March 23, 2007 4:21
Re: Re: The Edwards Question
I've been reading the reaction to the story I wrote yesterday for Time.com about John and Elizabeth Edwards' announcement. Ana's most recent post is particularly compelling. And many Swampland commenters have written very thoughtful responses and raised a lot of interesting and important questions. This is a thorny, difficult topic that mixes politics, medicine and parenting all into one. I want to make sure that readers understand that by expressing surprise at the decision John and Elizabeth Edwards made to stay in the race, I am not saying that what they're doing is obviously or categorically the wrong thing. In fact, I take them at their word that this is the right decision for them and their family. But I don't think it's inappropriate or unfair (or remotely politically biased) to say that I feel discomfited by the decision and the rationale behind it, or to make the fairly simple point that some Democrats out there might feel the same way. I just got off the phone with an as-yet-uncommitted Democratic fundraiser who has already raised money this cycle for Edwards, as well as other candidates. He doesn't want Edwards to drop out. But he wonders, too, how the recurrence of Elizabeth's cancer will affect that campaign, and whether some voters might feel uncomfortable with a decision to keep campaigning at all.
Everyone will come at this question from his or her own personal perspective. As the parent of two young children, I know I couldn't make the same decision that the Edwards made. Then again, I don't know what it's like to feel that the country needs me, or my spouse, to be president.
As we know from the reporting about her condition, Elizabeth could live a relatively normal life for many years. Although her cancer has spread from breast to bone, it is not primary bone cancer. And while it is not curable -- she will have cancer for the rest of her life -- it is treatable. But while the odds Elizabeth faces are not insurmountable, they are sobering. We are all time-limited, and we could all die at any moment. When I board a plane for a business trip, I always suffer from the random fear that my children will never see me again. But I board the plane because the odds are acceptable. I think I would feel quite differently if I knew I had an illness that could substantially shorten my life. It would change the calculus for me, and reduce the number of planes I boarded on business trips. That's just me, it's true. But I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that, as they learn about Elizabeth's recurrence and about her and John's decision to continue his campaign, parents across the country are going to be asking themselves what they would do in such a situation. Surely how they answer that question will affect how some of them see John Edwards' presidential aspirations -- more favorably for some, less so for others. And while Ana is absolutely right that we in the media need to be careful how we write about this issue, I do not agree that it is somehow wrong or inapproriate to raise questions about it. If it's legitimate, as a character issue, to debate the significance of the five wives John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had between them, and whether voters will hold that against them, surely it's also legitimate to look at the decision by John and Elizabeth Edwards to keep campaigning despite the reemergence of her cancer, and to debate whether it is, or should be, an issue to voters.
One Swampland commenter makes a very interesting point in this regard:
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.
I've known John and Elizabeth Edwards, as a reporter, since I traveled to Raleigh to write about John's successful Senate campaign in 1998. There's no question that the selflessness shown by Elizabeth will be an inspiration to many people -- perhaps far more people than those to whom her decision is unsettling. Like many, I am dazzled by her strength and have long admired her. I've written about her in the past, and I've always thought she was at least as impressive and compelling as her husband. I hope and pray for them both.
Reader Comments
Posted by Anonymous
March 23, 2007
Thank you for reading and responding to comments, Jay.
But your argument that this is as legitimate an issue for media discussion as the marriages of McCain and Giuliani would be more believable if you had given the character of McCain and Giuliani the same kind of attention.
Posted by zmulls
March 23, 2007
It's a fair point, but personal tragedy is not necessarily a disqualifier from strong performance in public office.
The most obvious historical example is Abraham Lincoln, who lost children. Despite -- or because of -- his tragedies he was able to steer the ship of state through the roughest seas we've had.
A more modern example is Joe Biden, who lost a son and daughter early in his career. Whatever you think of his politics, he's been an effective and successful Senator.
The morbid "if" about Edwards is moot. If he's elected President, he will lead the country -- any other events will be part of his Presidency, for good or ill.
Posted by Anonymous
March 23, 2007
"would a future grieving widower with two young children not be an ideal candidate for President?"
I wonder if the press, if they knew if a presidential candidate was an alcoholic, would have this same debate? Recovering alcoholics have very high odds of relapsing. Would a future relapsed alcoholic not be an ideal candidate for President?
Posted by Enceladus
March 23, 2007
Would a guy who doesn't know basic geography and mocks a woman on death row not be an ideal--
Aw, crud, forget it...
Posted by annb
March 23, 2007
Any type of thoughtfulness and nuance would of been better before you wrote your column, not after. Now you are compounding your error by implying that their decision indicates they don't care enough about their children. What about the example they are setting for their children?
I heard Cokie Roberts respond to emails on about Elizabeth Edwards on NPR this morning. One cancer survivor wrote in that to expect the Edwardses to drop the campaign so John Edwards could spend months looking soulfully into his wife's eyes was ridiculous. Another emailer wrote in that "I feel it would have been better if Edwardses dropped out of the campaign to spend more time with their family". Cokie Roberts had a wonderful response to that email - "Frankly, that is none of your business."
Posted by SheRa
March 23, 2007
It's obvious that few of the Republican candidates has been slowed down by trying to be a good father. And could our current president have done a better job of raising two brainless sluts? But while your concern over Mr. Edwards' childraising is, um, touching. But while Republicans only seem to be able to do one thing at a time (I mean gaining power, not governing, which is plainly beyond their ability), Democrats somehow manage to be excellent leaders AND excellent parents.
Posted by valentinian
March 23, 2007
Usually, rhetorical questions of the form "would x not be y" mean the writer thinks x WOULD be y. *I* read it that way, and it seemed to me that a grieving widower with two young children really MIGHT be a good candidate President, especially during a murderous war that has already left a lot of kids without one (and some without EITHER) parent.
Whether it was so intended or not, it did give me a pause to take a second look at the Senator. He's still too slavishly pro-Likud for me, but this post made me think. I do appreciate Jay's thoughtful and conversational tone.
Posted by sean samis
March 23, 2007
This choice is up to the Edwards' to make (both of 'em) and I find it entirely plausible that Ms. Edwards is the one who want's the campaign to continue.
There will be those who try to beat-up this couple no matter what decision they make, so they should ignore the blogosphere and commentariate; make their decision, prepare to explain it frankly and openly, and then "Just Do It."
... and I think a President suffering this loss might be what we need; someone distracted from the temptation of their own greatness by the painful realization of how fragile and short our lives can be.
sean s.
Posted by Bull Moose
March 23, 2007
Another obvious historical example is Teddy Roosevelt, who lost both his young wife and a daughter in childbirth. I wonder if Carney would care to second-guess the psychological bona fides of the two founding fathers of the modern GOP.
I also continue to marvel at his seeming inability to register ths simple notion that Elizabeth Edwards, as the critically ill partner in the marriage, would affirmatively embrace her husband's presidential run ALL BY HERSELF. Instead he offers irrelevant asides about her strength and inspiring qualities--without seeming to grant her the simple power to have a voice in her husband's--and family's--decision. I've never before felt sympathy for a vanilla network chat show correspondent, but the only edification I can glean from the musings of heroic Dad Jay Carney is that it has to really really suck to be Claire Shipman (a k a Mrs. Jay Carney).
Posted by Scrumpy
March 23, 2007
John and Elizabeth Edwards are going back to work in part so that ALL families faced with cancer have options. Health care is part of their mission.
So, Mr. Carney, you'd smell the roses if faced with this challenge? You probably have the means to.
I have two young children. It's discomfiting to me that some say with certainty they'd make a different choice from Elizabeth Edwards'. There but for the grace of God. But Ms. Edwards is not only thinking of her children, she's thinking of her grandchildren, and their world. And that moves me.
Posted by aleks
March 23, 2007
John and Liz Edwards have decided not to let cancer control their lives any more than they can help. Good for them.
Posted by linda
March 23, 2007
Ok Jay, now let's take this a step farther. Everyone seems to be well informed about cancer as it is out of the 'closet' and has effected the many.
Let's see the same clinical and political dissecting of the Romney duo facing MS. The progression of MS is hardly pretty. Let's talk about that.
Now, can we look at how the Edwards have met the challenges they have faced, and compare it to the petty, petulant little tyrant that sits frozen or runs to the Ranch to chop brush instead of dealing with 9-11, Katrina, the downward spiral in foreign policy, the DoJ, and the WOT expanded to make a colossal hell hole out of Iraq waiting for the Carlyle Group to name that tune.
Somehow, I think petty is the pity party of 'how dangerous is this for the Democrats', instead of 'how dangerous is this Administration and its policies'.
Sicko, rat poison in pet food gets more play than the real health issues that surrounds and is engulging this nation. Edwards is one who has been willing to stand up and be counted, much as Gore has challenged the scientific gag order on Global Warming. Or Murtha that understands PTSD as well as equipping the troops, including the management responsibility of assigning doable tasks.
Oops, this is a rambling Kinsley only with paragraphs. Deal with it.
Posted by A Hermit
March 23, 2007
Even a "distracted, depressed" Edwards would still be ten times better a President (and man) than the petulant dry-drunk currently holding that office...
Somehow I think Edward's character is strong enough to carry him even if the worst happened. He's known tragedy before, and come through it.
Posted by San Diego Mom
March 23, 2007
One other point to make: The Edwards family have already experienced loss of life in their immediate circle when their son, Wade, died at 16 in a car accident. So I think they come to this decision with more knowledge than most about grief and living life to the fullest.
I respect their decision and wish them the very best. I will also understand if they choose another course if circumstances change. I see that as a problem when it comes to would-be contributors or fundraisers like the one you mention. Does someone want to give funds or put their energy into raising funds when their candidate has a good reason they might leave the race early?
You bringing your judgement to the table ("I know I couldn't make the same decision") I find meaningless and almost offensive...except you are probably representative of others who will be swift to know exactly what they'd do if faced with a life-threatening illness in their family. However, as a person with possibly a bit more life experience than you (my children are in high school) I'd like to suggest that you =can't= know until you are actually faced with that circumstance.
Do hope you'll go home and do something like play Candyland with your kids tonight... I'm thinking about mine as I make their favorite dinner with great love and the knowledge that none of us know when we'll be leaving them, or vice versa, as in the case of Wade Edwards.
Posted by Cranky Observer
March 23, 2007
> It's a fair point, but personal tragedy
> is not necessarily a disqualifier from
> strong performance in public office.
Nor is the "discomfiture" of one or more political pundits. Particularly when they don't seem "discomfitted" by similar situations affecting past and current Republican candidates.
Cranky
Posted by lyb
March 23, 2007
Politics is the Edwards' job. What are they supposed to do? Quit their jobs and spend the remaining years of her life sitting at home?
Posted by Aaron
March 23, 2007
Why do I feel that this blog post is such a better piece of writing than the original story?
It's an opinion piece that lets us into the mind of the writer, rather than what feels like an opinion piece masquerading as a regular story.
It allows for that this just may be the right thing for the Edwards family to do, even if it wouldn't be the right thing for the Carney family to do. (This flows into Ana Marie Cox’s comment about the media framing it as being a mistake will make the public feel it is a mistake.)
It raises the possibility that the media will examine the private lives of the Republican nominees for the Presidency, even if it hasn't been and now definitely won't be true. (OK, it's more of a pander than a well-written phrase, but somehow the tone makes it come off as being meant honestly.)
Finally, it makes obvious, if only in an offhand way at the end, that there's no chance in hell Elizabeth Edwards would or will let her husband quit. Ever.
P.S. Yet another example: Bill Clinton's mother died in office, and he went on. Why do I feel that this blog post is such a better piece of writing than the original story?
It's an opinion piece that lets us into the mind of the writer, rather than what feels like an opinion piece masquerading as a regular story.
It allows for that this just may be the right thing for the Edwards family to do, even if it wouldn't be the right thing for the Carney family to do. (This flows into Ana Marie Cox’s comment about the media framing it as being a mistake will make the public feel it is a mistake.)
It raises the possibility that the media will examine the private lives of the Republican nominees for the Presidency, even if it hasn't been and now definitely won't be true. (OK, it's more of a pander than a well-written phrase, but somehow the tone makes it come off as being meant honestly.)
Finally, it makes obvious, if only in an offhand way at the end, that there's no chance in hell Elizabeth Edwards would or will let her husband quit. Ever.
P.S. Yet another example: Bill Clinton's mother died in office, and he went on. I honestly shouldn't speak for John Edwards, but since I must, I’ll bet any man strong enough to attract such a strong woman will do O.K.
Posted by Karen T.
March 23, 2007
What beggars the imagination is why anyone in your position would have the effrontery and poor judgment to write that YOU are "discomfited by the decision". Who gives a rat's behind about the discomfiture of a narcissistic Beltway insider? Do you really think your readers see a tragic news story and think "gee, I wonder whether this will make any members of our beloved Washington Kool Kidz Klub uncomfortable"?
Yes, I suppose you probably do.
Posted by shambolic
March 23, 2007
>>"Then again, I don't know what it's like to feel that the country needs me, or my spouse, to be president."
This is nice and flippant, but is the insinuation true? Has John or Elizabeth Edwards ever had the hubris to suggest that the United States needs him as its president? I assume that they want him to be president and think that he can: a. win; and b. do a great job. Where have they even said anything negative about the other candidates running, let alone suggested that the others are unqualified?
Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 23, 2007
Let's see Jay. How "discomfited" are you that Tony Snow has had colon cancer and now is faced with another surgery, perhaps a reoccurence of his cancer? Will you post a soliloqouy about how you, and if you, then probably many, people are "discomfited" about his daily public appearances, and if it were you, you doubt you could make the decision to continue to appear publicly like that.
Or is it just because she's a woman, a wife, and a mother?
The commenter you quoted was correct on one account: The press has zero value to add. Why don't you cut your losses?
Posted by Dan
March 23, 2007
Has it occurred to anybody that one reason Edwards stayed in the race is because it may be the best thing for her health?
Is it better for Elizabeth Edwards to sit at home and wait to die or is it better for her to be involved with something, to have something to look forward to each day? Both she and her husband clearly love politics. Why take away something she enjoys, something helps her feel alive and part of this world?
John and Elizabeth's decision for him to stay in the race is consistent with the way they reacted after their son died. Rather than give up and withdraw, they embraced life and had another two more children. Now, faced with another tragedy, they have again decided that it is better to live this life than sit around and dwell on death.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Posted by SlackerInc
March 23, 2007
Very thoughtful post, Jay. I tend to agree with the cancer survivor annb cited, though: "One cancer survivor wrote in that to expect the Edwardses to drop the campaign so John Edwards could spend months looking soulfully into his wife's eyes was ridiculous."
Valentinian agreed with me about "Jay's thoughtful and conversational tone," but wrote: "[Edwards is] still too slavishly pro-Likud".
I agree that this is hard to take--but isn't it unfortunately true of all the major candidates of either party?
aleks put it well: "John and Liz Edwards have decided not to let cancer control their lives any more than they can help. Good for them."
San Diego Mom and lyks also made great points, just above my post.
-Alan
Posted by John Burns
March 23, 2007
35 pages of negative comments and you pick the one guy who agreed with you.
Let me put it this way, Abraham Lincoln lost a son while leading the nation through the Civil War. I think we did ok.
If anything, as horrible as it sounds, John Edwards would b mre than prepared for such an eventuality. He has already lost a son, and he and his wife have looked her mortality right in the face for the last 3 years.
I'll take him. Or would you prefer the 72 year old with his own history of cancer (McCain) or the 64 year old with his own history of cancer (Giuliani). Maybe the American People should concider what would happen if one of those men were elected and had a recurrence.
I fully expect to see Elizabeth Edwards dancing with her husband at his second Inaugural.
Any other morbid thoughts you want to share with us, Jay?
Posted by Fund-challenged coter
March 23, 2007
One other note: Carney was castigated in the earlier piece for projecting his own "discomfiting" feelings onto the amorphous "American voter." Here he does an empirical gut-check with an "as-yet-uncommitted Democratic fundraiser." Somehow that tells me all I need to know about Time's DC bureau chief and his natural habitat.
Posted by Michael
March 23, 2007
"But I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that, as they learn about Elizabeth's recurrence and about her and John's decision to continue his campaign, parents across the country are going to be asking themselves what they would do in such a situation. ... I do not agree that it is somehow wrong or inapproriate to raise questions about it. If it's legitimate, as a character issue, to debate the significance of the five wives John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had between them, and whether voters will hold that against them, surely it's also legitimate to look at the decision by John and Elizabeth Edwards to keep campaigning despite the reemergence of her cancer, and to debate whether it is, or should be, an issue to voters."
This really bothers me. Yes, some voters will think about the Edwards' decision when they vote. (I doubt most will, but some, surely.) So why not let them be and let them come to their own decisions about it? Why is it the job of the NEWS media to suggest how people should feel about this obviously subjective question?
I am so tired of the press deciding for the country (through incessant coverage of selected - but certainly not all - potential "character" issues) how to think about the public officials in our midst. Reams of political science and communications research shows that the media do have extraordinary powers to influence the public's judgments - and most of that comes not through simple transmission of raw information, but through the framing of issues in certain ways and the "priming" of issues that the public should care about. Pick up a copy of the classic book News That Matters, by Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, if you need convincing. So when you take it upon yourself to shove your thoughts on this, again, clearly subjective question into the public square, you (and whoever else will write about it in print or speak about it on TV) tell the public that we, too, should make it a consideration and should think about it in this particular way.
The idea that this is a perfectly reasonable issue for the press to be spending their time on is just wrong, given all the other issues out there on which the public actually does need help to know the relevant facts. Here, the press cannot add anything but opinion and suggestion, and there really is no reason that anyone at the Time newsroom or anywhere else has a monopoly on good opinions.
Finally, the comparison to the Republican candidates' multiple marriages as an equivalent "character" issue is absurd. First of all, the press has hardly paid attention to the multiple marriages of the Republican candidates - to say nothing of the rampant adultery among many in that group. But more importantly, the character issue that is most relevant to public service is not whether a candidate has had a divorce or has even had an affair. It's the hypocrisy of making character attacks against others while at the same time engaging in the same type of behavior (or worse) behind closed doors.
John Edwards made a difficult decision and announced it in the full light of day for anyone to consider as they see fit. There's nothing factual the press can add to the story that the public doesn't already know. Can we just leave it at that?
Posted by Angry Dem
March 23, 2007
John Edwards also did not serve his wife with divorce papers in the hospital. That would be one of those twice-divorced Republicans the media won't criticize.
Posted by Fund-challenged voter
March 23, 2007
One other note: Carney was castigated in the earlier piece for projecting his own "discomfiting" feelings onto the amorphous "American voter." Here he does an empirical gut-check with an "as-yet-uncommitted Democratic fundraiser." Somehow that tells me all I need to know about Time's DC bureau chief and his natural habitat.
Posted by Phil
March 23, 2007
"If it's legitimate, as a character issue, to debate the significance of the five wives John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had between them, and whether voters will hold that against them, surely it's also legitimate to look at the decision by John and Elizabeth Edwards to keep campaigning despite the reemergence of her cancer, and to debate whether it is, or should be, an issue to voters."
There are a few problems I have with this statement.
First as pointed out above, when was the last time a serious article showed up discussing McCain and Giuliani's divorce rates in any serious way? And while many seem to know about how Rudy and his wife dealt with cancer, I have yet to read about such events on Time outside of dirty hippie comments.
Second, how is the loss of a spouse at all equated with your 'family values?' The statement should read: If it's legitimate to talk about John and Rudy's marital history, than its legitimate to talk about Edwards' marital history. What does health have to do with this?
On the other hand you could have made the more logical statement that if it's OK to discuss Edwards' family health issues, than it's also OK to talk about those of other candidates. For example, McCain is in his 70's. This means he could very well die while in office or become senile as was evident with Reagen. Also Rudy is a cancer survivor, what if it resurfaces? You may notice both of these instances effect the actual candidate himself and not his spouse. This to me is much more worrisome.
Finally, I think many have already noted the previous history of presidents leading our nation while dealing with serious personal loss. If anything, the trend would point towards this humbling experience making a person that much more qualified for public office. Hopefully, the Edwardses will be more fortunate.
Posted by Dan
March 23, 2007
"But I don't think it is a stretch to suggest
that, as they learn about Elizabeth's recurrence
and about her and John's decision to continue his
campaign, parents across the country are going to be
asking themselves what they would do in such a situation."
My guess is that most of those 50-year-old husbands and fathers -- upon hearing their wife has cancer -- would continue to work. I'm only 38 and I'm fortunate to have great health insurance through my job, but the moment I quit that job we would lose our insurance.
Not everyone has great health insurance, nor the wealth to sit at home. (HINT: helping more Americans get health care is one reason Edwards is running for President.)
I suppose if Edwards had suspended his campaign to to be with his wife, all of you Washington reporters would have found some other reason to bash him. Don't worry though, you may get your chance. If Elizabeth Edwards' health declines the next few months, he probably will quit the campaign. How will you criticize him then?
Posted by Steve in Sacto
March 23, 2007
"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? ... 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."
Lincoln had his share of family crises and managed to be a pretty good president...
Posted by Sherry
March 23, 2007
It is striking that the people who have been most supportive of John and Elizabeth Edwards' life-affirming decision are those--of both political parties--who themselves have faced the challenge of a chronic, life-threatening illness (Tony Snow, Andrew Sullivan, Dr. Bernadette Healy, Jane Hamsher, Geraldine Ferraro, and many others). People like those do not need Mr. Carney and his ilk to tell them to retire from life and to give up their dreams and goals. Mrs. Edwards' illness has already stimulated Senator Edwards to propose a universal health care plan because of his empathy for those in his wife's circumstances, but without her means.
Posted by annb
March 23, 2007
Ya know, the more I think about this post, the more pissed I get. It's not enough to insult them yesterday, now Jay trots out the 'I'm just thinking about the children' defense.
Same way Alberto Gonzales justified his decision not to resign. "I will not resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting your kids"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_teresa_s_070323__22i_will_not_resign__.htm
Christ, no wonder Jay didn't think firing the U.S. Attorneys was any big deal.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 23, 2007
Yes. I'll be waiting for a long, thoughtful post by Jay expressing "discomfiture" with the thought that a President McCain, a melanoma cancer survivor, and/or Guiliani, a prostate cancer survivor might be able to handle a recurrence if they were in office.
I'll wait for him to write about an anonymous Republican donor that he phoned for a reaction to whether their post-cancer status has an effect on their willingness to contribute.
No, for Jay this is a way to frame the news in an "aren't Democrats weak? Sad story, but just so" kind of way.
Prove me wrong, Jay. Write about McCain's and Guiliani's cancer history. You haven't touched their divorce history yet.
Posted by Pragmatic Liberal
March 23, 2007
Jay - it's safe to say that no one is interested in your "discomfiture" about anything. Perhaps you might simply express your sympathy to John and Elizabeth Edwards and leave it at that.
Posted by DonB
March 23, 2007
Candidates Rudy Guiliani and John McCain both had cancer. That should also be discussed. What if there is a recurrence during their presidency? How will it effect them?
What I know about Edwards character tells me that even as a grieving husband he would be a much better president than Bush.
Posted by DonB
March 23, 2007
Newt Gingrich dumped wife #1 who was lying in a husband bed with cancer for a trophy wife.
I wonder if Jay Carney and the rest of the media will worry about how this reflects on his character when Newtie runs for president.
Posted by ursus
March 23, 2007
The fact of the recurrence: not my business. The comments of the media: not very interesting.
Next!
Posted by zota
March 23, 2007
Jay, the fact is that Jonah Goldberg has made a far more classy response to this situation than you have.
It make my fingers hurt just to write "Jonah Goldberg is more classy than..." I can only imagine how it must feel to be the classless object of that sad truth.
Given the circumstances, have you considered getting out of public life to spend more time with your family?
Posted by Firefly
March 23, 2007
Jay, you may be a parent of two small children but you still have zero credibility on this issue and zero ability to write this piece - you of the arrogant, cocktail weenie, inside-the-beltway, unsourced access "journalism," GOP stenographer crowd - you know nothing about what real Americans think - nada.
Stop trying to pretend you do.
Posted by Alan
March 23, 2007
Look: I think Jay raises some things that ned thought. We are heading into dangerous times. The Iranians have just flexed their muscles by detaining 15 British marines. Not that our White House resident's obnoxious behaviour is to be discounted if one wants to discuss that.
But any President will have enormous problems to deal with. If President Edwards is given that task I cannot but feel that Mrs Edwards' health will be a distraction. After all our presidents (with the present exception)are human and fallible.
No elected president can be sure that his/her spouse will not have problems. But I think Mrs Edwards will have enough on her plate without the added responsibilities that come from being First lady,
I am just twitchy. Something about the decsion does not sit well with me. But I have an enormous respect for the decision, but I don't agree.
Posted by Casey
March 23, 2007
That's the problem with blogs. No editors. Jay's remarks should have been whittled down to the one fact he included "I don't know what it's like". The rest is drivel. Enough said.
Now maybe Jay can move on and start writing about how the president intends to starve the troops by vetoing the spending bill.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 23, 2007
How twitchy are you that McCain and Guiliani have a history of cancer, but have decided to run for office? Not *that* twitchy? Yeah, the "added responsibilities" of a First Lady are far more burdensome than the "enormous problems" of a sitting president.
Posted by carsick
March 23, 2007
I thought Ana Marie's point was in large part (or at least the part that I got the most out of was) the impact of the press's framing of the circumstance. You framed it very well for naysayers. Is that your role?
Edwards has not been my first choice but I don't doubt that he and his wife sincerely believe that his experience and worldview make him the best person to be our president in the coming term.
Perhaps the earlier fight with cancer and the loss of one of their children have given them a strength to fall back on that you don't possess (or don't have confidence yet that you possess).
They certainly have dealt with some challenging family issues and come out optimistic people. Yet, you want to frame it as what? Political egotism at the expense of his family.
It's the framing stupid.
Posted by El Fuego
March 23, 2007
Not that this should be their top priority (and isn't, I'm sure), but assuming Mrs. Edwards can get the care she needs in the midst of the campaign, I think there's something to be gained by continuing. Ask Lance Armstrong: everything that can raise cancer awareness has the potential to contribute to its cure. If Edwards campaigns while his wife is working to become a survivor (again), frankly it brings the struggle against cancer into the mainstream conversation. Something tells me there are a lot of people who could learn important things from this. Fighting against cancer means carrying on, even if your husband is running for president. Or something like that.
Posted by Mary
March 23, 2007
As long as you are discussing the health issues of the candidates spouses Romney's wife has MS. A very debilitating disease for which there is no cure. Oh, and Hillary's husband Bill Clinton (perhaps you've heard of him) had heart surgery not so very long ago, so he has some obvious health issues you should be discussing as well.
Better yet you could just pretend like your wife has cancer and retire from public life to comfort the kids. How long do you think that you could just sit around waiting for her to die?
Posted by Sean Carman
March 23, 2007
How classy it would have been to find a way to say the Edwards' decision was courageous and simply leave it at that.
Posted by mjames
March 23, 2007
You picked out the absolute worst comment to quote in your post. I read that comment earlier someplace (maybe here, I guess) and thought it was the stupidest thing I ever read.
What if your wife has just died, but one child is having an epileptic seizure, another child is about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and there is an anthrax scare in the neighborhood school? Do you just cower in the corner because your wife has just died. Do you abdicate all responsibilities?
What a coward! A selfish whimpering coward!
Certainly not fit to be President - or even, more importantly, a parent!
And if you know you're going to die in two years, do you not want to try to achieve something that has some meaning - to you personally?
What could have more meaning that trying to get this country back on track? To know your spouse is the best medicine for an ailing country and to fight proudly for him - and for your country -until you can fight no longer. To set an example for your children to fight for what's right, as long and as hard as you can.
I'm 62 years old - and I'm sick of the shrinking violets around me. Pathetic.
Posted by jayackroyd
March 23, 2007
Can somebody explain to me why Giuiliani's prostate cancer is not an issue here? How can that be less important than the cancer status of a spouse of a candidate?
Mind you, I don't think either should be an issue. But all this hemming and hawing about whether Edwards should run would seem to apply doubly to an actual candidate.
Posted by Todd
March 23, 2007
Jay Carney is the most empathetic, thoughtful, and compassionate blogger EVER!
I will be do three extra shots tonight for Elizabeth, Jay and most importantly for the children.
Posted by Karen T.
March 23, 2007
Sounds like you've already had enough, Todd!
Posted by david wilson
March 23, 2007
per Todd:
Let's all raise a glass FOR THE CHILDREN! And, DRINKS FOR ALL MY FRIENDS!
Posted by Jake Gittes
March 23, 2007
"If it's legitimate, as a character issue, to debate the significance of the five wives John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had between them, and whether voters will hold that against them,"
As has been said above, and as we've repeatedly mentioned in the comments section here week after week after week....
NO ONE HERE, OR IN THE MSM IN GENERAL, IS DEBATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GIULIANI'S MULTIPLE MARRIAGES, ADULTRY, OR ESTRANGEMENT FROM HIS CHILDREN.
You, Jay, are going to have a problem with anything and everything Edwards does, because he is a real progressive, and you are a corporate GOP apologist. So basically, and advice you have for Edwards, I hope he ignores.
Posted by Rich
March 23, 2007
IMO, no one has a right to question another person's familial decisions nor do they have a right to judge them.
Posted by Sean Brodrick
March 23, 2007
How Elizabeth and John Edwards handle her cancer and its effect on their children is really a matter for them to decide. The rest of us should express sympathy (or not) and then stay out of it. That goes double for cement-headed Time writers.
My best wishes to Elizabeth Edwards and her family. I hope she kicks cancer's butt. I'm sure she'll handle her disease and treatment as she sees best (see how easy that is, Jay?)
Posted by Strunk
March 23, 2007
Jay, you make a fine point about the importance of spending time with family. Please take your own advice and quit wasting time here posting such drivel.
Posted by Rich
March 23, 2007
I trust Edwards to be strong enough to handle the situation for his family's sake as a result of their shared sense of mission.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 23, 2007
OT except for "the children":
AP is out with a story on a new document dump that shows that Gonzales personally approved the firings.
Gonzales has denied having any knowledge of the firings and blamed overzealous staff. The new documents disprove his testimony before Congress.
Buh-bye.
```
Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals. The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.
There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.
The five-step plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval and naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.
```
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070323/fired-prosecutors
Posted by annb
March 23, 2007
Re: James' post -
From Josh Marshall - the new incriminating emails and documents are from the time of the 'gap'.
Posted by DonB
March 23, 2007
"If President Edwards is given that task I cannot but feel that Mrs Edwards' health will be a distraction."
A distractiom?
Do you honestly think President John Edwards will be playing the guitar as people in a major American city drown?
John Edwards with a wife suffering from incurable cancer would have been a more effective and compassionate president than the sorry excuse for a human being we have occupying the White House.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 23, 2007
From Josh to Republican apologists at Time, Inc. washington Bureau and others (Kinsley, that's you):
```
Now we know with crystal clear proof what we really already knew a week ago: that Alberto Gonzales was lying about his role in the US Attorney Purge. So add that to the list of all the other things he's lied about.
But don't get distracted by the lying or even the cover-up.
Right-wing shills want to chalk the blundering administration response to US Attorney Purge scandal to incompetence. But just as we can infer the force of gravity from the descent of the falling apple, the panicked succession of lies and dodges out of the administration implies not incompetence but guilty knowledge of underlying bad acts.
This isn't about the AG's lies. It's not about the attempted cover-up. It's not about executive privilege and investigative process mumbojumbo.
This is about using US Attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, using the Department of Justice as a partisan cudgel in the war for national political dominance. All the secrecy and lies, the blundering and covering-up stems from this one central fact.
-- Josh Marshall
```
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Posted by Xeno
March 24, 2007
What I find puzzling is that, as noted by multiple posters above, two of the republican candidates have had cancer yet Carney and the rest of the M$M never mention that fact. It is far more troubling to to contemplate what might happen if a sitting president were to be diagnosed with metastatic cancer. Both McCain and Giuliani are older men (elderly was the term I was going to use) so a history of cancer is fairly serious. Should America elect a president with serious health issues, or who is of advanced age? That is the sort of relevant question the press should pursue, rather than focusing on the health of a candidate's wife.
And if you absolutely must go there, you should include ALL of the candidates' spouses in your discussion. If one is being put under the microscope, all of them should be.
Posted by NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
March 24, 2007
It is unethical to show apathy to Mrs Edward in mindless pursuit of power.Her husband chasing "wayward girl called fame" may leave his wife to languish and worsen further.If Bible considers husband and wife as each others second half how can husband run blindly after lime light when his second half is afflicted with chronic and painful ailment?
Instead of pursuing elusive shadows of power the husband should wholeheartedly concentrate on saving the life of his wife.He should ransack all alternative therapies for effective management of breast cancer.Iknow for sure that in Indian system of medicine very effective method of malignant tumors exist which can be immensely useful to Mrs Edward.This method is called in sanskrit "Arbud chikitsa" meaning "treatment of tumors"which consists of administering some herbal extracts in tablet form and these hebal extracts are capable of destroying carcenogenic cells without harming normal cells.This therapeutic system has no adverse effect on other systems of human body.If Edwards permit I can adminster these herbal extracts to Mrs Edward under surveillence of US Oncologists.This is not an experiment nor it is a clinical trial.Herbal extracts have been in use in India for nearly hundred years and are known for their therapeutic value without side effects.I have cured one case of malignant inoperable brain tumor in India in 2001 by using this herbal extract therapy.Tihs may sound very incredible to US Oncologists but it is true.I do not have any selfish motive of becoming a celebrity by popularizing this therapy in United States because it is the legacy of Indian system of medicine and it is by no means anybody's propriety formula.I am interested in saving human life only if I am permitted to do so.
NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
309,NANUBHAI TOWERS
MAHESANANAGAR
BARODA,GUJ., INDIA
EMAIL ayurcure@yahoo.com
Posted by NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
March 24, 2007
It is unethical to show apathy to Mrs Edward in mindless pursuit of power.Her husband chasing "wayward girl called fame" may leave his wife to languish and worsen further.If Bible considers husband and wife as each others second half how can husband run blindly after lime light when his second half is afflicted with chronic and painful ailment?
Instead of pursuing elusive shadows of power the husband should wholeheartedly concentrate on saving the life of his wife.He should ransack all alternative therapies for effective management of breast cancer.Iknow for sure that in Indian system of medicine very effective method of malignant tumors exist which can be immensely useful to Mrs Edward.This method is called in sanskrit "Arbud chikitsa" meaning "treatment of tumors"which consists of administering some herbal extracts in tablet form and these hebal extracts are capable of destroying carcenogenic cells without harming normal cells.This therapeutic system has no adverse effect on other systems of human body.If Edwards permit I can adminster these herbal extracts to Mrs Edward under surveillence of US Oncologists.This is not an experiment nor it is a clinical trial.Herbal extracts have been in use in India for nearly hundred years and are known for their therapeutic value without side effects.I have cured one case of malignant inoperable brain tumor in India in 2001 by using this herbal extract therapy.Tihs may sound very incredible to US Oncologists but it is true.I do not have any selfish motive of becoming a celebrity in United States by popularizing this therapy because this therapy is the legacy of Indian system of medicine and it is by no means anybody's propriety formula.I am interested in saving human life only if I am permitted to do so.
NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
309,NANUBHAI TOWERS
MAHESANANAGAR
BARODA,GUJ., INDIA
EMAIL ayurcure@yahoo.com
Posted by SlackerInc
March 24, 2007
Hey Nandlal, this looks a lot like spam. You wouldn't be taking money for this "cure" would you?
-Alan
Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
March 24, 2007
An excellent comment on this topic from Dick Polman's (Philadelphia Inquirer) blog -- Polman had posted pros and some cons along the lines that Jay did.
"paradox said...
I was interested in the reaction to the rumors of Elizabeth Edwards’ health yesterday. Since the first story was broken by politico.com I followed the threads associated with both the story and the retraction. I was ashamed of much of what I read. Between 10% and 20% of the more than 350 posts called Sen. Edwards a “publicity whore” or accused him of exploiting the situation for his political benefit. They gloated that an experienced trial attorney should need medical care from a system they felt he had abused. They claimed that there would be no outpouring of concern if Mrs. Bush developed cancer. They wished that Sen. Edwards had had a chance to implement his plan for National Health Care so that his wife could be denied care or be compelled to wait many months. A few wished that he had the cancer. I was reminded of Joseph Welch’s rebuke of Sen. McCarthy – “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
About half of the posting damned Sen. Edwards with faint praise, saying generally that the author could not tolerate the Senator’s ideas and hope his candidacy would fail, but that their prayers were with him and his family. Is this the level that political discourse has reached in this country? Can’t these people just say that they are saddened by the news and that they wish him and his family well and they say a prayer for them? Is it necessary to add gratuitous criticism of his goals?
As an oncologist, all of my patients have cancer. Many have recurrences. Some will withdraw into themselves and prepare to die. They do not live as long as the others. Some become angry and decide to fight the cancer with all of their spirit. They may become bitter and their life may take on a frenetic quality. Whether the quality of their life is optimized is debatable, but if it suits them, more power to them. Some, and Mrs. Edwards appears to be one of these, acknowledge that they have the cancer and that they will live their life until they die, however long that is. Many of them set out to gain new experiences they had put off until they had time. Some will work on a developing a legacy that will make them remembered fondly by others. This may be the establishment of new relationships or the reestablishment of old ones to create new memories. If her goal is to be an element of her husband’s campaign and to feel a part of his effort to be elected President, who are we to question it? If she wants to work to implement some of the proposals that she and her husband developed that they believe will be good for the nation, well, good on her.
If she believes this should be her legacy to her family then she is entitled to do this. If the nation remembers her kindly, that is even better for her. Who are we to question the motives of her and her husband? Are we really that cynical today? I hope not. They say the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Her struggle should cause us all should look to our values."
Posted by Nandlal K Pancholi
March 24, 2007
Thi is reply to SlackerInc' query.No, I shall not charge money.The purpose is not getting money but to make available a therapy that exists in my culture to a suffering individual in other culture.The cause is so noble that it transcends all monetary considerations
nandlal k pancholi
Posted by Cranky Observer
March 24, 2007
From Atrios:
I think one of the worst habits we have is telling other people not just how they're supposed to live their lives, but what the appropriate emotional responses to life events - births, deaths, triumphs, tragedies - are supposed to be. While we're not all twisted freaks like Rush Limbaugh, I think the impulse is a fairly universal one.
People who get a serious illness, or become disabled, lose both their agency and their humanity in the eyes of many. They become freaks who have to prove they are human in every interaction, and have to reassert their own agency at every moment.
For some reason the most natural and seemingly healthy impulse - to go on with your life as you had intended to the best of your ability - seems to be the most alien to those not experiencing a tragic illness.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_03_18_atrios_archive.html#117474492838523354
Posted by Cranky Observer
March 24, 2007
> If she believes this should be her
> legacy to her family then she is
> entitled to do this.
Why do "we" (and pundits specifically) get to judge what Elizabeth Edwards is "entitled" to?
Cranky
Posted by candide
March 24, 2007
While there are indeed questions whether John Edwards should or should not have pulled out of the race because of his wife's serious condition, it is the height of vulgarity for anyone to comment on them. If he remains a candidate his behavior concerning his wife will play a great role without pundits and reporters needing to give us their views.
Posted by Max Renn
March 24, 2007
"Posted by NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
March 24, 2007
It is unethical to show apathy to Mrs Edward in mindless pursuit of power.Her husband chasing "wayward girl called fame" may leave his wife to languish and worsen further.If Bible considers husband and wife as each others second half how can husband run blindly after lime light when his second half is afflicted with chronic and painful ailment?"
I had no idea the people behind Dr. Bronner's concentrated soaps posted here!
Posted by bdbd
March 24, 2007
"If it's legitimate, as a character issue, to debate the significance of the five wives John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had between them, and whether voters will hold that against them, surely it's also legitimate to look at the decision by John and Elizabeth Edwards to keep campaigning despite the reemergence of her cancer, and to debate whether it is, or should be, an issue to voters."
Suggesting that these two categories of "character issues" might both provide something for voters to "hold against" the candidates shows how out of touch with reality you Beltway media folks are. There's a fundamental difference between (1) the marital infidelity exhibited by McCain and Giuliani and their various spouses (particularly in light of the GOP's holier than thou moralizing), and (2) the commitment of the Edwardses to each other and to a path they've chosen together. The first is behavior that's certainly relevant to voters' assessment of the candidates' characters. The second is a decision that voters might not make for themselves, and that might make them question Edward's ability to campaign and serve (though I think his record demonstrates that's a red herring), but no thinking person could consider the decision to reflect negatively on the Edwardses' characters.
This seems to be one more example of the lazy mainstream media's propensity to invent and equalize two sides of every "issue" in an effort to demonstrate "balance" where none is warranted or appropriate.
Posted by dave
March 24, 2007
Stick it, Carney.
Where the sun don't shine.
Posted by Shell
March 24, 2007
"I think I would feel quite differently if I knew I had an illness that could substantially shorten my life. It would change the calculus for me, and reduce the number of planes I boarded on business trips."
***************
You THINK you would FEEL? Alert! Alert! This is a psychologist visit comment, not a NEWS or POLITICAL OPINION one. Get ahold of yourself! It seems you should NOT be a political writer until your children are older. You are MUCH too emotional, at this point.
And it was SO touching to see YOU say how YOU would do things differently if that were YOU. First of all, you would REDUCE the number of planes you flew? Bzzzt. Wrong. NEVER fly in a plane! You MIGHT crash! And then what would become of your children? There are millions of Americans who live full lives with NEVER flying. Be like them for the next few years.
Unless, of course, you are a HYPOCRITE.
Posted by Rohini
March 24, 2007
Briinging your two children ito this to float the idea that good , unselfish parents like you would make a different choice than the Edwads have, --- wow!! how low can you sink?
Bt hey! I see a great narrative shaping up here for you. No doubt you can even find some "concerned" Democratic offiicals/political operatives/whatever to make the same sort of comments -- off the record, of course. Maybe even throw in something about it being bad for the image of the party -- anti-family or some such.
Don't know how kids would react to the situation the Edwards face. I wonder what the impact is for children to be raised by a father who is a scumbag like you.
Posted by lizzy
March 24, 2007
I've been undecided between Obama and Edwards up until now. I love the 'idea' of Obama as well as love the 'reality' of Edwards. On Thursday reality trumped ideaology. Both would be lovely.
Posted by D_Friend
March 25, 2007
I have read both of Jay Carney’s pieces on the subject of John & Elizabeth Edwards decision to continue with the race. They were lengthy and certainly expressed his thoughts; both personal and political, so kudos to you Jay for meeting your deadline for insulting drivel!
It is hard to comprehend that a bona fide “writer and pundit” actually believes that this sort of article actually passes for journalism. Who on earth has given this man the idea that comparing “his own” life and family to another’s in light of Cancer, actually has merit or credence?
If Time ever had a moment for reflection, I truly wish they would revisit their choices in staffing.
Posted by aimai
March 25, 2007
I think the majority of posters here have hit the nail on the head. But I want to add my own two cents here to continue to squelch the Carnyesque? Carnivalesque? new "conventional wisdom" that the voters are as stupid, self obsessed, and childish as the pundits who pretend to speak, oracularly, for them.
Carney: you are not now, and never will be, in a position to run for president. You probably won't even run for Senator. God forbid you should run for Senator after losing your 15 year old son. God forbid you should decide to run twice for a high position, because you believe with all your heart that that position matters and that you would fill it honorably and work hard for your country and then find out that your wife is ill. God forbid that you should ever lose anyone you love.
But having said all that I say "God Forbid" not only because I would never ill wish anyone but because you have shown yourself to be too petty, too self absorbed, too weak to even dream of taking on such a high position and such a high honor as running for President. Look, this country is in a crisis--a leadership crisis. There are tons of people who think they could be president who don't have the slightest intention or ability of solving this crisis they just want the power. Edwards and his wife, whose decision this obviously was, are saying that they actually put country and service about personal comfort. They are actually showing us with words what others (Newt, Guiliani, yes, even McCain) have shown they can only mouth. The Edwards believe in what they are doing and are willing to sacrifice for it.
But when I speak of sacrifice I am thinking of the sacrifice of ease and privacy and home. The Edwards are not now, and never have, been sacrificing their children. Jay, I'm sorry to have to tell you this but people die. Children die, as the Edwards' well know, and parents die. ITs not whether, and when you die that matters to your children--its how. As a mother, and a child, and a daughter-in-law, sister, and wife let me tell you that I would want to die fighting for what I and my husband believe rather than cowering at home. And I would rather that be the death my children know I had. The idea that Edwards' and his wife withdrawing from the public fight "helps" their children at all is absurd. If she is to die, well, that is her fate. Its our fate too. And we can't escape it even by hiding under the bed.
I honor them.
aimai
Posted by mcg
March 25, 2007
this is so deeply distasteful i don't know where to begin. the way the column moves form mealy-mouthed humanitarianism to utterly unfair insinuations just really turns me off. i was going to give this blog a chance, but i've changed my mind.
Posted by Richard
March 25, 2007
Hey Jay,
There is no "question' in the Edward's decision. None at all. It is a personal matter between a wife and a husband. A couple married for decades BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT WORK...unlike their many times divorced critics.
As far a "question" journalism is concerned. Knock it the hell off. Find the stones to make your flack attack head on. Don't hide behind fake 'question' motives.
Posted by aspTrader
March 25, 2007
The Edwards have devoted their lives to a vision that involves helping others. How you think your mere experience as a parent is an appropriate yardstick by which to measure their character and capability to perform is just another demonstration of your bad judgement.
Posted by Devil's Advocate
March 25, 2007
"As the parent of two young children, I know I couldn't make the same decision that the Edwards made. Then again, I don't know what it's like to feel that the country needs me, or my spouse, to be president."
Exactly. And we don't want to hear what you would do or not do in the Edwardses' situation, because you are NOT in their situation.
So, instead of being smarmy, patronizing, and instead of sticking your busy-body nose into the personal decisions of people confronted with a tragic situation, keep quiet and write about something else. That the Edwardses are a political couple does not give you permission to question their decisions in the face of a health crisis.
Posted by aspTrader
March 25, 2007
Jay,
Your essays about the Edwards are concerned with how Mr. Edwards may be distracted while in office by his wife's illness given their passion and commitment to service to our country.
Mr. Guiliani's family, while he was Mayor of New York City, experienced incredible, well documented turmoil that must have distracted him immensely too. Unfortunately, Mr. Guiliani's family turmoil was triggered by his poor character and judgement.
Please point me and all your readers to the essay you've written that expresses your concern about how Mr. Guiliani's poor judgement in personal matters might distract him from the nation's business.
Posted by aspTrader
March 25, 2007
Jay...
Along the same lines as my note immediately above.
Please point me and all your readers to the essay you've written that expresses your concern about how Mr. Gingrich's documented poor character, judgement, and mean-spiritedness in personal matters might distract him from the nation's business.
Posted by Sanity Clause
March 25, 2007
Congratulations, Jay! I think you've earned universally lower ratings from your readers than the worst troll! Maybe you folks should stick to analyzing some real issues like, oh, the WAR, or universal HEALTH INSURANCE, or the BUDGET DEFICIT, or the ENVIRONMENT. Just a helpful suggestion from someone who knows as much about journalism as you apparently do about family values or blogging.
Posted by wagonjak
March 25, 2007
Interestingly enough, all comments from Jay's column yesterday have magically disappeared, I guess so we can't go back and see the hundreds of castigating and angry comments to his stupid and nasty post....
Could you make the Chimpmaster, VP and USAG disappear too Mr. Carney?
Or better yet, disappear yourself from the pages of Time!
Posted by Sicen Tired
March 25, 2007
I bookmarked this page last evening so that I could come back and revisit the comment section today...and guess what, it seems to have disappeared from the search. Good thing this was bookmarked.
Now my question is since yesterday's original post by Mr. Carney was banished and now it would seem this page has somehow "disappeared" from the main search, when will Mr. Carney disappear himself from Time magazine.
What bolderdash twaddle...afraid of a little negative commentary? Perhaps a tiny bit too hot to handle? And THIS from a man who dares to compare his life to another's...
Posted by the dryyyyyyy cracker
March 25, 2007
Like Jay Carney, I would respond to a cancer diagnosis in my immediate family by gathering my loved ones close and pulling our little world over our heads like a blanket.
Unlike Jay Carney, I can see why this makes me a selfish weakling.
Posted by nandlal k pancholi
March 30, 2007
This is in reply to MIS Philadelphia.I can give free of cost treatment of tumors which you and other US Oncologists in collaboration with FDA may scan and scrutinize and thereafter decide whether to treat Mrs Edward with it.They should collect treatment of tumors in tablet form my location free of cost. the address is given below:
309,nanubhai towers,maheasananagar,opposite garba ground,baroda,gujarat,india
NANDLAL K PANCHOLI
EMAIL : ayurcure@yahoo.com
Posted by Laura Sanchez
April 11, 2007
I wait impatiently for your column harrumphing and admonishing Fred Thompson for even considering running for president when he has cancer and young children. Surely you won't be one-sided about such matters.
Posted by Saraperfume
April 18, 2007
Hi all!
I found that jessica parker perfume sarah is very nice perfume.
Cheers...