<p>I had a hard time watching the interview, after they began with the fact that Jenny Sanford let her husband elimate the mention of faithfulness in their wedding vows.</p>
<p>^^^^^I agree. I think it was Maya Angelou who said “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” Regardless of who said it, I believe it, particularly when what they tell you about themselves is not good.</p>
<p>I was surprised by that, and wondered why he’d insist. Red flashing sirens should have shown this one was headed for disaster. Seems like she went from the </p>
<p>Old Jenny (working on Wall St) –
to newly/married Jenny (stupid and in love)–
to Old Jenny (I’m mad as heii and I’m not gonna take it no more!)</p>
<p>Well, good for her. Too bad she didn’t listen to herself earlier.</p>
<p>Yeah, that was a weird show top to bottom. The former boss who basically said she married beneath herself and then she seemed to just do whatever Sanford wanted – not just the vows, but being his campaign manager when she didn’t want to, the half a bike thing and the necklace he gave her and then took back. Just odd. It’s like she lost her self-esteem more and more the longer she was with him.</p>
<p>Wow…</p>
<p>I didn’t see the interview.</p>
<p>Do you mean that while engaged, he actually said, I don’t want the faithful part included in the vows? Did he give a reason? (not that there could be a legit reason, but you’d think she would have said, “why???”)</p>
<p>Scary. It reminds me that it’s just as important, if not more, to help my daughter develop a healthy self-esteem before working on “accomplishments” in school, etc.<br>
I know other women who were so successful professionally yet flopped in personal relationships. I hope Sanford is able to set aside the bitterness and move on. Hopefully, this book is a way to wash her hands of this ugly situation and start a new life w/o him.</p>
<p>I didn’t see the interview. That is odd about the omitting the faithful part from the vows. So I guess he was being honest, sort of, in a weird kind of way? </p>
<p>
So true. It never ceases to amazes me the smart, intelligent and wonderful women I have known (some very close to my heart) that somehow get involved with controllers, users and slimeballs.</p>
<p>Golly, I somehow missed the interview also, but that is hysterically funny!! I have thought for a while now that she had established herself early on as the wronged spouse and should just shut up and stay out of the news, but no, she had to write a book and I presume doing interviews is necessary to promote the book. Well just hearing this without seeing the interview has moved her from bucket B to bucket C - ie the jerk bucket where she got what she deserved after all.</p>
<p>I still want to know…</p>
<p>Did he specifically say, “I don’t want that part of the vows included”? </p>
<p>and…did she ask why?</p>
<p>From the article on Jenny Sanford’s book in the Daily Beast website:</p>
<p>Warning Sign No. 1
A short while before the wedding, when Mark and I were picking readings and vows, Mark told me that he didnt want to use a wedding vow that included the promise to be faithful. He was worried in some odd nagging way, he said, that he might not be able to remain true to that vow. In retrospect, I suppose I might have seen this as a sign that Mark wasnt fully committed to me, and with the benefit of the knowledge I have about Mark now, I could point to this moment as a clear sign of things to come.</p>
<p>^^^ Incredible, huh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my God. Ya think?!</p>
<p>Sure that’s bad, but apparently John Edwards left out the “in sickness and in health” part. :(</p>
<p>Yes, and at the time she was a rising star in mergers & acquisitions at a Wall Street investment bank, and she was not able to figure out the significance of this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t even have to be “in retrospect”. There is literally no other interpretation you can take from the statement, “Don’t make me promise to be faithful to you, because I might not be able to” besides, “I might not be faithful to you”. </p>
<p>It’s like me saying, “I don’t want to promise to pay you back tomorrow, because I might not be able to,” and then you later saying, “In retrospect, I think that there might have been signs that that guy might not pay me back”.</p>
<p>Make you wonder what he would have said if she had replied, “Yes, I agree. I might not be able to stay faithful to you, either.” </p>
<p>Even unfaithful men are hypocrites when it comes to their wives’ fidelity. Fears that the kids may not be theirs and all.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why that wasn’t a big red flag at the time???
I have to wonder if it wasn’t a more general, I don’t like this wording, in hindsight interpreted as an unwillingness to be faithful. I just don’t understand why she would go ahead with the wedding if it was that obvious.</p>
<p>I believe the “deal” he broke with her is the same deal former NY Gov. Spitzer broke with his wife. I.E., “Fine. Go ahead. But make sure you don’t get caught, because that would embarrass me and I will have to pretend I knew nothing about it.”</p>
<p>The rich are different from you and I</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just gross. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>North Carolina is a pleasant place ; For them that’s rich and men
But North Carolina is a perverted place for rich folks such as Jen</p>