Daily Show where she was asked a similar question.)
Going ahead and writing this book has made Jenny Sanford the target of criticism and public debate about her own level of responsibility for her predicament and whether she's hurting her children by speaking out publicly:
On Huffington Post, there was an entry debating whether she should've stayed with her cheating husband.
The Washington Post pinned the blame on Sanford for putting up with mistreatment, with writer Ruth Marcus commenting, ". . . [T]he most disappointing part of Staying True is that, consciously or not, Jenny Sanford reveals her own complicity -- not in facilitating her husband's affair, but in allowing herself to be treated so badly for so long."
PunditMom was likewise disappointed in Jenny Sanford after reading excerpts from her memoir, saying, "By marrying [Mark Sanford] and allowing her sons to see her treated in such a casually neglectful way, it sure doesn’t seem like she stayed true to herself or to her obligation as a parent to give her children an example of what a healthy marriage should look like . . . Clearly, their marriage was lacking. One could say, well that’s just between them, but it isn’t — they have four sons who’ve watched and learned about what a woman is willing to put up with for the sake of keeping her man, even a louse who acts like he couldn’t care less."
The same criticism could and has been lobbed at Hillary Clinton -- who also wrote a book mentioning her husband's mistreatment -- as well as at other wives of male politicians who've not only publicly discussed their husband's infidelity but remained married to the men who have treated them poorly, and in full view of their children. I'm of the mind that it's really, really difficult to say what you, personally, would do if you were Jenny Sanford or Hillary Clinton. It makes me uncomfortable to judge women as strong (or good role models) based on whether they stay or leave their cheating husbands, or whether they put their own story out into the public sphere or suffer in silence (like Silda Spitzer).
I keep thinking of Elizabeth Edwards who wrote her own memoir detailing her response to learning that her husband John had cheated on her, and decided that she'd stay married to him. A year later, after all manner of scandal and searingly awful personal details have come out about Elizabeth and John Edwards and John's mistress (and his love child), and the couple has announced their separation. Am I going to judge Elizabeth Edwards for writing her book, talking publicly about the pain John caused her and her decision to stay with him in 2009, and now, a year later, she's changed her mind? Nope. I'm not Elizabeth Edwards. And I'm not Jenny Sanford nor am I Hillary Clinton. I feel for all of these women and hope that they, and their children, can somehow find some peace amid the wreckage caused by their cheating husbands.
Image credit: Jenny Sanford's web site.
Showing posts with label Huffington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huffington Post. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Notes on Politics: Jenny Sanford Goes Public and Gets Critiqued
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tiger Woods & the 'Vanity Fair' Cover
Man, what bad timing for Tiger Woods with thie cover, eh? However the folks at Vanity Fair are likely psyched that they had this Annie Leibovitz photo -- and others which haven't yet been released -- for which Woods posed to accompany the tough cover story by Buzz "Friday Night Lights" Bissinger about the serial cheater's fall from grace.
The Bissinger story concludes with this:
"In the end it was the age-old clash of image versus reality, the compartmentalization of two different lives that inevitably merge at some certain point, whoever you are. [Woods]exhibited the same superhuman confidence off the golf course that he exhibited on it, apparently convinced he would never be caught despite the stupid sloppiness at the end — text messages, voice-mail messages. He deluded himself into thinking he could be something that he wasn’t: untouchable. The greatest feat of his career is that he managed to get away with it for so long in public, the bionic man instead of the human one who hit a fire hydrant."
The online comments accompanying the photo on the Vanity Fair blog and on the Huffington Post, are fairly harsh when it comes to both Woods and the magazine editors' decision to use that particular image for its cover.
On the VF blog, there were comments like, "I am sorry he looks like a CHEATER to me. He has to same look on his face my ex did when he got caught" and "Um, not only is this not what I want to see, but Tiger looks like a thug. Also, I would expect to see a better body on the cover. He looks a little unkempt."
Many commenters on the Huffington Post's Woods/VF blog entry on the magazine cover -- which received over 800 comments -- said Woods deserves this treatment. "I have a feeling the real Tiger is a whole lot closer to this cover, than the Dockers-wearing, pink polo shirt puppet Nike portrayed him as," one person said.
But there were a fair number of people who dissed VF for exploitation. "I'm Vanity Fair's biggest fan, but I think the cover photo is in poor taste and plays to a nasty racial stereotype," one person wrote.
Another chimed in, "More opportunistic exploitation of Tiger by the media; and this time with intentional racial overtones."
Some saw the look on Woods' face and interpreted it as a cry for help. A person writing on HuffPo said: "His expression is one of sadness. Since it was taken pre-scandal you have to wonder. I've seen that expression many times in photographs and it is the look of someone with issues. Obviously that is not very prophetic of me, but after seeing this picture and knowing it is pre-scandal, I actually feel kinda sorry for him."
Back on the VF blog, one person wrote in part, "IMHO, this picture of Tiger does not show 'incredible focus and dedication'. Look in his eyes....and at the set of his mouth. They show a lack of assuredness,intense worry,vulnerability and on-going pain. The picture does not characterize the way he really feels inside. He looks haunted. "
What do you think about VF's decision to run this photo on the cover?
Image credit: Annie Leibovitz/Vanity Fair.
The Bissinger story concludes with this:
"In the end it was the age-old clash of image versus reality, the compartmentalization of two different lives that inevitably merge at some certain point, whoever you are. [Woods]exhibited the same superhuman confidence off the golf course that he exhibited on it, apparently convinced he would never be caught despite the stupid sloppiness at the end — text messages, voice-mail messages. He deluded himself into thinking he could be something that he wasn’t: untouchable. The greatest feat of his career is that he managed to get away with it for so long in public, the bionic man instead of the human one who hit a fire hydrant."
The online comments accompanying the photo on the Vanity Fair blog and on the Huffington Post, are fairly harsh when it comes to both Woods and the magazine editors' decision to use that particular image for its cover.
On the VF blog, there were comments like, "I am sorry he looks like a CHEATER to me. He has to same look on his face my ex did when he got caught" and "Um, not only is this not what I want to see, but Tiger looks like a thug. Also, I would expect to see a better body on the cover. He looks a little unkempt."
Many commenters on the Huffington Post's Woods/VF blog entry on the magazine cover -- which received over 800 comments -- said Woods deserves this treatment. "I have a feeling the real Tiger is a whole lot closer to this cover, than the Dockers-wearing, pink polo shirt puppet Nike portrayed him as," one person said.
But there were a fair number of people who dissed VF for exploitation. "I'm Vanity Fair's biggest fan, but I think the cover photo is in poor taste and plays to a nasty racial stereotype," one person wrote.
Another chimed in, "More opportunistic exploitation of Tiger by the media; and this time with intentional racial overtones."
Some saw the look on Woods' face and interpreted it as a cry for help. A person writing on HuffPo said: "His expression is one of sadness. Since it was taken pre-scandal you have to wonder. I've seen that expression many times in photographs and it is the look of someone with issues. Obviously that is not very prophetic of me, but after seeing this picture and knowing it is pre-scandal, I actually feel kinda sorry for him."
Back on the VF blog, one person wrote in part, "IMHO, this picture of Tiger does not show 'incredible focus and dedication'. Look in his eyes....and at the set of his mouth. They show a lack of assuredness,intense worry,vulnerability and on-going pain. The picture does not characterize the way he really feels inside. He looks haunted. "
What do you think about VF's decision to run this photo on the cover?
Image credit: Annie Leibovitz/Vanity Fair.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Iranians Protesting Election Results
The events which are unfolding in the wake of the disputed Iranian presidential election are being documented by a multitude of web sites, from streams of tweets from Twitter, videos from YouTube and stories from news organizations which are struggling to adhere to the recent Iranian crackdowns on the media's transmission of video from the streets. It is, in a word, stunning.I've been watching coverage of the five days' worth of election protests on cable news, on video feeds from news web sites and have read stories from newspapers, as well as tweets from Iran. Several things about this historic struggle to grab hold of democracy -- and a vote tally that actually bears a resemblance to an accurate count of the ballots -- struck me:
Silent Protest
Imagine people walking through the streets -- thousands and thousand of them -- there to protest an election they believe has been taken from them. And they walk in silence, holding their hands up in the peace sign, trying not to raise the ire of government riot police with whom some protesters have violently clashed over recent days. The video below captured the silent protest:
Years Ending in "9"
While reading a column in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby today -- which compared the reaction of President Obama to the unrest in Iran, to President George H. W. Bush's muted response to the democratic protests in China 20 years ago ("In reacting to the recent Iranian election and to the protests that erupted after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the runaway victor, the Obama White House seems to be taking a page from the elder Bush's 1989 playbook.") -- I found it oddly intriguing that the Chinese uprising was in 1989 and the previous unrest in Iran occurred in 1979.
"The Revolution Had Begun."
The Boston Globe has on its web site a dispatch from Tehran from a participant of one of the large protests. It's riveting reading:
". . . [T]he crowd did not consist of young men, but housewives, seniors, businessmen wearing suits, even children. There was blood on many of them. They were walking downhill towards the Interior Ministry, determined and in force. The wave that had taken over Iran and partied in the streets into the morning for the last few weeks was now an army on the move. As I stood in place trying to figure out what I was seeing, I noticed shopkeepers shutting down and joining the flock. People were also chanting on the sidelines, 'down with the dictator,' referring to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, while the crowd chanted 'join us proud Iranians, join us, join us.' The crowd was growing by the moment."
The Daily Show Goes to Iran
Further blurring the lines between news, entertainment and journalism, Comedy Central's The Daily Show is sending the same guy who cut the New York Times to shreds last week, to Iran in a series of reports called, "Access of Evil."
Jon Stewart had a brutal take on how CNN has been covering the breaking news in Iran, given the restrictions placed on American journalists by the Iranian government. Mocking their reliance on "unverified material," Stewart also skewered the Iranian government's election tallying techniques.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Irandecision 2009 - CNN's Unverified Material | ||||
| http://www.thedailyshow.com/ | ||||
| ||||
Image credit: Getty images via the Huffington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

