Happily, former Senator Thompson's cancer is in remission. But I find the argument that some make, that this shouldn't be a campaign issue, bizarre. If you don't want to vote on the basis of a candidate's health (or that of their wife), fine. But a president's health definitely affects his or her ability to do the job. If Paul Tsongas had been elected in 1992 he would have died before his term ended. There is a reasonable chance that if he's elected John Edwards is going to have to deal with an enormous amount of personal stress while in office. Stress and pain affect decision making. There are few things more valuable to an administration than the president's time and attention. These are matters that are affected by the president's health - and the health of those he or she loves. Again, if you don't want to vote on the basis of this, fine. But it's hardly unreasonably that some people put it in their decision calculus.
Posted by armand at April 11, 2007 03:16 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politicsare there really credible people out there arguing that health, family crises, or for that matter age, aren't fair and important topics of voter concern in a presidential election?
i haven't seen too much absolutism pro or con with regard to edwards (and i don't think that situation calls for any serious hand-wringing), and i wouldn't be too worried about thompson for that matter. but if mccain were my favorite nominee, and i was genuinely scared of his VP -- {cough}cheney{cough} -- i might abstain or vote otherwise due to his age. hale or not, people that old have a pretty high probability of dying fairly soon.
Posted by: moon at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM | PERMALINKMy impression was (and perhaps I should go through the archives of other blogs to check, but my impression definitely was) that there were a fair number of Democrats, or at least Edwards fans, who didn't think it was right to suggest that Edwards should leave the race b/c of his wife's cancer. Now there is certainly something to be said for bravely fighting on. But at the same time honestly noting the effect that this kind of thing could have on Edwards or Thompson or the elderly McCain should be (I think) fair game.
Posted by: Armand at April 11, 2007 04:58 PM | PERMALINKMy dh and I were discussing this earlier. Based on our own experiences with bereavement, neither of us could vote for Edwards, no matter what he may bring to the table.
I hope Elizabeth Edwards beats the odds and lives a long, healthy life. But the odds are her husband and kids are going to be bereaved of her some time in the next few years.
Standard grief counsel is that a newly bereaved spouse should not make any major decisions (things like whether to move to an apartment or change jobs) for a full year after the loss, because of shock, depression, disorientation and exhaustion. Factor grieving kids into the mix and you've got an overwhelming set of things to deal with. Handling all that while trying to "lead the free world" with any semblance of focus and attention would just be impossible.
Having said all that, I can see why some people would choose not to consider it when deciding who to vote for. People lose spouses to accidents and sudden illnesses, too, so why single out Edwards?
But based on my experience and what I've watched friends go through, I can't consider him. The likelihood of trauma is so high and the horizon so near.
Posted by: kcb at April 11, 2007 09:35 PM | PERMALINK