March 23, 2007 10:25 AM
John Edwards a metaphor? For what?
Note to my husband:
If you are ever running for the presidency and I have a recurrence of breast cancer, let's just agree now that you would drop your campaign to focus on making the most of the years we have left.Your loving wife,
Barbara
To me, this is a no-brainer and I have to wonder at the self-centered perspective whereby a presidential candidate is convinced that he and he alone is the man of the hour and that our country's destiny is so dependent on him that his family's needs would not take precedence at such a time as this.
Forget the political/media spin yesterday. The surgeon/writer at Respectful Insolence (winner of the 2006 Weblog award for Best Medical and Health Issues) weighed in with some facts:
First off, saying that a cancer is "treatable but not curable" is oncologist-speak that means exactly that: Mrs. Edwards' breast cancer is now stage IV, and stage IV breast cancer is not curable. She will die either of or with her disease, much more likely the former. The only question is how much time she has left. Her tumor is, however, eminently treatable, and her survival can be prolonged and quality of life improved by various therapies.Read the whole post- if you're into that sort of thing - here
In the meantime, media elites are rhapsodizing over Edwards' decision to continue his campaign. Here's Newsweek's chief political correspondent Howard Fineman waxing philosophical on the meaning of it all:
This is an ongoing story, and this is a metaphor for how they want to fight for the country. They're willing to take the public-relations risk of analogizing their own family situation and the bravery that they've shown and the guts that they've shown to the kind of leadership that they want to offer the county. That's pretty bold, but that's the world that we live in now, Chris, where people's personal lives are analogized to their political beings. And that's what we're seeing with the Edwardses.
Oh, really? This is good leadership? To pretend that you are somehow a George Washington-type Man of the Hour, the only person who can rescue America from the perpetual crisis perceived by the left? To set an example for husbands and fathers that their work is more important than their family's needs?
Can you imagine if a Republican contender were in the same boat and made the same decision how he would be fried by the media for his callousness and cruelty?
Shame on the media Ambition-Enablers who are so blind to their own double standard!!!! It's this kind of garbage that caused me to pull the plug on my subscription to Newsweek/Newsweak eight years ago.
Posted in Current Affairs, Family, Fathers | Permalink
Comments
Oh, you have stated my sentiments precisely. I could never elect a man as President who clearly does not know how to set his personal life priorities.
I look forward to reading your new book. I'm a veteran mom, but always need every ounce of help available. :)
Posted by: melody | March 23, 2007 11:00 AM
Barbara
I couldn't agree with you more on this. I just could not get over this yesterday when I heard it. I mean, come on....how in the world is this man going to continue on when his wife has a recurrence of cancer. I don't know about you, but the closer we get to this election the more worried I become. There is not one candidate out there that I would want to represent my country.
Posted by: millicent | March 23, 2007 11:15 AM
You express my sentiments exactly! If Mr. Edwards has this sort of dedication, love, and commitment towards his family, I do not even wish to imagine just what sort of President he would make.
Posted by: Mrs Brigham | March 23, 2007 11:34 AM
I couldn't disagree more with just about every policy position Edwards holds. I don't support him as a candidate in any way.
But, the thought did occur to me - if this is what Elizabeth Edwards wants to do with the remainder of her life - help her husband campaign, go for the presidency - objectively, I'd say there's nothing wrong with that. She's a political wife, and maybe she enjoys it all.
Posted by: Marie | March 23, 2007 12:02 PM
Amen, Barbara! I loved your note to your husband. I think I'll send one to mine, too...he'll get a laugh out of it.
Posted by: Christa | March 23, 2007 1:14 PM
My heart breaks for their children in all of this. The littlest two are much too young to care why mommy and daddy are racing all over the country, perhaps dragging them along to stand in front of cameras or perhaps leaving them with others. Neither seems like a very wise way to prepare them for the very real and very wrenching fact that they may lose their mother. I can not imagine having incurable cancer and encouraging my husband to press on in an endeavor that can only take him away from me and from his family. And how does he imagine that he will be an effective president with either a very sick and dying wife or as a new widow with two very small children? If he even imagines that he can do both, he is either too callous or deluded to be president. And, Barbara, I absolutely agree that if we were talking about a Republican, the media would be raking him over the coals.
Posted by: Shannon Miller | March 23, 2007 1:24 PM
I personally think the two of them are in shock.
My husband is involved with politics as well. I can understand why the two of them would want to maintain what to them is normality at a time like this. I have a feeling that once they are a little further down this road they may make different choices.
Ironically enough my husband's stepfather just had a malignant tumor removed from his brain, with a poor prognosis. (He didn't even know he had it till a few days ago.) So this isn't academic for us.
Let's reserve our judgement for a little bit of time, remembering that Elizabeth has the right to encourage her husband to keep on keeping on. We may or may not agree with their decision but it is theirs to make.
(and for the record, I'm a Republican who lives in NC.)
Posted by: connie | March 23, 2007 2:05 PM
Thanks for the smile!
I wonder if Edwards realizes that about half the voting population is female??
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa | March 23, 2007 2:13 PM
Thanks for saying everything I have been thinking. I, too, would want or spend our precious time together.
Posted by: prairie girl | March 23, 2007 5:28 PM
well. I'm a little taken aback. It's perfectly fair for you and your DH to decide what is best for your family. Do you really know either one of them or their medical conditions well enough to judge their family?
Even though we share differing political views, I've always enjoyed your writing because it reached me. It challenged me. You were indeed reaching the left (OK, I'm more slightly left than far, but still) from the right. I even changed some of my votes because of areas your writing made me dig for truth.
I especially responded to your style of "I understand why you might feel/believe that way, but have you considered xyz.."
But lately all I hear is "what's wrong with you for thinking that way"
And you know what, it's your blog, and you have every right. I just miss the dialogue.
Posted by: whimsy | March 23, 2007 10:08 PM
I agree with both Barbara and Connie on this one. If it were me, I'd want my husband to scale back and support me in what has to be a frightening situation. But it's not me. I'm not Elizabeth Edwards. This might be what she needs to keep her spirits up, a goal to work toward.
But for all practical matters, Edwards should pull out. The Presidency is an incredibly stressful job that is hard on the people in office. Look at any President's before and after pictures. It is too much stress to put on his wife if he wins. It will drain the strength she needs to endure the cancer.
Posted by: Amy K. | March 23, 2007 11:40 PM
Whimsy, I'm tempted to say, "Here we go again with the I-only-want-to-hear-from-you-if-you're-nice routine."
On second thought, I think I'll just say it. We went through this before. I have strong opinions and when I want to, I will state them. (for a reminder, read My Blogging Philosophy)
Those of you who said it's their decision are missing the point. The point is that it's colossally narcissistic decision, based on the idea that unless the country has Edwards for president, it will collapse. "It's their decision" people are missing the point: just as you as a mom make decisions based on more than your own desires, the Edwards are not considering the good of the nation in this one.
The presidency is a 24/7 job. Edwards should be thinking about the needs of U.S. citizens for a fulltime leader - not distracted by a partner's major health issues or watching his spouse die while he's in office trying to deal with international issues.
Even if Elisabeth is in shock and thinking this is a go, Edwards should be mature and wise enough to know that this is not a stable situation and the day will likely come in the next six years when she will be weakened and very much in need.
As a leader in his family, he should be making good decisions based on the future of his wife and children. His little children will need much more from him while dealing with the inevitable loss of their mother.
As a potential leader of the country, he should be making decisions based on the good of the people he wants to lead.
A true leader regards himself as a servant of others. This is not good servant/leadership.
To me it looks like an ambitious, self-serving person - which is true to his history of making his fortune suing doctors for malpractice, then appealing to the old have/have-not playbook to whip up his support - claiming to be the champion of the poor while living in splendor himself (See WWJD? Ask a liberal).
Posted by: barbara | March 24, 2007 6:18 AM
Barbara, I would agree with you somewhat if I thought HE thought he had a snowball's chance of actually getting the nomination.
Perhaps the person not being realistic here is Elizabeth herself. She's a former lawyer, and from what I have read is a fairly harddriving person herself. Some people actually really do enjoy politicking. (Hard to imagine, I know.)
I didn't mention on my last post that I also had another friend who was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. As long as he was able he kept going to work (he was our worship pastor which involved much more than just leading on Sunday mornings) and simply trying to maintain normality.
A lot of the medical stuff I have read about this indicates that in some cases woman can live for years with this condition. Perhaps they are assuming she will be one of them. Of course God alone knows the future...
I personally am going to wait a couple of months before I conclude they have chosen poorly.
Posted by: conniereagan | March 24, 2007 8:45 AM
Well, Connie, that's why some people are commentators - because they're willing to make a call and risk being proven wrong :)
Again, you're missing the point: it's not about what's good for the Edwards but what's good for the country.
Sheesh! we are living in an age where narcissism just looks normal!
No matter how it pans out, I don't think I can be proven wrong in the lessons we can draw from this about how leaders - in politics, churches, and families - should make decisions: based on the needs of others rather than on themselves.
Posted by: barbara | March 24, 2007 8:56 AM
Well, being a Republican I think it would be better for the country if the Democrats ALL sat this one out ;-)
But seriously, I do think once the reality of this hits them, (and the fundraising dries up, as I suspect it will) they will make different choices.
OR you are completely and totally right. But I just feel much better giving them the benefit of the doubt at this juncture.
Posted by: Connie | March 24, 2007 1:57 PM
I should probably post this first part under your Blogging Philosophy post, but I'm going to mix them together here.
I hope I don't come across as an ungrateful guest. I hope I'm not flattering myself, but I feel more like a friend who has been enjoying many meals with you. I really don't want it to sound like I want to censor you OR have you only post things universally agreeable to everyone (what would that even BE?)
Whimsy, I'm tempted to say, "Here we go again with the I-only-want-to-hear-from-you-if-you're-nice routine." On second thought, I think I'll just say it. We went through this before. I have strong opinions and when I want to, I will state them. (for a reminder, read My Blogging Philosophy)
Are you saying you only want to hear from me when I agree with you?
Using the food analogy, I’m asking, “Did you do something different with the meatloaf?” Now if I am a “guest” that would be pretty darn rude. If I’m a friend I’m comfortable doing that.
I consider myself a friend. Goodness knows you’ve had to speak some pretty strong words to me before, and you were absolutely right to do so. I’m not asking you to only serve enchiladas; I’m just sayin’ I liked the old meatloaf recipe better.
Back to our regularly scheduled discussion……
The point is that it's colossally narcissistic decision, based on the idea that unless the country has Edwards for president, it will collapse.
This is the part I disagree with. We don’t KNOW what’s driving them. He may have immediately said, “I’m dropping out” and she may have begged him not to. To just wait a little while before make that decision.
In the interest of full disclosure, he was my favorite candidate. But I am reevaluating. I agree that it doesn’t seem very wise. (The pickins just keep getting slimmer and slimmer – my number 2 choice runs on the Rep ticket *yikes*) :-)
I also agree that this should be discussed. We all know Cheney’s health was discussed ad nauseum. It does figure into how well he could do the job.
But I’ll let Elizabeth be the one to judge him farther than that.
Posted by: whimsy | March 24, 2007 5:12 PM
Gee, Barbara. I agree with you. I agree with you, even more, given your explanations in the comments.
Who would be taking care of the children while Daddy ran the country?
Posted by: Holly | March 25, 2007 8:34 PM
