60 Minutes

John and Elizabeth Edwards did very well on 60 Minutes tonight. Katie Couric asked all the tough questions — including the ones I’ve raised on Swampland. John was particularly strong, and right, when he said of those who disagree with or aren’t sure about their decision to stay in the race: “All of those judgments and questions are entirely legitimate.” Equally impressive was his answer to the (wrongheaded) accusation that he and Elizabeth were exploiting her cancer for political gain: “Do not vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer….This election is too important…Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us.” (note: quotes may not be word for word – i was jotting notes while watching).

Elizabeth made a powerful point when she explained why she believed the campaign should go on. “Either you push forward with the things you were doing yesterday,” she said, “or you start dying.” The one moment that clanged a bit came when Elizabeth said that the “most important thing you can give your children is wings.” As Couric pointed out, Jack and Emma Claire Edwards are 6 and 8 years old — “still baby birds” not ready to take flight. Perhaps because Couric lost her husband to cancer when their children were young, she seemed to convey unease with the Edwards’ decison and surprise at the “wings” answer.

By even mentioning that, I am no doubt inviting more criticism for having the gall to feel uncomfortable with the Edwards’ decision, and for suggesting that other Americans might also feel that way. It must be obvious by now that others do, in fact, have similar doubts — especially about the issue of whether a father of two young children whose wife may be seriously ill, and may even die, might be too distracted to be effective as president. Those doubts are natural and legitimate, as John Edwards acknowledged. It’s certainly not partisan, and it has nothing to do with being part of the MSM.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Why Romney Is Dodging the Press

    Joe, the Romney campaign’s control-freakery makes for bad democracy, but I suspect it’s a smart strategy. Consider the way Mitt’s personal approval rating has bounced back over the past several weeks. As the GOP primaries wrapped up, Romney was roughly as unpopular as late-era George W. Bush. Now he’s about even with Barack Obama.

    Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating has jumped to 50%-41%, his best ever and in the same neighborhood as Obama’s 52%-46% standing.

    What changed? Well, for one thing, other Republican rivals are no longer attacking Romney. That helps. But it’s not like he’s had a free ride: the Obama camp has picked up where Rick and Newt left off. An alternate explanation would be that Americans are simply seeing less of Romney, and that makes them like him better.

    For Obama, gay marriage stance born of a long evolutionHuffPost Politics

    Crossroads, Super PACs and the Incumbent Advertising Gap

    In a recent piece about the Obama-Romney ad wars, Michael Scherer made the smart point that this election is different from past ones in that the incumbent no longer gets a free hit on his rival during the period immediately following the primary. The reason: super PACs have the cash to cover that gap while the challenger collects enough general election funds to keep pace.

blog comments powered by Disqus