March 24, 2007

The Politics Of Edwards' Decision

After the initial outpouring of sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards and the impact her new cancer diagnosis will have on her family, people have begun to consider its impact on the campaign of her husband. John Edwards announced the decision to continue his campaign for the presidential nomination, and Democrats found themselves wondering just how much the issue should be debated:

After an early flurry of good wishes directed toward the Edwards family, political operatives have begun the awkward process of asking an inevitable question: How will news of Elizabeth Edwards's cancer recurrence, and her husband's decision to continue campaigning for president, affect the race for the Democratic nomination?

Several Democratic operatives agreed that the couple's headline-grabbing appearance in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Thursday would probably boost former senator John Edwards at least temporarily, producing a groundswell of sympathy and raising his public profile. ...

[T]he Edwards campaign, fresh off the announcement, made a series of moves to demonstrate that it would move ahead at full speed. Edwards held a fundraiser in New York, and then the couple flew to Southern California, where they participated in another fundraiser last night. The campaign not only announced the hiring of a communications director for the critical state of Iowa but also released a detailed list of events both the candidate and his wife would attend. Elizabeth Edwards is scheduled to give a speech in Cleveland on Monday while her husband campaigns in Los Angeles the same day.

"Everyone is struck with sadness but encouraged by their upbeat attitude and determination to continue," said David Gottesman, a New Hampshire state senator who is backing Edwards.

No one wants to discuss the decision in negative terms, and for good reason. It's political suicide. All of the competing campaigns tripped over themselves to make it clear that they would respect the decision, at least in the short term. Hillary Clinton's campaign even tried to make political hay out of her press release on the story, calling it the "quote of the week" in her weekly HillGram e-mail to supporters.

In that sense, Edwards gets some breathing room on the campaign. The other candidates and their staffs will be reluctant to go on the attack against Edwards, at least for a short period. He may garner some better press for a while, which will help boost his standing in comparison to Hillary and Barack Obama.

All of this will be transitory, as it should be. Candidates win general elections for President primarily on character and likablility, but in the primaries, policy and base connections win the nomination. Edwards will have to win enough primaries with his populist message, and regardless of whether people feel more warmly towards him after this unfortunate turn of event for his wife, he hasn't gotten much traction with that message so far. Obama and Hillary have just about made this a two-way race.

Is it impolite to even discuss their decision to continue? Some argue that the decision is private and outside the realm of polite debate, but that's not exactly right. John Edwards wants to be President, which makes this about as public a decision as one can make. The decision and the health of his spouse will have some impact on the race, and if Edwards gets elected, on his presidency as well. I would think that people can feel free to discuss the impact of the decision, although I think it would be impolite to discuss the motivations behind it. I suspect that people will by and large understand the difference, and respect it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9490

Comments (16)

Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 9:30 AM

We've come a long way from the days when FDR strain to hide his polio, to where a spouse's cancer is the subject of a press conference. But reality is, Edwards was a second tier candidate before this disclosure, and remains a second tier candidate today. Democratic primary voters aren't going to be swayed by this - Edwards lost the last primary to Kerry, then failed to deliver his own state to the Democratic ticket.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by TomTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 9:54 AM

"It would be impolite to discuss the motivations behind it", Cap'n?? Surely you jest. Motivations are key in assessing character, especially of the folks seeking our votes for the land's highest office.

Let me explain the medical facts of her recurrence, since I'm an MD. Mrs. Edwards' oncologist told the media she has cancer in her bones (plural), a lung, and possibly other organs (in this context, denoting VITAL organs, e.g. liver). She has therefore an aggressive, widely metastatic cancer. Optimum efforts to extend survival will require potent chemotherapy, hardly a walk in the park. The chemo has a small but definite chance of killing her, and she has a 100% fatal disease. Her chances of surviving another 5 years are really quite poor.

So the motivations behind their decision must be questioned. Either this campaigning effort is her last gift to her (in my view, undeserving) husband, or they are both in denial of delusional magnitude.

The decision, and the motivation behind it, show Edwards in the truest light: he's already planning his life after Elizabeth. He is hardly pulling his family together; he is casting it into the winds.

Posted by Ari Tai [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 10:04 AM

I wonder just how much Mr. Edwards and the litigation lobby have injured the medical profession and pharma? Had we stayed true to the constitution and it’s act of faith that the random walk of a free and responsible people in a free market is the only path that maximizes progress while minimizing human suffering, dislocation and self-serving elite/class driven allocation of resources, would cancer by now be filed in the dustbin with the 1800s scourge of "consumption?"

Call it a tragedy in the classic Greek sense, those things we do to ourselves, wittingly. Granted, the litigation business came into being largely because we (the people) and the north-east blue-blood elite attempted to keep a very smart and able segment of society out of its midst. And our comfort with the nanny state, government schools and a leftist education means that we don’t have a means to measure the could-have been – i.e. likelihood of being 2-3x beyond where we are today had we left the market to do its magic, with a free people and their enterprise unshackled by punitive (v. transparency enhancing) regulation and litigation. Note that the civil code that we ghost wrote for post war Germany and Japan does not rely on torts – so those societies get by with less than 5% of our investment in lawyers and litigation costs.

My mother died painfully of cancer not too long ago. I find it hard to forgive Mr. Edwards and his clique who have done so much harm (and should be smart enough to recognize and admit same). My heart goes out to Mrs. Edwards, the pain I see in her face is my mother’s. She’s in my prayers.

Posted by TomTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 10:11 AM

"It would be impolite to discuss the motivations behind it", Cap'n?? Surely you jest. Motivations are key in assessing character, especially of the folks seeking our votes for the land's highest office.

Let me explain the medical facts of her recurrence, since I'm an MD. Mrs. Edwards' oncologist told the media she has cancer in her bones (plural), a lung, and possibly other organs (in this context, denoting VITAL organs, e.g. liver). She has therefore an aggressive, widely metastatic cancer. Optimum efforts to extend survival will require potent chemotherapy, hardly a walk in the park. The chemo has a small but definite chance of killing her, and she has a 100% fatal disease. Her chances of surviving another 5 years are really quite poor.

So the motivations behind their decision must be questioned. Either this campaigning effort is her last gift to her (in my view, undeserving) husband, or they are both in denial of delusional magnitude.

The decision, and the motivation behind it, show Edwards in the truest light: he's already planning his life after Elizabeth. He is hardly pulling his family together; he is casting it into the winds.

Posted by exhelodrvr [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 11:52 AM

You never know with politicians, but it seems to me that the motivation is most likely that they want to keep on doing what they would have done had she not had cancer. From what I have observed, that is what most people, and the families, try to do with any terminal disease.

ANother question: Does Edwards think he really has a chance to be President, or is he just trying to get some "message" out?

I would say that it seems pretty clear that her illness would be a hindrance to his performance if he did become President, so it is certainly a fair topic to raise. (Fair, but suicidal, as someone else noted.)

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 1:47 PM

TomTom,

Each of us deals with the life set before us with what dignity we can muster. If "delusion" or "false optimism" or whatever is what is needed, we do it.

It's a far better path than retreating into despair.

We have here (courtesy "Left, right and Center" on npr) the following thoughts:

John Edwards' dream is to be President. Either Elizabeth (a) fully supports her husband's dream and refuses to stand in the way, or (b) she's said the "go ahead" thing while really meaning that she'd prefer he didn't.

We'll never know which is the real truth without watching Elizabeth, and to date she has been an articulate cheerleader for her husband's effort.

So, having medical knowledge of the ultimate result of Elizabeth Edwards' illness gives us little knowledge of how John ought to behave; only knowledge of Elizabeth's feelings gives us what we need to understand John's motives.

Posted by Silvergoat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 2:01 PM

The true sadness of John Edward's decision is that the 5 year survival rate for stage 4 breast cancer is less than 20%. Why would a person devote all the time and energy that a presidential campaign requires, rather than spend that precious time with your spouse?

Posted by Adam [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 2:40 PM

Frankly, I don't see the problem. It's an issue and it's relevant, but it could well be what she prefers. Sure as Hell I'd prefer my wife to continue on with her career if I got diagnosed with terminal cancer, in order that she has the rest of her life left when I'm gone.

Posted by Barry in CO [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 3:30 PM

Edwards called a press conference to announce this publicly. To my mind, that opens it up to discussion, especially since he wants to be my President.

Having said that, I just can't help but question the motives. Edwards smacks of insincerity to me- I just get a slick oily vibe off the guy.

If his wife is seriously ill, I think it is selfish of him to continue. He must want to be President really, REALLY bad.

And I really don't care for this talk about cancer patients being 'heroic' or calling themselves either 'survivors' or 'victims'. A survivor is the person who swam to safety when the boat sank; a victim is the person who was robbed at gunpoint. I say this as a person who has had cancer. I tell people I was very sick, and was fortunate enough to get better.

I wish the same for Mrs. Edwards.

Posted by Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 3:53 PM

Her illness does bring up one question and that is will it interfere with his abilities to both run, and serve if elected. And I think it will. So from the voters’ standpoint, do they wish to elect a president who will be forced to devote more attention to his wife than would be ideal? One has only to look at how scandals have hampered various presidents, by distracting them, to come up with some idea of how an ailing wife might affect Edwards. I simply can't believe he could put it aside as if it wasn't there. My prayers go out to them, but I would question if he should continue. People under a tremendous amount of stress sometimes make mistakes they normally would avoid. And I would say the same no matter who the candidate was, even if he or she was the one I supported. That is the way I see it.

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 4:46 PM

Laura Ingraham was really quite indignant that anyone would question the Edwards's motivations (as I did in an earlier thread here). Laura herself is a breast-cancer survivor, bravely trooping on with her show while undergoing chemotherapy, so I can understand her passionate defense of Mrs. Edwards.

At the same time, the Edwards have fairly young children, I think, and one has to wonder at the wisdom of taking their mother and father away from the family for the next year and a half of campaigning.

The Edwards campaign organization also manipulated the announcement for maximum political advantage, even refusing to tell Politico they were wrong with they announced that Mr. Edwards would be withdrawing. Sensitivity to Mrs. Edwards's condition should, in my view, have required a discrete press release, not a media circus.

So I think we may legitimately question the Edwards's motivation here. It could be seen as a cynical attempt to jump-start a faltering campaign.

But I admit, that's speculation, and maybe even unkind. But I suspect it, nonetheless.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 4:53 PM

Correction: The phrase "they were wrong with they announced" should read: "they were wrong when Politico announced. . . "

Sorry.

/Mr L

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 5:05 PM

john edwards chance of being president are below zero. they have always been below zero. he knows it and his wife knows it. he ran for president last time because he couldn't even get elected to the senate for a second term. he has been and continues to be what he always was--an ambulance chaser.

he is narcissistically delusional. his wife is apparently an enabler. but, to be pc about it--whatever floats your boat. i feel for her kids more than anything else. is there anything worse than losing a parent as a child?

Posted by vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 5:12 PM

Putting my cards on the table, I like both John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards as people.

But I do not support his candidacy for President because I do not agree with his political philosophy (i am much more conservative than he is), and I do not believe he is experienced enough to be Commander in Chief in time of war

That said, my heart goes out to both him and his wife in this difficult time. And I support their decision to soldier on in the face of what must have been devastating news.

Elizabeth is a professional woman of great intelligence, ability and accomplishment who faced tragedy in the past when she lost a teenager with a controversial decision; bearing two babies when she was in her late 40s.

She is a courageous woman who does not shy away from unconventional life decisions.

Those who judge her with anything but the most sincere compassion and empathy reflect poorly on themselves as judges.

I hope and pray she is in that small minority of women who, like my courageous mother-in-law, beat the odds and survived over 45 years after her bout with metastatic breast cancer (she died of heart failure at age 89).

I also hope and pray the Edwards children grow into a well adjusted adulthood extremely proud of their parents.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 6:56 PM

First of all, Elizabeth Edwards' cancer is not "new." It's a recurrence. And, in terms of cancer as an illness, to be expected. Though every day, it seems, something new comes to market. And, survivability is sometimes sustainable.

But you can't really run a beauty contest, or a presidential campaign on this stuff!

On the other hand, exactly what are John Edwards' accomplishments? What's he got to talk about?

And, yes. noticed how "skilled" John is at presenting nothing new, as news, for a news conference.

Ah. And, at the same time, "politico," a new brainchild of C-BS, got sucker punched. (They reported he was gonna quit. Which gave the news extra "oomph.")

If this is what you want to see in candidates, go ahea.

But I'm not impressed.

With or without his wife's major illness; John Edwards doesn't exactly have the best shot at the Oval Office, come 2008.

While everybody, and I mean, every single human alive at this point in time, is still subject to the laws of the Man Upstairs. Want a fancier name? Call it the reality of being alive. And, what nature does. In all cases.

So you can just hope for the best.

At least Elizabeth Edwards isn't wanting for good health insruance! Too bad we don't have a media capable of going out and comparing this stuff. What you get when you're Elizabeth Edwards. And, what you get when you're somebody else.

The other thing you don't know? How many people in any given day receive this type of diagnosis?

And, like vnjagvet pointed out; no matter what the doctor tells ya; some people really do survive what they are diagnosed as having. And, yet? Guaranteed to die of something else. Which is why the best you can say is "the best of luck."

Posted by BODYGUARDS [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 25, 2007 1:18 AM

Giuliani is also a cancer survivor and so were Both Regans!

Is Dole's recurrence a result of the original cancer spreading - but not enough to be caught - Or is this are result of a completely independant cancer formation?

This is important because, can a spreading cancer be so new as to be indetectable. If so, one should always get checked as long as that possibility exists.