Elizabeth and I

Posted by bartkid
May 9, 2007

Mr. Carney,
The lack of "I am sorry" or "My apologies" gives this posting a very Joe Klein taste.

While I appreciate the description of Mrs. Edwards gracious, and playful, behaviour to you, please stop staying out so late at night.

I once more strongly encourage you to start making some calls, to hit the pavement, and to pound out a cover story on the U.S. Attorney scandal.

Posted by ZSM
May 9, 2007

Jay, Ana's getting sneaky about finding ways to get you to post on Swampland. I really appreciate this however, and you put it tactfully, and in a better light. It's about people's passions. People dedicate themselves to different things, and Elizabeth had already picked her dedication. Other people may have different dedications, based on their personal views, but I agree with you, everyone agrees that she made the right choice, not that anyone matters but her.

P.S. Now I understand why you got attacked. It's a hard topic to be both concise and compassionate.

Best of Luck,

ZSM

Posted by Enceladus
May 9, 2007

Maybe out of all this we can all pursue a minor reform in political discourse:

I.e., banish the "What about the children!" theme to the private sphere, where it belongs.

Posted by Jim
May 9, 2007

Fred Thompson and John McCain both have cancer and young children (If John McCain is healthy, he does'nt look it). Why is it okay for them to keep campaigning, and for office, not for someone else? That, to me, is the question. Not, quite frankly, the medical history of the Carney family, as glad as I am that your mother's cancer is in the past.

Posted by linda
May 9, 2007

So, Jay your inner child has abandonment issues related to your mother's (grandmothers') illnesses. My suggestion is to take your issues to a therapist, not to the MSM through projection of your issues on others.

As has been said, hit the bricks, boy and come back with a real story. Gain some R E S P E C T by doing a professional journalist's job. Need a map?

Posted by Beth in VA
May 9, 2007

Geez, kids/commenters, why don't you save the salvo for issues that really matter to progressives? I'm tired of bullying comments on these posts--go to Politico and pick fights with them, they deserve it more than the Swampland, in my humble opinion. Give it a final rest.

Signed:

war protesting, habeaus corpus loving, anti-torture, pro-union, environmental pinko, and anti-bullying Mom.

Posted by Beth in VA
May 9, 2007

Sorry, also meant to say I think this is a nice thoughtful post by Carney, and it's good to follow through with a response to Ana Marie and our comments.

Posted by Dropped Jaw
May 9, 2007

Oh, it's so nice that we're all friends again.

It's not like you did any damage to the Edwards' campaign or anything; you know, by suggesting that she's putting her husband's ambitions ahead of the welfare of her children. And don't any of you commenters dare to call Jay a hypocrite for passing judgment on E. Edwards when he should have known better from his own personal experiences. That might be seen as bullying, rather than a demand for justified accountability from a holier-than-thou little weasel.

Yes, give it a final rest and let's move on to more important issues, and stop bullying these poor weak creatures of the National Frigging Media. We're the bullies, not the nationally published media elite.

Cheeziz Kayyyrrrist!

Posted by Bemused
May 9, 2007

I'm with Beth in VA. The comment about abandonment issues was especially unnecessary. Besides seeming to mock someone's illness, why knock Jay for opening up a bit of his personal life in a blog entry? I was under the impression that one of the advantages of the blog as a medium was that it allowed just that kind of revelation. Jay is consistently abused for not understanding how blogging is supposed to work--now he writes like a real blogger and is abused some more.

Jay didn't even have to re-address this issue. Let's give him some credit, even if he didn't choose the exact words you demand.

Posted by Amazed
May 9, 2007

Yes! How dare you knock Jay about a personal issue? It's not like he's famous for doing that to others! Play fair, you meany commenters!

Posted by Anonymous
May 9, 2007

Still waiting for a full print column about Fred Thompson's cancer and his young children.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
May 9, 2007

I too side with Beth in VA. Jay has earned mean responses in the past, but this thoughtful and honest post does not warrant them.

I also think that Jim has a point-- why do we only care about Elizabeth Edwards' cancer, not McCain and Thompson's?

Posted by Anonymous
May 9, 2007

If I read the blog entries right, Carney has resolved this issue with the only person who he needed to get clean with - Elizabeth Edwards.

Carney's mistake was acting like the private effects of a personal decision were somehow something for public judgment. Continuing to raise this in the comments only prolongs that mistake - let it go. Badgering him for an apology won't repair any "damage" to the Edwards campaign, if there was any. In fact, keeping this up is like scratching the skin off a mosquito bite - making a little thing worse.

Posted by ama
May 9, 2007

"She told me she had been upset by what I'd written about their decision to keep campaigning, despite the recurrence of her cancer, but she also said, as her husband has publicly, that she understood why people had different opinions about it. She joked about wanting to slug me, and (with encouragement from Tammy Haddad) balled up her fist and held it up to my chin, laughing as she did."

And what did you say to Elizabeth when she indicated she was upset by what you had written, Jay? That part of the conversation is strangely missing.

Yes, I'm sure she joked with you, but I strongly suspect that she did want to slug you when she read what you wrote. I would have wanted to knock your lights out had I been Elizabeth, but I'll admit I lack her restraint. You would have been sporting two black eyes today.

I would be absolutely mortified to think I was the source of one moment's anguish for this dear soul were I in your shoes, Jay.

She well deserved being among TIME's 100.

P.S. For any of the fellow commenters here who may be contemplating jumping on me with both feet--BUZZ OFF! :)

Posted by Diverik
May 9, 2007

I know that Mrs. Edwards and her children are the most important issue of the day and Jay-bashing is the Swamplanders' favorite pastime, but how about we talk about something frivolous and unimportant like… oh, I don’t know… restoring habeas corpus.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/09/habeas_corpus/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801838.html

Posted by amberglow
May 9, 2007

"The lack of "I am sorry" or "My apologies" gives this posting a very Joe Klein taste."

Exactly. She told she was upset, and you think she made the right decision, but you didn't apologize? What's wrong with you? You trashed her, and her family's decision--which was none of your business to begin with, by the way.

Posted by The Thompson Twins
May 9, 2007

"Still waiting for a full print column about Fred Thompson's cancer and his young children"

Uh, actually, those are his wife's implants.

Posted by Acid
May 9, 2007

"I do believe they made the right decision for themselves."

I'm sure Liz and John are relieved to have your blessing at long last.

Posted by linda
May 9, 2007

Ama + Amberglow + Jay making this all about Jay. The I's are just too predominant and too close together.

What's habeas corpus? What AGgate? etc. Trouble is, it seems until these 'little things' effect certain "I's" personally, thus making the "I's" part of the story, there is no story.

Posted by SpinMD
May 9, 2007

I'm with that war-protesting woman in VA... a nice post that gives insight into what you were thinking when you wrote the original much-attacked post. In general, Jay seems to be the anti-Klein on this blog... his mind open to other viewpoints and willing to admit when he's wrong.

Posted by linda
May 9, 2007

In case there is a misunderstanding: Change sentence 2 to 'Jay's I's are just too predominant and too close together'

Also, Ama + Amberglow = their comments :)

Posted by Diverik
May 9, 2007

As you may guess, I'm not too concerned about Mrs. Edwards (dear soul though she may be), nor do I care about Jay's little spat with her. If Jay has resolved it with her, the rest of it is none of our business (by the way). If not, let her whine about it.

I do care about separation of church and state. The Utah Republican Convention debated illegal immigration on April 28. Who do they suppose is responsible? Could it be ... SATAN!

http://www.lavalane.org/blava/2007/04/satan-at-convention.html

You have to read the text of this proposed resolution. It really is amazing. This is a resolution that I'm sure Kathryn Jean Lopez can really get behind.

(point of post: Can we please talk about something that matters?)

Posted by Diverik
May 9, 2007

Correction: Utah County Republican Convention

http://www.co.utah.ut.us/OnlineSrvcs/Maps/UtMap.PDF

Posted by maddox
May 9, 2007

But you still didn't address this point:

WHY DO WE CARE WHAT YOU "FEEL" ABOUT IT?

Seriously. What possibly definition of job description is in your mind such that you think it's necessary for us to know what you "feel" about how a presidential candidate's wife is handling her cancer? You're a reporter, so report. As empathic as you apparently as, we don't need you as our surrogate feeler. Lack of knowledge about what you "feel" about things is not a problem in the country right now. But what incredible arrogance for you to possibly thing that what you "feel" about something is important to us.

So, thanks anyway. You keep "feeling," and we'll keep reading a real journalist, like Josh Marshall.

Posted by Anonymous
May 9, 2007

I truly do love the give and take on this board -- the acknowledgement that reasonable people might sometimes come to differing conclusions about matters in the public sphere and do so in good faith. It makes me hopeful for America's future.

If only it were so.

Posted by TomT
May 9, 2007

Carney: you're a self-obsessed idiot who has no place being the DC Bureau Chief for Time. That's the problem, not what Elizabeth Edwards thinks of you.

You're what's wrong with Time, what's wrong with the media, and what went wrong with the country but will soon be corrected.

Posted by Andy from Maine
May 9, 2007

Jay's an editor. Shouldn't it be Elizabeth and Me? Jay will never be politically correct. He's proved he's not grammatically correct either.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Would the paid Time staffers that impersonate journalists care to comment on this story?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/generals.iraq.ads.ap/index.html

Posted by James, Los Angeles
May 9, 2007

An excellent post, thoughtful and honest. Thanks, Jay.

Posted by Andy from Maine
May 9, 2007

Or this really important story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10missile.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by Feet to the fire
May 9, 2007

I agree it's an unimportant story, unless you believe that the unwarranted public trashing of a presidential candidate's wife, by a highly paid writer of a widely distributed national magazine is newsworthy.

So Jay met with her and received a jocular rebuke. Score Elizabeth as a class act, and score Jay as a typical media bully; brave in print, shrinking in the face of his victim. She may have forgiven him, but let's not pretend this was a "little spat" between the two of them. This was a personal attack carried out in public, so I'll feel quite free to criticize his gutless hit-job, and call him for the overpaid hack that he is.

As for moving on to other more important stories, let's remember who brought this one up.

Posted by hadenough
May 9, 2007

When is carney gonna trash fred thompson? Oooh... right... he's not.

Posted by Exactly
May 9, 2007

"...score Jay as a typical media bully; brave in print, shrinking in the face of his victim. She may have forgiven him, but let's not pretend this was a "little spat" between the two of them. This was a personal attack carried out in public, so I'll feel quite free to criticize his gutless hit-job, and call him for the overpaid hack that he is."

Well said.

Posted by annb
May 10, 2007

Well, well ... someone may want to comment on this. Talking Points Memo scooped everyone today with the fact that there are NINE fired US Attorneys, not eight. And looky here ... the Washington Post, front page, tomorrow ...

'Number of Fired US Attorneys Grows'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902718.html

Posted by Acid
May 10, 2007

Sez Andy from Maine: "He's proved he's not grammatically correct either."

Even his grammatically correct sentences smack of stupidity. Try: "[Elizabeth Edwards] is also incredibly warm and real."

You heard it here first, folks: Liz Edwards exists, and she has a pulse.

But, that's Time Mag: For idiots by idiots.

Posted by davidf
May 10, 2007

re: Annb

"Well, well ... someone may want to comment on this. Talking Points Memo scooped everyone today"

No surprise there. Josh was out [gasp] reporting, while Ana and Jay and the rest were out partying -- oh, do tell us more, Ana, so fascinating! Perhaps you'll tell us next why we should care about what the "highlights" of the Time 100 party were for you. Meanwhile, Josh Marshall will be out there once again, schooling all you. How is it that you seem to have no embarassment, no shame at being shown up so consistently?

Posted by Cranky Observer
May 10, 2007

> Fred Thompson and John McCain both have cancer
> and young children (If John McCain is healthy,
> he does'nt look it). Why is it okay for them to
> keep campaigning, and for office, not for
> someone else? That, to me, is the question.

The differences in the way Democratic politicians are treated in the traditional media vs. Republican politicians is indeed very discomfitting.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer
May 10, 2007

And let's be a little more specific: it is pretty obvious from watching the video clips from the last 6 years (and from the 20 years before that) that there is something fairly seriously wrong with George W. Bush - and that something is getting worse by the month. The man is essentially incoherent at this point. And I further suspect that if his ear mike stopped working he would sound even worse than he does today.

The traditional media have to know this - there is no way they can be working in DC with sources and not hearing rumors. Have they breathed a word? No. Have they investigated the ear mike issue? No. When will we hear about this story? When the retirement tell-alls are published by the current crop of reporters in 2030 or so.

But Democratic politicians and their health problems? Fair game.

Very discomfitting.

Cranky

Posted by TomT
May 10, 2007

The more I reflect on Jay's post here, the more nauseating I find it. There's no excuse for a reporter letting his personal feelings dictate his writing the way Carney did with his original post. And playing the family illness sympathy card is shameless, at best.

The idea with this post, clearly, is to make us look like jerks for criticizing Carney by telling us all about the cancer he's had in his own family. Sob stories are the last refuge of crappy reporters, I guess.

Posted by candide
May 10, 2007

Edwards' campaign, cancer or no cancer, is going nowhere. It is worth thinking about why it is going nowhere. Is his populistic posturing considered insincere? Dangerous? Irrelevant? Certain it is appropriate for a candidate to put these socio-economic issues in the picture, but no one else is doing so. Edwards seems a blend of the sincere and the immature -- perhaps his appearance belies his seriousness, I don't know. But I do know that while I had been in his camp I am now considering moving to Hillary, especially to forstall Obama whom I do not consider preisential material.

Posted by candide
May 10, 2007

Edwards' campaign, cancer or no cancer, is going nowhere. It is worth thinking about why it is going nowhere. Is his populistic posturing considered insincere? Dangerous? Irrelevant? Certain it is appropriate for a candidate to put these socio-economic issues in the picture, but no one else is doing so. Edwards seems a blend of the sincere and the immature -- perhaps his appearance belies his seriousness, I don't know. But I do know that while I had been in his camp I am now considering moving to Hillary, especially to forstall Obama whom I do not consider presidential material.

Posted by Vive la France
May 10, 2007

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

I'm off to Paris! I hereby revoke every churlish remark I've ever made about those lovely Gallic people. (But in light of former New Jersey governor and current "gay American" Jim McGreevey's latest career move, I redouble everything I've ever said about the Episcopalians.)

With Nicolas Sarkozy's decisive victory as the new president of France, the French have produced their first pro-American ruler since Louis XVI.

In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy?

"Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules."

Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."

Is there a single American politician who would speak so clearly without then apologizing to Howard Dean?

It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.

At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."

Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the Shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.

The smartest woman in the world sniped that she would "create alliances instead of alienation."

Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North Korea!

As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do.

Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.

All over the civilized world, voters are turning terrorist-coddling liberals out of office and voting for politicians friendly toward Bush, the world's sworn enemy of Islamic fascism.

Those foreign leaders so admired by Democrats for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States.

Retrospectively, B. Hussein Obama's answer about our most important ally being "the European Union" may eventually become true, thanks to Bush's ceaseless ally-making.

In Germany, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the mincing anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2005.

Last year, conservatives swept Canada, making Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper the prime minister. I haven't loved Canadians this much since the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is both the longest-serving Australian prime minister and — by his own account — the most conservative. As The New York Times rooted for his defeat in 2004, claiming Australians were furious with him for his support of the Iraq war, he won a historic third term.

Along with Howard, Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism has been Britain's Labor Party leader Tony Blair. He's about to leave office — only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.

American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to.

Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.

But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.

Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.

The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Posted by American
May 10, 2007

By no means is this "only between" Carney and Elizabeth Edwards.

Carney's original BS column was example 60,000 or so of corporate media's ongoing attempt to undermine democratic candidacies.

A growing proportion of Americans are really sick and tired of Carney's journalistic misbehavior, along with the misbehavior of all his foppish, cocktail-weenie stuffed peers.

His lack of concern over Fred "rented-pickup-truck" Thompson's cancer, or John "Baghdad-is-safe" McCain's cancer speaks volumes.

He is a miserable hypocrite, and a bought-and-sold enabler of antidemocratic interests.

He deserves much worse criticism than he is receiving here.

I'm sorry about the cancer victims in his family. But personal pain is no excuse for his mouldy, rotten hypocrisy.

Posted by Todd and in Charge
May 10, 2007

Jay, good post. Ana -- nice work sucking him in!

Posted by Northern Girl
May 10, 2007

I am an occasional, "two or three times a week" reader of Swampland, rather than a regular. So perhaps I missed the blog entry in which Jay wrote a similar condemnation of Tony Snow's decision to return to work despite a recurrance that makes his cancer, like Elizabeth Edwards', a chronic condition?

I have waited in vain for the MSM to criticize Mr. Snow in the same terms in which they judged Mrs. Edwards. Surprise, surprise, it didn't happen. Yes, ladies and gents, sexist double standards are alive and well in 21st century America.

Posted by Aaron
May 10, 2007

"A lot of readers disagreed with my article and posts about the Edwards' decision.

...

"As I've said before but feel even more strongly after talking with Mrs. Edwards about her children last night, I do believe they made the right decision for themselves."

Thank you for changing your mind.

Shame on you for doing it vocally and on-line rather than in the print edition, but just like you have different standards for men and women, & Republicans and Democrats, it's no surprise that corrections and redactions get shifted to outside TIME.

Posted by Jude Nagurney Camwell
May 11, 2007

When Elizabeth Edwards looks you in the eye and tells you she means what she says, you can't help but to believe. You're a believer now, Jay, aren't you? Good for you! Mrs. Edwards is a genuine soul - there's no doubt. Strong, smart, and determined. John's lucky to have such a partner. We need more genuine in leadership today, don't we?

Thanks for sharing this with us. I enjoyed reading it.