From Salon.com.
Bound to tick some people off.
By Walter Shapiro
March 27, 2007 | What made the comeback so withering was that it was delivered in such a matter-of-fact tone.
During a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday night, Katie Couric kept hectoring John and Elizabeth Edwards about their stubbornness in the face of cancer. Again and again, without getting the response she wanted, Couric asked them why they hadn’t yielded to the return of Elizabeth’s illness and broadly hinted that they should have called off John’s campaign for the presidency. Finally, almost in exasperation, Couric turned to Elizabeth and said bluntly, “Here you’re staring at possible death…” Elizabeth interrupted Couric with this cut-to-the-chase response: “Aren’t we all, though?”
Left unsaid was that Couric’s husband had died from colon cancer in 1998 — and the perky anchor kept appearing on the “Today” show till the last week of his life. Left unsaid was that legendary newsman Ed Bradley, who died of leukemia last year, was contributing to “60 Minutes” until the very end.
Embedded in Couric’s smarmy comment was the implication that any public figure afflicted with an incurable disease has an obligation to climb on an ice floe and sail off to oblivion so that TV viewers in the prized 18-to-35-year-old demographic do not have to acknowledge their own mortality. Or that, at least, Elizabeth Edwards, whose breast cancer has recurred, owes it to the world to spend her remaining years offstage with their two small children, Emma Claire, 8, and 6-year-old Jack.
It will be weeks, perhaps months, before we begin to get an accurate measure of the political ramifications of Elizabeth Edwards’ health. The issues raised by the candor and determination she and her husband have shown are too unprecedented to be unraveled by instant polls or interviews with oft-quoted political experts.
One theory is that voters crave presidential candidates with unblemished medical charts and problem-free lives, whose emotional burdens rival those of the contestants on “America’s Next Top Model.” That would rule out all three Republican front-runners, since John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have had their own brushes with cancer and Mitt Romney’s wife suffers from multiple sclerosis. Another theory is that Elizabeth Edwards has touched something deep in the American psyche and pretty soon we will see supportive bumper stickers that read, “I Know Someone with Cancer — and I Vote.”
Voters and campaign contributors will, of course, offer the final verdict on the Edwards campaign. But so far the public arguments raised against the former North Carolina senator’s continuing his presidential campaign, with his wife’s fervent participation, are flimsy.
Channeling chat-room busybodies, Couric hit the Edwardses with the Bad-Parent Question — how could they justify being on the campaign trail away from Emma Claire and Jack at this critical time? In an ideal world, Elizabeth Edwards would have demonstrated that she is a caring mother by not getting cancer. Short of that, any decision that the family makes would not entirely shield the children from the troubling shadow of their mother’s illness. Besides, running for office doesn’t mean the Edwardses have to be away from their children. During the 2004 race for the presidential nomination they included the kids in their campaign rambles, turning bus trips through the early caucus and primary states into family adventures. I was on the Edwards campaign bus when a puzzled Emma Claire asked her father, “Daddy, what’s a fundraiser?”
During the “60 Minutes” interview, Elizabeth Edwards said that she and her husband “have been contemplating all the different ways that we can make certain that [the children] are with us as much as possible.” Home schooling — which would have an undeniable crossover political appeal to conservative voters — might be one solution. Before long, Emma Claire and Jack would certainly be testing far above their grade level in such essential subjects as the geography of Iowa, the history of the New Hampshire primary and the arithmetic of vote counting.
On the surface, a far more substantive concern is that Edwards would find it difficult to function as president if Elizabeth’s health dramatically deteriorated. In truth, however, people become president at a time in their lives when fate inevitably requires them to face up to health crises and the death of the people they love. Unless they amend the Constitution to allow callow 17-year-olds to run, this will always be a major risk in electing a president.
During a few short months at the start of his presidential candidacy, John Kerry endured the death of his mother and surgery for prostate cancer. In 1994, with Bosnia in flames and healthcare reform headed for a cliff, Bill Clinton had to confront the death of the most pivotal figure in his life, his mother, Virginia Kelley. As soon as Clinton left the funeral in Arkansas, he flew to Brussels for a NATO summit.
Being distracted by personal life is part of the terrible burden of the presidency. Both Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford were diagnosed with breast cancer while their husbands were in the White House. In her autobiography, “The Times of My Life,” Betty Ford writes about her first night in the hospital for a mastectomy, “Jerry says he’s never been so lonely as he was going home to the White House that night. He was more upset than I.”
But many of these human details have been airbrushed out of remembered history. No one links the death of Clinton’s mother to the way that his presidency almost fell apart in 1994, climaxing with the Gingrich Revolution. No one connects Kerry’s personal travails with his maladroit presidential campaign. Betty Ford is remembered for her honesty at a time when breast cancer was a taboo topic, but Gerald Ford is remembered for pardoning Nixon.
Presidential races are often about more than control of the levers of power and the policy direction of the nation. Prior campaigns forced the nation to confront questions about religion, divorce and career-minded first ladies. This time around, especially for the Democrats, everything is on the table: race (Barack Obama), gender (Hillary Clinton), Hispanic heritage (Bill Richardson) and now cancer (the Edwardses). In an election cycle in which the Democrats are poised to surmount age-old political prejudices, outmoded views about the proper conduct of people with cancer deserve to be jettisoned, whether or not John Edwards ever makes it to the White House.
15 Responses to “an article about the edwardses”
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
» Aaaaaand little she-who-is lost another tooth this week!
» SBJ is four months old, 19 pounds 5 ounces, and 26 inches tall. GIGANTOR!
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
I have been genuinely surprised at the venom some have spewed at the Edwards and if it went the way Walter Shapiro describes then I am very disappointed in Katie Couric. Thank you for sharing his reflections, as I have been struggling with what has really been bothering me about this and his bottom line absolutely hits it on the head: “outmoded views about the proper conduct of people with cancer deserve to be jettisoned.”
What WS said….
Good stuff here. Thank you. As you know, my wife went through breast cancer and that became a very public journey in our congregation as I began posting a very raw weekly cancer journal online. Quite an passage for all of us.
and thanks for your presentations and spirit and Presbytery tonight.
What an interesting article. We will probably forever delineate between what men are supposed to do in terms of juggling personal and professional, and what women are supposed to do with that trick.
I kind of like Katie and wonder if somebody (a producer?) pushed her to do this. Or did she forget her own experiences?
I defer to WS’s comment. I honestly don’t know what I would do in a similar situation. I only know I would not want to be judged unfairly by strangers.
This was a well-written editorial RM
I don’tknow any of the details - or the famous people -but I liked what you wrote
I have a chronic disease that can/will cause cancer at some point in my life and has affects on my life now. As such, I have faced these choices.
For me, it has been a choice between living my life or dying my life. What is my calling and how do/will I live it?
My issue with the Edwards is that it has to be so public. Why do folks who choose to serve in public office loose their right to patient/doctor confidentiality? Why do the Edwards have to tell all of us? Why do we even get to say whether we think their decision is right or wrong? It is not our life, it is not our choice.
Thanks for sharing this article. Their very public story happens to be coinciding with the beginning of one of my best friend’s journey through breast cancer, which makes it even more powerful for me.
When I hear these very public and very hateful comments made about their very private and very personal decisions, I am reminded of Jesus’ words about the speck and the log. It is so easy to tell others what they ’should’ do to be better ___ . (Fill in: parents, candidates, leaders, pastors, Christians, etc.) Somehow we seem to fail to see our own shortcomings.
It is not ours to judge. As voters, it is ours to support - or not. Other than that, the mudslingers need to just bow out.
Just to clarify, I did not write the above. I might comment on it later though.
We went through this as well when Jackson had colon cancer a few years back. I got to where I dreaded going to church and facing all the well-meaning well-wishers who were genuinely and authentically concerned. It was really hard work.
I saw the interview and I thought Elizabeth Edwards kicked butt. I loved the line about how much of their lives they had already given to cancer and they just weren’t willing to give more.
The whole Edwards thing has been interesting because it’s touching on the big question—if I had stage 4 cancer, what would I want to do with the remainder of my life? And I think after thinking about maybe a vacation to visit loved ones or some such thing, most of us want to live our lives “as usual” until the end. It seems to me that this is all Elizabeth Edwards is asking for—it’s just that her “as usual” involves being a politician’s wife. But since most of us are not the spouse of a politician we think that being in the public eye like that, traveling all around the coutnry, going to events, arranging our child’s schooling while on the road is a horrible way to spend limited time—-but it’s not our normal. It’s her normal, and if it’s her normal, she should have it.
Cancer is non-partisan.
My heart sank (and my stomach hurt) when I heard the news about Elizabeth Edwards. I had the same reaction when I heard the news yesterday about Tony Snow.
Having spent 2 years of my life with someone with cancer knowing all along that she would not be cured and resume a normal life ever, I think anyone who judges the decisions of someone suffering from this dread disease is, quite frankly, way off base (that’s the kindest way I can put it!).
I second/third/bazillionth the comments about Elizabeth Edwards wanting to live her life. Why shouldn’t she? When my mother was sick, all I wanted was to live a normal life, too, but it kept eluding me as people tip-toed around me and constantly asked if I was “okay.” The thing that concerns me more is what happens when she does succumb? That was the point when everyone around me started acting normal–at the time when normal life had vanished and I didn’t want it, because it couldn’t ever come back. And so I wonder about John and how he would be able to live and lead in a “normal life” when that doesn’t exist anymore? But in the meantime, they need to live life to the fullest and follow their call….and it sounds like they’re doing that, at least as far as they know right now. that’s what matters–not how the media thinks, but how they think and feel about it.
They day the Edwardses announced he would not stop his campaign, I asked a friend, “How long do you think it will be before the right wing starts smearing him for being a bad dad/husband for continuing with his job?”
I’d never thought of Katie Couric as “right-wing”. But from her stubborn insistance that the Edwardses somehow admit they are wrong for continuing their lives in the face of her illness to her use of the patented Fox News “some people say…” to question their sincerity without accepting her responsibility for doing so, she has moved towards that fringe. The fact that she kept working while her husband died seems only to make her more at home on the Lyin’ Right.
Here’s the fact: The Edwardses are rich. They worked hard to have money to take care of their family if something happened. “Something” did. Do you think they don’t have the freaking sense to hire a nanny if they need one? My God, at least they CAN! The vast majority of us suffer through the outrageous slings and arrows of fortune without even the shield of sufficienct savings!
I can’t imagine what I’d do if my wife were stricken in such a way. I know I couldn’t afford to sit at home - which probably means she and the children would be entrusted to strangers. It’s insane that this is the case - and it’s not only doubly insane, but incredibly insulting that someone who is supposed to be unbiased is trying to play Gocha! with someone who has actually broken out of the insanity - and has the unflinching audacity to look back and say to the rest of us, “You know, it shouldn’t be like this. If you let me, I’ll try and change it.”
XT
sorry I didn’t read carefully enough - and mistakenly thought you’d written this - but it was a good editorial nonetheless. Thanks