March 23, 2007 10:11
Re: Re: The Edwards Question
I've been thinking really hard about Jay's points from his piece yesterday. His argument initially struck me as interesting -- even a good point -- because it was so different than almost any other piece I'd read after the announcement; it was largely an examination of the baldly political consequences rather than a reaction to the press conference itself.
As a piece of punditry, his point may yet stand: Over time, voters may react negatively to image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision. Specifically, such an image will emerge if we depict that choice as Jay did: as a man -- John Edwards -- torn between "his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old" and "his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House."
First of all, this framework presents what might be -- in the eyes of both John and Elizabeth -- a false choice. From all they've told us, the Edwards family sees those duties (as husband, as father, as candidate), as overlapping. Surely, one reason John Edwards is running for president because he wants to be a part of creating a better world for his family. Which brings us to the second problem: The decision to keep the campaign going was not John Edwards' alone to make. (And I find the presumption that it could be startlingly archaic.) John may find himself pulled to simply concentrate on his family, but I think Elizabeth would push back. I think she already has.
Does it seem selfish that he continues to run? Think about it this way: Your doctor gives you a year to live. Of course you decide to pursue the things in life you either put off or gave up on. You follow your dreams, as they say. You sail around the world. You read the Bible in Aramaic. You reconcile with a family member. For Elizabeth Edwards, the answer to the "what would you do if you only had a year to live" question is simple: Get my husband elected President.
Is that decision selfish, given that the couple has two small children? I can't say -- and I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't know the family can -- but I don't think it's a question with a standard answer. The family already has been through two grueling campaigns, so I think they know what lies ahead in that realm. No one knows how Elizabeth's treatment will affect their lives beyond that. Her children might see more of her than they would under normal campaign circumstances. And, more important, if the campaign continues, they'll see her pursuing her dream. That may not be the decision you'd make in the same circumstances -- and the Edwards' decision may chance as their circumstances do -- but let's hope you never have to.
A FINAL THOUGHT: I don't think I'm the only one to notice that some of the most moving and sympathetic responses to the Edwards news on the Right have been from people who have been through a similar experience -- either as patient or a family member. See Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, and -- I'll admit this one surprised me -- Dean Barnett.
UPDATE: The Barnett link is fixed. Also, to answer a commenter's observation that Elizabeth might well have more than a year to live: Yes, they've said as much and I don't doubt that figured into the decision. The "year to live" example was simply to illustrate that following one's heart -- what any individual decides they want to leave as their legacy -- encompasses all kinds of choices.
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
Mike Murphy is a GOP consultant and was a senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments (27)
Excellent observations Ana. This is obviously as much Elizabeth Edwards' decision as it is her husband's. She's an impressive person.
But it's also important to note that the Edwards' are saying this a treatable, if not curable, condition. Treating it as a "year left to live" may be overly pessimistic.
Jonah Goldberg actually sounded like a sane person in that comment, didn't he? Shocking...
Oh, and the Dean Barnett link is busted...
Posted by A Hermit | March 23, 2007 11:17 AM
I've posted this in another thread but it bares repeating here.
It's funny to me that Ana Marie, best known for Wonkette, has become the one to not overlook the facts in her her blog posts while the presumed pundits with journalistic backgrounds are the ones who look more suspect in their approach. She inserts the personal, as blogs allow for if not require, yet still doesn't wash over the known knowns.
Posted by carsick | March 23, 2007 11:18 AM
Well said, Ana. I think it will be interesting to hear what *Elizabeth Edwards herself* has to say about this. That will make a big difference. Still, especially if her health deteriorates, it may be tricky...
Posted by JJ | March 23, 2007 11:19 AM
I think Dean Barnett has a good point. This is information that the Edwards have learned in the last two days. It is horrible, life altering information. I think it is entirely possible that they'll change their mind as days go by as to what to do, but really how would any of us deal with this information in the first few days?
Everyone needs to back off and give them a chance to breathe, deal with this, and come to some peace in their own mind. If they choose to continue to run, good for them. If they choose to drop out and stay home, good for them. It is their decision and I can't imagine how horrible it is to have the whole world second guessing what you should do.
Posted by Teresa | March 23, 2007 11:23 AM
Another fine post. Ana is definitely the most consistently insightful, well-grounded poster here.
Ezra highlights some of David Kuo's characteristically reflective and intlligent thoughts.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/on_cancer.html
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 23, 2007 11:25 AM
Outstanding and exactly right. Now, take this and tape it to Carney's screen so he has to see it. Evidently he won;t come around here anymore.
Posted by DrFrankLives | March 23, 2007 11:48 AM
Teresa is right. The Edwards' need to be given time to deal with this.
Three years ago my husband was dignosed with an incurable cancer. Last month we got the news that his tumors are growing again.
We have gone through many different emotions in the past four weeks. The thoughts and decisions we made on day one are different than the thoughts and decisions we are contemplating today. I can't imagine having to make these decisions in the media spotlight. I also really understand the Edwards' need to try and retain a normalcy in their lives. You don't want the cancer to "win", by making you change your life, even though you know that likely you will have to change your life because of it some day.
My heart goes out to them and to their two children. We also have two kids who are 6 and 8 and the heartbreak of just NOT KNOWING what will happen is the hardest thing we live with every day.
Thanks for some great posts on this Ana. You have really risen in my estimation since I started reading this blog.
Posted by JoyousMN | March 23, 2007 11:48 AM
I think you're basically right about the true motivations underlying the Edwards' decision. I imagine Edwards had already voluntarily withdrawn in his mind, subject to his wife's mere request. But his wife said, consistent with her character, "no effing way."
Of course, that can't be the storyline they come to the podium with, or he will be characterized as some sort of indecisive castrati.
He's in a partnership. In parnerships you don't make independent decisions (if you hope to remain in a partnership). But the political necessities of the circumstances require a public finesse of the private reality, which gives rise to the juvenile treatment of their decision among the chattering class.
Posted by underwhelm | March 23, 2007 11:51 AM
Wow. Good post. sean s.
Posted by sean samis | March 23, 2007 12:06 PM
Ana has become, for me, the only "must read" on this website and this post is a perfect example for why that is the case. Thank you and keep it up.
Posted by Jon Hamel | March 23, 2007 12:34 PM
I can safely say that if I had a year to live, it would not occur to me to spend it reading the Bible in Aramaic. Silly MSM.
Posted by langlorius | March 23, 2007 12:39 PM
Great and thoughtful post. I love that you recognize the media has a effect on how an issue gets framed, and how you recognize the media also has a responsibility to be sensitive and accurate on such a personal issue. It is an observation that your fellow bloggers at Swampland should take note of.
Posted by annb | March 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Yes why is Ana Marie so rational and sane, almost measured in her blogging? Who is the one that is really sick here?
Posted by Todd | March 23, 2007 12:42 PM
"I've been thinking really hard about Jay's points from his piece yesterday. His argument initially struck me as interesting -- even a good point -- because it was so different than almost any other piece I'd read after the announcement; it was largely an examination of the baldly political consequences rather than a reaction to the press conference itself."
Ana, don't suck up to that nerd. It's beneath you.
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/nerd%20monkey.jpg
Posted by Jake Gittes | March 23, 2007 12:43 PM
Ana, I'm begining to very much enjoy your posts. This is very thoughtful and also has a well framed argument.
Not to move off topic, but I couldn't help but notice this sentence: "But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision."
Would you please pass this sentiment on to your collegues. In the last two days we have seen Jay and Joe both concern trolling about how Dems will look to the 'average American.' I'm starting to feel as though this is some sort of veiled threat from the MSM, and it is very concerning that they always have the satement 'I agree with you BUT how is this gonna look once the media starts spinning the story?'
Posted by Phil | March 23, 2007 12:51 PM
"that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame"
Thank you, Ana.
Such a basic point, so rarely made by public media figures.
Thank you.
Posted by zota | March 23, 2007 12:56 PM
I too am a breast cancer patient and have lost a son so I really do feel her pain but do you think we have to sit in a corner and cry all day?I notice none of you request Tony Snow be analized,what is the difference?
Posted by Granny | March 23, 2007 1:04 PM
Thank you for your intelligent comments, Ms. Cox.
I lost both my parents to cancer -- they died 6 weeks apart. And I thought of them, how they reacted to their diagnosis, how they handled the last year of their lives, immediately when I heard about Elizabeth Edwards.
They chose to live right up until the very last minute. That meant doing some things long put off, but even more it meant continuing to do the many, sometimes hard, things that gave their lives meaning.
I'm an "average American" and I think that embracing the notion that a challenging illness like this is a reason for even more fully engaging with the world while you can -- rather than an excuse for retiring from it -- is a very "American" attitude.
Posted by esmense | March 23, 2007 1:18 PM
Yes, can we "talk" -- about Tony Snow's colon cancer. I wonder how American voters would view the Bush Administration if they really knew that he had colon cancer and may only have a year to live. Of course, he may have more than a year to live. But still; wouldn't the fact of his cancer make American voters a little uncomfortable with his frequent public appearances on behalf of the Bush Administration?
Why doesn't Tony Snow and his family crawl into some cave somewhere and hide?
Are you serious? Elizabeth Edwards feels fine and is a vibrant, intelligent, and graceful person and a good and committed citizen. I think Jay's "point" was unserious; presuming to know how voters are going to think is dangerous at any point but reminds me of the profound disconnect between how the punditry handled the Schiavo case vs. the view from mainstream America. The punditry bought into the Randall Terrys and Rick Santorums, but for many their blunders on this issue was the last straw. However, I do agree with your point that the big time media is likely to frame with just as the Republicans want it framed. Jay's on it!
Posted by James, Los Angeles | March 23, 2007 1:44 PM
I, too, have appreciated Ana's nonjudgmental response. Frankly, a debate about whether or not this course of action makes Edwards a good or bad person is something to which the press has zero value to add.
Lurking in the background, however, is a substantive issue. If Elizabeth Edwards has a high probability of not surviving more than six years, would a future grieving widower with two young children not be an ideal candidate for President? As a father with two young children, I could assure you that my wife passing away would adversely impact my job performance in a much less demanding job. The period of distraction and depression combined with the demands of raising young children as a single parent would likely interfere with Edwards devoting as much time and energy to the Presidency as he would if his wife were healthy.
I can understand their reluctance to abandon the campaign. But, many voters and contributors may rationally conclude that this news makes another candidate more fit to be President in 2008.
Posted by Chuck | March 23, 2007 2:23 PM
Without trying to read the minds of others (the Edwards) I'll note that we've learned that the President matters.
The GOP trope during the '00 election was that Clinton had been extremely lucky for 8 years and we needed to get some adults back in charge. A comparison of Clinton's and GWB's life stories and presidential terms demonstrates that luck is the product of design, diligence, and intelligence.
The USA needs intelligent, good (in all senses of the word), serious leaders. Continuing the campaign isn't an effort to feed ambition so much as a effort to serve America. None of us knows how much time we have; there are few better ways one could spend that time then to help set this country right once again.
Posted by rk | March 23, 2007 2:30 PM
Ana, I, too, think this is a fine post.
I applaud the Edwards for the method they chose to break this news to America. I wish Elizabeth the very best and continue to feel that John was most sincere when he said that he would be with Elizabeth when she needed him to be there.
This morning I was half listening to C-SPAN, and the Edwards' announcement was the topic. One Republican man called in to say that he was deeply touched by the level of commitment he saw exhibited by the Edwards yesterday, and because he is dissatisfied with the Republican slate of candidates so far, he would consider voting for Edwards if he wins the primary.
I think that speaks well for the couple!
Posted by ama | March 23, 2007 6:29 PM
I adore Elizabeth Edwards and have looked at John Edwards as a possible presidential candidate since I first saw him give a speech on the Senate Floor.
But all I could think about immediately after watching their press conference was this:
What if he did win the nomination and the presidency? No one wants to say it, but the chances of her living to the end of his first term are very low. Which begs the question; who will be raising those young children? John and Elizabeth had those children to bring joy back into their lives. What joy will those children have losing their mother and having a father that is simply never there because he is President?
I hope she breaks all the rules and fights this for a decade and more. But the children should come first at this point, because they are the ones who are losing the most.
Posted by Anonymous | March 24, 2007 9:39 AM
The Edwardses' decision in the face of Elizabeth's illness is not to be questioned by so called "pundits". One does not need to hear their smarmy comments, their "in their place, I would...", or their barely veiled criticism. You are not in their place, you do not know what they are going through, and you have no right to stick your nose into other people's tragedies and to question the way they choose to handle them.
If you want to engage in the health equivalent of underwear-sniffing, join FoX news. Or leave it to Rush Limbaugh: he is paid to be a scumbag.
Posted by Devil's Advocate | March 25, 2007 11:44 AM
The "Devil's Advocate" has it just right - about the right. The "fat drug addict" indeed is a scumbag!
Posted by frank67 | March 26, 2007 5:28 PM
ضحك,
ليبيا,
شباب ليبيا,
احاديث نبوية,
السيرة النبوية,
برامج اسلامية,
صوتيات اسلامية,
خواطر,
غرائب وعجائب,
الشعر الشعبى,
قصص,
اللغات الاجنبية,
تعلم الفرنسية,
تعلم الانجليزية,
الطب
تقنية الاسنان,
كتب طبية,
طب الاعشاب,
اناقة وجمال,
اناقة الرجال,
الاسرة والمجتمع,
الطبخ,
اثاث وديكور,
مقاطع كورة,
الدوري الليبي,
المصارعة,
الكرة العربية,
الكرة العالمية,
رسائل خيانة
مسجات عادية
منتديات,
الدوري الاسباني,
الدوري الانجليزي,
الدوري الايطالي,
اخبار المشاهير,
افلام اجنبية,
مسلسلات اجنبية,
تحميل افلام,
افلام عربية,
تحميل مسلسلات عربية,
افلام كرتون,
برامج,
برامج الفيديو,
اخبار التكنولوجيا,
شبكات الحاسوب,
تطوير المواقع,
تطوير المنتديات,
محادثة,
صور,
الفوتوشوب,
برامج الفوتوشوب,
التصميم,
برامج الجوال,
كليبات جوال,
نغمات نوكيا,
نغمات عربية,
نغمات اسلامية,
العاب الجوال,
مسجات,
القنوات الفضائية,
مسجات عن الغياب
تحميل برامج
free Download
مسلسلات,
تحميل برامج مجانية
تحميل افلام اجنبية,
شفرات,
كروت الساتلايت,
الرسيفرات,
خلفيات للجوال,
نغمات اجنبية,
برامج الجوال الجيل الثالث,
ترحيب
games
Make Money
مسجات ليبية
مسجات رومانسية
مسجات روعة
مسجات حب
مسجات عتاب
مسجات جديدة
مسجات ليبية
رسائل رومانسية
مسجات مصرية
مسجات سعودية
مسجات اماراتية
مسجات بحرينية
مسجات تونسية
مسجات سورية
مسجات شبابية
مسجات مغربية
مسجات جزائرية
مسجات سودانية
مسجات قطرية
مسجات لبنانية
مسجات عن الامتحانات
رسائل حب
مسجات غزل
رسائل شوق
مسجات شوق
مسجات فراق
مسجات غرام
مسجات صداقة
مسجات حزن
مسجات عشق
مسجات مقالب
مسجات جوال
مسجات وداع
مسجات اسلامية
مسجات مدح
رسائل الوسائط
مسجات عاطفية
مسجات نقال
مسجات صلح
مسجات انجليزية
مسجات تسامح
مسجات الصباح
مسجات نكت
مسجات ضحك
مسجات حلوة
مسجات الحزن
مسجات موبايل
مسجات الجوال
مسجات للموبايل
مسجات للحبيبة
مسجات كبرياء
مسجات عتاب
C.Ronaldo
باب الحارة
سنوات الضياع
نكت
youtubeمسلسل نور
prison break 2 تحميل
messi
Kaka
منتدى الكساد
منتديات الكساد
توم وجيري
عدنان ولينا
Youtube Download
AlWafi
Office
تعلم الفوتوسوب
Photoshop
نقار الخشب
هايدي
كونان
الجاسوسات
سبيستون
kaspersky
مسجات يمنية
مسجات عراقية
مسجات فلسطينية
مسجات العيد
مسجات ليبية
مسجات غرامية
مسجات فراق
مسجات كويتية
رسائل غزل
Posted by libya | July 24, 2008 8:27 AM
thanks ....
برامج
دليل مواقع
منتدى
Posted by alsqar06 | July 26, 2008 8:04 PM