Jill, you are right on, talking about watching Mrs. Spitzer in today’s (Wednesday’s) press conference. The stress and pain is visible on her face. All I can do is suppose what I would do if it were me, and if it were me, unless my children were insistent that I stand next to my husband as he admitted to the world he cheated, and was resigning his job, I’d be at home. Ever notice these guys don’t have their supportive wives next to them when they have press conferences announcing their triumphs?

Others have intimated this same feeling - I feel that she was standing by her family, not by her man. And I also agree with Marlo and others who don’t understand why these women feel the need to stand next to the slimeball while he tells the world his sins at the podium. I also agree with Candice, that this is different than Hillary Clinton’s situation, because it came out of the blue. The armchair psychologist in me feels that Spitzer’s trysts are all about power and trying to feel important, where as Bill Clinton’s habitual pattern of infidelity is/was just a character flaw. On the flip side, I can see where Silda may stay with her man to preserve her family, and because Spitzer’s actions may be a one-time thing, something he can treat by working on his fear of (or need for) power and control with a well-qualified therapist. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, stayed with a habitual cheater, took it time and time again, taught her daughter that it’s ok for a man to treat you this way…all for - what? Her turn at the helm? Does she really have such low self-esteem that she belives she couldn’t have gotten to where she’s gotten without being married to a habitual cheater?

Lesley - is there a difference between reporting and editorializing? As a reporter, I understand the necessity of having your opinion “surgically removed”. Fair and balanced is the new PC for objective. But there is a place for the educated journalist, like you, to express an opinion. It’s not during the 7 o’clock news, but in the format of a news magazine, like 60 Minutes, I feel that some of you showing through would be a welcome commentary.

Everyone embellishes their own history. It makes one seem more exciting, or more important, to have the most colorful story in the room. When putting pen to paper, one must take that tendency to embellish to heart, and either do the interviews and tangible research to prove the stories true, or admit that the memoir is fictionalized. Many authors have taken this route - Dave Eggers, for example, released his memoir about raising his younger brother after the sudden death of their parents as fiction. Are publishers being duped, or are they just turning a blind eye? In the case of Margaret Seltzer, I would think the fact checking should have been somewhat easy, if it was done at all. Is this a symptom of the struggling author, trying to get his or her story told, finding that sensationalized memoirs are easier to get published than well-written fiction? Is this a symptom of the difficulty in breaking through the clique and getting noticed?