Comments on: Mark Sanford: TMI (Too Much Information)

By: melinblau

melinblau — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:05:52 +0000

What are the chances of two Andys leaving me comments? Thank you both for taking the time.
Andy W: I think you’re right. If Sanford doesn’t see himself and his situation as “different,” at the very least he’s rationalized his behavior in a way that shuts out any conflicting interpretations. It’s amazing how “sincere” people can look when they actually believe their own rhetoric.
Andy Z: I think you might have read the Jackson piece too quickly. Celebrities are not our consequential strangers. Of course, in Michael Jackson’s entourage, for better and for worse, were his consequential strangers–the trainers, physicians, cooks, assistants and other hangers-on whom he used to insulate himself from the world. But not us–because a relationship has to go both ways to fall in consequential stranger territory.

By: andy zimbalist

andy zimbalist — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:13:33 +0000

interesting comments on Sanford and Jackson, but it seems to trivialize the very significant concept of consequential stranger to raise common celebrities to this status.

By: Andrea White

Andrea White — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:03:46 +0000

It is a little like a train wreck but more. I think he actually expects people to understand how hard this is for him. He sees himself as different. This is not an affair but actually love. He has resisted temptation before. He apologized. I believe he does not see himself as hypocritical because the rules do not really apply to him or this situation. Even the rules he applies to others. I have seen this behavior before and it is largely from white men who are republicans. Not all, of course, but enough to see a pattern. It is fascinating because it doesn’t make sense. I see it as a shared delusion. It seems to be based on the premise that they will always be in power. The world will fall into chaos if they are not. These must be hard times for people like Sanford.