Friday, March 23, 2007

The Edwards, True Faith or Brilliant Politic Move?

Hey folks,

Happy FRIDAY!! Did I mention? I love Fridays. OK, so the big news yesterday has put John Edwards up front and personal. Prompting all the news outlets, Politicians, and the American people, to start to analyze his decision to continue his election campaign.

It was, and I’m sure, will continue to be a heavy topic for the rest of the campaign. The Edwards announcement that his wife, Elizabeth’s cancer has returned, has set into motion a blizzard of thoughts, comments, well wishing and offers of help. It tugged on the heart of everyone. But some are not sure the true reason that they made this announcement.


Some are saying this was brave. Some say this was selfish on John’s part to drag her though this campaign even though she is sick. Some say that this is selfish on Elizabeth’s part to their kids. I even actually heard someone yesterday say, "How dare she run off and campaign for her husband now. She is robbing her children of the last days of her life."

Now, for those of you who may not know, they announced shortly after the 2004 presidential campaign that Elizabeth had been given a diagnosis of breast cancer. She underwent a lumpectomy and had some lymph nodes removed. On CNN, they have been replaying an interview Soledad O’Brien did with Mrs. Edwards in October 2006. She talked about the loss of the couple’s 16-year-old son who died in an accident. She talked about her Cancer and the fact that it went into remission. She said,

"I had the gift to know … I had the chance to beat this — a chance my son never had."

They fought it together, and they won. Now it’s back. They vow to fight it again. They vow to continue to campaign for the "Country we love."

Then you have those that question the timing, and motives behind the timing or this announcement. The NYT, in the last paragraph said,

Mr. Edwards’s campaign has been overshadowed by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, but he has been doing well in Iowa, where he has campaigned heavily for several months. A critical test of his viability as a candidate was expected to be the release on April 15 of the first quarterly reports for fundraising.

"A critical test of his viability as a candidate was expected,,," Translation time, "What the,,,,? Now we have to deal with THIS? He didn’t stand a chance. But NOW we have to deal with the emotion aspect of a women dying of Cancer, and a man fighting for what he believes in. Damn, how are we going to spin this one?"

Then you have this Blog in the Washington Post by Chris Cillizza,

Attacks on Edwards -- either overt or covert -- will be more difficult for his rivals to launch. There is no more sympathetic figure than a husband taking care of his ill wife, so it would be highly risky for any of Edwards's opponents to say anything but glowing things about him and about Elizabeth's strength under difficult circumstances.

He IS right about that.

What we don't know:

How the voting public will respond to the news that Edwards will continue to campaign full force after learning that his wife's cancer has returned. One spin on it was provided by Elizabeth Edwards:"It's not about John Edwards. If it were it would be easy to give it up." But there is another perspective: Why is Edwards going on with the campaign? The answer to that question can be easily reduced -- and, to be clear, we are not reducing it to this -- to personal ambition. Edwards is independently wealthy and has already run for president once. He has previously said that the only thing that could keep him out of the 2008 race was Elizabeth's health. So, now that her health problems have returned, why wouldn't he drop out?

Maybe SHE doesn’t want him too? Maybe he was about to, but as she said, "It's not about John Edwards." SHE is the one sick. SHE Wants him to continue. SHE believes in him.

What happens if Elizabeth's condition worsens. Edwards admitted that the fact Elizabeth's cancer has spread to the bone means that it is no longer curable and compared it to a person who has diabetes. "We are very optimistic about this," he said. Elizabeth noted that she shows no physical signs of the cancer's return. But, what if she becomes more symptomatic over the next weeks or months. Or what if her condition turns far more dire? Have the Edwards privately set a timetable to re-evaluate Elizabeth's condition and see whether the campaign continues?

What if Bill get’s killed in a car accident? WAIT! Never mind. Bad example. What if any other spouse, or even the Candidate themselves end up dying? That ends their campaign. Noone knows what tomorrow brings.

How (if at all) does the announcement affect Edwards' fundraising? Remember that political donors tend to look at their contributions as investments in a candidate. Although Edwards insists the campaign will go on unchanged, it's clear that there is now a much greater likelihood that he might leave the race at some point. Will Edwards still be able to convince wavering donors that he is a good investment?

Very sad, but a very valid point. It could go either way. Yes, big money wants to buy favor with those running for the highest office in the land. But I bet some privet people will increase their donations.

Whatever happened to hearing news like this, and just saying something like, "We are sorry to hear that. Don’t give up. You are in our thoughts and prayers." "We wish you nothing but the best." No folks, we are talking politics, power, and the control. ANYTHING GOES.

To Elizabeth Edwards, I do say to you, I am sorry to hear that. Don’t give up. You are in our thoughts and prayers. To John, I hope you are able to continue. I say do the best you can, I hope the best person wins in the end.
Peter


Sources;
NYT-Blog
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

3 comments:

Unknown said...

I posted a question about Edwards on ETP asking saying that Edward's wife should just die and how is this different than what the loonies have said about politicians said about those they do not like and we even see those who wish ill for their families.

Of course I wish no harm for Edward's wife and wish her well but from the replies I received you would have thought that I meant what I said.

This proves to me once again that there are those extremist in that party(both parties) who excuse what their party says or does and then castigates the other party relentlessly for saying things even if they were not that offensive.

The question does arise whether Edward's is using this in his efforts to win votes.

Peter said...

Hey Sam,

Take all those that wished Cheney dead on the Huffy post. After the explosion, people were actually saying he should have died. They MEANT it. You were proving a point.

This proves to me once again that there are those extremist in that party(both parties) who excuse what their party says or does and then castigates the other party relentlessly for saying things even if they were not that offensive.

This is why I tow NO party, I cannot always follow either one. I am a Conseritive Indep. I look at both and vote for those that I feel be fit MY view, beliefs, and just simply right and wrong. That's why I DO get it from all sides. But I'm just being honest, and true to myself. I only wish all Americans were like that.

We are outnumbered Sam, but maybe times will change.

As for Edwards? I really do not think they are. I know that is going against conventional wisdom, but I don't. I think she loves her husband and wants him to continue to fight for his dream. I am sadden that they really do NOT seem at all worried about the kids.

Peter

Dave K. said...

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE gave the Edwards' a pass on this one.

I've been a criminal investigator for many years, and I know one thing for sure: Analyze what people say, not what you think you heard.

Here is what the press ALL reported Mrs. Edwards saying at the press conference:

“It’s not about john Edwards, if it were it would be easy to give it up.”

I only heard the actual quote once, on the radio, here is what she said: “It's not about John Edwards, honestly. If it were it would be easy to give it up, I think.”

Note: "I think" was left out by the press, and the "honestly" qualifier was also left out. When you are telling the truth, you don't need to say "honestly," because what you are saying is honest. The "I think" speaks for itself.

What would the press say if Vice President Cheney added those words to anything?