Elizabeth Edwards said herself that she doesn’t want to quit her regular life, go home, and wait to die. She also said that she wants to be with her husband and help him become president. It is her wish. Are you able to comprehend that or are you so desperate to find bogus reasons to condemn Edwards that any invented reason you come out with will suffice for you?
Oh, woe, you have discovered me, heartless Republican who must outspokenly attack all Democrats no matter what they do, even if it involves kissing puppies or bravely battling cancer, because cancer is the most ennobling of the diseases.
Or I could be someone who, even with Ms. Edwards publicly stating she wants his husband to move forward with his campaign, finds such a thing distasteful because of what it speaks about Mr. Edwards’ concern for his family and his sense of self-importance and self-aggrandizement.
But, of course, such feelings are completely horrible and motivated solely by personal bias against Mr. Edwards, because there is no other way to interpret the situation. Obviously, Mr. Edwards is a selfless hero, and Mrs. Edwards cannot let her cancer get in his way, for America needs him.
You are motivated by something to attack them as strongly as you did. It’s not like there was a snowball’s chance in hell that you’d vote for him if his wife wasn’t sick.
Oh, it’s purely my evil nature. It’s certainly not because this thread has turned into hagiography for Edwards, the man, the myth, the superhero who is ennobled and made better my his wife’s cancer and his desire to continue to serve the American people through running for President despite these horrible setbacks.
I’m pretty sure no one is saying that. It just seems remarkably presumptuous that you appear to be assuming that when the woman herself is saying she wants him to run, she is lying either to the public or herself. Or do you think that you are a better arbiter of what is best for Elizabeth Edwards in her waning months or years than Elizabeth Edwards is?
No hagiography coming from this corner, at least. I just don’t think I’m in any position to tell someone else how to show concern for his family. You seem to feel that Edwards deciding to run de facto shows a lack of concern for his family; I’d argue that it is equally possible that running would in fact be the best possible thing for them. Or it might not. But I - and you - are in no position to judge either way. Mrs. Edwards is, and she has made her feelings on the matter clear. Where is your evidence that she is not to be believed?
So, it doesn’t matter what she says she wants. You won’t believe her because?
The thread didn’t turn into anything of the sort in spite of your trying to portray Edwards as some sort of manicial ego-driven monster. Nice try though.
Edwards didn’t get any better or worse because of this. I’m certainly not going to cast a vote for the man.
And were I in his place, there would no longer be a Moto for President campaign.
Still, that’s on the Edwards family and the voters. I really don’t see where it is my business to criticize given the numberless times it has happened before, to well and ill respected politicians of both parties.
Hell, Lincoln’s 11 year old son died in the White House, and Calvin Coolidge’s teenaged son died in an election year right around the conventions. I don’t see much criticism of them for shouldering on after this - whatever they are criticized for now is of an entirely different nature.
What makes you think I don’t believe her? I never said I didn’t believe her. I just don’t think what he’s doing is right, even if it’s what she wants. If you don’t agree with me, fine. But I’ve have every right to criticize what he does or how he handles it - if he wants to run for a public office, he puts himself up to that.
I mean, Christ, if I started a thread on Brittany Spears quitting rehab again, would you jump in there to tell me that Brittany should know what’s best for herself, and that I have no right to have an opinion on the matter? What about finding out that Anna Nicole died of a drug overdose? Can I now say that her decision to do drugs was unwise and said something about her character, or is it still her personal decision that I have no right to question?
So, he should not do what his wife wants in regard to his wife’s illness. He should, in fact, ignore her wishes. For her sake.
Your analogies are so far off-base they are laughable.
Why? I’m not allowed to have an opinion as to whether his decision is right, but nobody minds if I have an opinion on Spears or Smith. Or if I thought what Gingrich did to his wife was despicable. What’s the line?
Well, gosh. Maybe the line is that how a couple decides together to deal with a life-changing (and probably life-ending) illness is a hell of a lot different than dumping a spouse? That doing things that are mutually agreed upon is different than doing something to another person without their consent? That getting cancer isn’t anything like doing drugs? Maybe?
So, it’s because it’s cancer. Or because it’s two people jointly making the decision (we suppose), and therefore it must be correct, and in fact, sacrosanct.
So when Kevin Federline and Brittany Spears decided they were in love and getting married, no one had a right to an opinion as to whether they were making a good decision or not?
I think the decision could be criticized. Lots of us have said we’d make a different choice, which is pointed criticism in a country that values and respects the rights of people to choose their own path.
You see the decision as one indicating overwhelming ambition, while to an Edwards partisan the decision might look selfless. I think lots of people will use this to reinforce their opinions of John and Elizabeth Edwards, frankly.
All right, I don’t want to be combative. Let me see if I understand your position correctly.
Recently, Elizabeth Edwards became aware that her cancer, which had been more or less dormant, had recurred and metastasized to a rib, and that her life expectancy, if treatment goes well, is probably to be in the neighborhood of a few years.
At some point along the line subsequent to this diagnosis but before the Edwards’ public statement of March 22, we must assume that John and Elizabeth Edwards, who this year will reach their 30th anniversary as a married couple, sat down to talk about their situation. It is exceedingly likely that at this time, Elizabeth Edwards encouraged her husband to continue with his presidential campaign. Aside from the obvious desire to see the man she’s loved for 30 years pursue one of his dreams, it is entirely possible - and likely from her public statements - that she feels that being an active part of something toward which she and her husband have been working might actually be helpful. This would be consistent with the feelings of many, many people with undesirable diagnoses; they generally don’t want to suddenly begin acting like worthless invalids, whose only purpose in life is to be cared for and dealt with.
So, even if this is Elizabeth Edwards desire, even if she herself feels that this is the best way to help her cope with the disease with which she has been diagnosed, it is your contention that John Edwards should disregard her wishes and discontinue his campaign? That in order to do right by his wife, he should disconnect her from her pursuits and her life, make her feel like her only role is that of patient? He should refuse to allow her to spend her last few years doing what she wants to do? Even if that would hurt her emotionally and potentially impede her treatment?
How is that not infantilizing her to an unacceptable degree? She is a grown woman with a history of accomplishment; she has earned the right to say for herself what will or will not help her have a fulfilling and successful time in treatment. Comparing her to Britney Spears and Kevin Federline is absurd; she has done nothing in her public life to suggest that her judgment is anything but sound.
You want to disagree with her (and by extension, her husband’s) choice, go ahead. But to say that he’s deficient in character because he’s abiding by the wishes of his wife in a situation where she has the right to have wishes… I don’t understand. What is the “good character” thing to do?
If my wife were to get sick, and tell me to continue in my work because that’s what would be best for her, and I quit working anyway, she would kick me right in the ass for being condescending and paternalistic. Twice.
The “good character” thing to do is to recognize that there is much work that can and should be done besides making a quixotic and very likely forgettable run for the Presidency. And that work can be done without having to go through the constant aggravation, hectic schedules, and lack of time together that a run for the Presidency is.
Edwards is young, and can run again in 2012, 2016, or 2020. Or he could run for Senator again, or be the chairman of a non-profit, or any number of other things that would advance the causes he champions. He cannot spend time with his wife in 2016 or 2020, and most likely not even in 2012.
The “good character” thing to do, then, is to postpone what could be done later in order to take the time to do things that can never be done again - spending time with family and being happy together, and support his wife through painful chemotherapy treatments in some way other than over a quick cell-phone call between fundraisers in different states.
By instead deciding to continue with the campaign, what they are saying is what BobLibDem said earlier, and what I react so strongly against: that Edwards becoming President is the only reasonable way he can do anything to help the country, and that his being President is so much more important than, say, Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton being President that it’s worth his being essentially out of her life while she dies.
And people who think it isn’t that - read over any biography of someone on a President campaign. Read any of the “Making of the President” books. There isn’t the time for long, langourious Sorkinesque conversations on the nature of life and politics and everything grand. It’s a constant, hectic, jerking from place to place with all spare time devoted to trying to squeeze in one or two more hours of needed sleep.
If my wife were dying, and told me the thing for me to do was to spend her last years away from the house while she suffered through treatment, I’d kick her right in the ass for being a martyr. Twice.
It may not be selfless. Perhaps she feels that campaigning with him will take her mind off her illness. Perhaps being actively involved, rather than sitting home thinking about her cancer, will extend her life. She might be being selfish in doing this.
Anyhow, my thanks to you for showing this is not a democrat versus republican issue.
I wouldn’t say it’s the only way, but it’s the best way. The two of them have an idea of the direction the country should go in and they feel it’s important that he run now. Not that he can’t run later, but the earlier that the nation change course, the sooner it can get on the right course and the easier the course correction will be. This is what they want to do and what they believe in. Who are we to question it?
How Mrs. Edwards wants to end her days is up to her, I’m sure that any couple that has been married for as long as they have can be trusted to decide how they want to live their own lives. I have no doubt that if she said stop and spend more time with her, he’d drop out in a heartbeat and I’d support that decision.
I trust most people to make their own decisions. I don’t see anything inherently noble in running for president, or in not running. I don’t see anything inherently noble in staying in the race, or in not staying.
I do think that Elizabeth Edwards is a grown woman who has hopes and dreams and desires and that she knows best what those hopes and dreams and desires are.
You, on the other hand, claim to know all. You know everything about these people. You know what’s best.
Your entire argument revolves around you knowing what’s best. You know what they should do. You know how they should feel. And you don’t just say, “That’s not a good idea.” No, you vilify and attack someone for disagreeing with you. You say there’s something wrong with them if they don’t agree with you.
She said she wants to do X. You agree that she said it. You believe that she means it. Yet you think that her husband should take it away from her to please your sense of decorum. You think that they should do what you want, for the sake of their marriage.
Apparently, you’re wearing clairvoyant pants. If you have a minute, can you tell me whether CC Sabathia will sign a contract extension? Thanks!
My husband didn’t die, but I’ve been in a situation where it looked really bad.
Let’s just say that I might have welcomed a presidential candidacy for something to take my mind off it. Going on “Meet the Press” has to be better than another round of “Meet the Arrogant Doctor Who Says That My Husband Will Be Dead Within Days.”