Anyone with even a slight interest in seeing Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels run for President is likely familar with the story of his marriage. Mitch and his Missus were married for 15 years and had four daughters (ranging in age from 8 to 14) when she left the marriage (and the girls) to marry another man and move to California. That marriage didn't take and three years later, she returned to Mitch and their children. He's not a big talker on the subject, only to say 'if you love happy endings, you'll love our story.'
A sad tale that surely was painful for all involved. And a tale that is certain to be an issue should Mitch jump into the race.
I really fear for the impending media destruction of Mrs. Daniels, and caught a glimpse last week of what may soon come. I happened upon a discussion of this unusual marital saga on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A table full of hens gave their take, challenged only by Mike Barnicle who opined that Americans won't care as long as he has a plan for the things that matter. One opinion shared by the BBC's Katty Kay: "Americans will have to ask themselves if they want this woman near the White House."
A couple points:
1. Candidates are usually ripped into during a campaign, often mercilessly (see Palin, Sarah). This is to be expected as the press has a responsibility to do thorough reporting. It just would be nice if they examined all candidates with the same fervor.
2. This is the candidate's wife. I'm not certain it deserves the same scrutiny.
3. Wouldn't a man who was the only parent to four young daughters deserve some credit for doing the parenting alone? Wouldn't that mean something to female voters?
4. Didn't Bill Clinton permanently lower the bar on candidates' standards for marital behavior? Who can forget that 'I've caused pain in my marriage' 60 Minutes interview in '92?
I love Mitch Daniels and I'd love to see him run. But for his wife's sake, part of me would be okay if he didn't. And it's a shame.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
After all of the foolishness and unfair treatment given to Michelle Obama during the last presidential election, I believe it's only fair for the media to dig as deeply as they can into Cheri Daniels past behavior. How long had she known the man she deserted her family for? Was it and adulterous affair prior to her leaving? What did she tell her daughters when she left? That's just the tip of the iceberg. I agree with you; Mitch Daniels had better think long and hard before he gets into this race.
Albert - Really? Unfair treatment given to Michelle Obama? Would that be the Journolist conspiracy to dissuade public inquiry into her (or her husband's) 25 years attending the church of "God DAMN America" or were you thinking it was the patently unfair criticism she received from all those racists who took exception to her declaration that for the first time in her life she was proud of America? Just curious 'cuz, Albert my good man, I'm right there with ya--it couldn't have BEEN more unfair...just that I see it from a different measure of fair.
Albert, do you think coverage given to comments made ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL is the same thing as digging into a family matter nearly two decades old? Why does the public need to know how she told her children, or any of the other questions you asked?
Post a Comment