The last time a Melinda Henneberger piece shook up the political world, it was back in June, when she argued, unpersuasively, that Democrats would be better off politically if they opposed abortion rights.
Today, Henneberger’s at it again, with a new series at Slate on the presidential candidates’ marriages. Digby, who received the same email from Slate about the series that I did, suggests this is the wrong way to go.
…I don’t believe it’s any of the public’s business beyond what the candidates themselves choose to share, because they already put everything relevant on the table, including their finances and their religious beliefs, and submit themselves to endless questions for months. It’s not as if we don’t have years long campaigns in which to pose every possible question to the candidates and get an idea of where they stand and how they might govern. Doing voyeuristic “investigative work” on their marriages is unnecessary.
People should be able to maintain one small piece of privacy for themselves and be allowed to simply say what they choose without being subjected to cheap Dr Phil psychobabble based on nothing but leering speculation and half-baked supposition. This is gossip, not campaign coverage.
Quite right. I’ve argued, on a variety of occasions, that the media’s unwillingness to scrutinize Rudy Giuliani’s scandalous personal life is odd, not because I care about his serial adultery, but because the media seems to apply a different standard to Dems.
That said, Digby’s overarching point is spot-on. In-depth analysis of candidates’ marriages, from a reporter who doesn’t know the candidates personally and didn’t interview the candidates or the spouses for the series, seems wholly inappropriate. There’s a lot of ground for the media to cover in the most wide-open presidential campaign of the modern era, and there has to be better use of time than this.
But then I went ahead and read Henneberger’s piece anyway, to see if it was as imprudent as I expected.
It was.
In the same way, both Barack and Michelle Obama have made a conscious, conspicuous effort to represent their marriage in the most realistic possible terms. So much so, in fact, that they may have overdone it, not only sharing strains that other political couples would have papered over, but portraying a strong relationship in a sometimes overly harsh light. This is what perfectionists in love look like, unaccustomed as we are to the sight. And this is how two former community organizers function in a relationship that’s far more egalitarian than most political unions. Decision by consensus is so crucial to both Obamas that she once took him along on a job interview—not for backup, but to see if the interviewer passed Barack’s test.
The woman Barack Obama married 15 years ago is a stickler, but the sane, unoperatic kind, who eats well and sees her trainer, gets the sleep she needs and overprepares for meetings. Until recently, she was a fixture at their daughters’ school—but without the slightest tendency to fret over the color of the cupcakes. She is too practical for that, and has no problem telling her 6- and 9-year-old girls that if they don’t like what’s being served for lunch, then they’ll be good and hungry for dinner. Though her job is in PR, a former colleague notes that she “is not interested in massaging your ego”—primarily because she sees flattery not as an emollient but as a trap and potential stumbling block. The Obamas are “are both very driven” Ivy-educated lawyers, but he is laid-back by comparison, according to her brother, Craig Robinson. “Barack has a calming effect on their family. My sister is very meticulous and straightforward and she’s more of the taskmaster.” They laugh more when he is around, her brother says. But not just anybody could play straight man to such a serious guy.
In their marriage, Michelle serves as the role model’s role model, keeper of books and all of the lists, defender of standards no one else even knows about. “Michelle is the one who makes sure all the things that need to get done get done,” says his Harvard Law buddy Cassandra Butts. “And as my sister likes to say, ‘If Mommy’s not happy, nobody’s happy.’ “
Henneberger’s piece is well-researched; it’s well-written; and it covers quite a bit of ground. Henneberger doesn’t dig through the trash; she relies on already-published comments and insights.
But it all seems so painfully voyeuristic. It’s fair to expect there’s going to be some style/personality pieces on major candidates’ family lives, but Henneberger wrote 2,700 words about the Obamas’ marriage — and it’s part one of two. At the end of today’s piece, it reads, “Tomorrow: What the Obama marriage might mean for his presidency.”
And we can expect plenty more of this, presumably about all the major candidates. I’m just not sure why.