Should He or Shoudn't He?

It appears the announcement by John Edwards and his wife that, in spite of her recurrence of cancer, his campaign will "continue strongly" is throwing America into division or, at least, creating a discussion of how best to deal with such a diagnosis.

If you bother to read any of the blogs or comments posted in response to any story on the topic (and I have), it is apparent that approximately two-thirds of the country understands or, at least, respects the Edwards's decision. But another third see it as either a form of denial or craven ambition and neglect of wife and/or children.

There is a certain aspect to this that reminds me of the press conference when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive: he was such a popular and well-loved athlete that no one could dismiss him or his plight out of hand and it brought about a greater sympathy for those in similar circumstances. Likewise, Elizabeth Edwards is universally liked and respected (I haven't heard or read a single negative response about the woman from any public or private official). And so, as with Magic, the country's heart has gone out to her and her family in this moment.

I am certainly not comparing HIV/Aids with Cancer, except to say that both can be terminal, and both can strike indiscriminately in ways that sometimes seem most unfair. And, as Magic's high profile gave rise to a greater discussion of how to best deal with his ailment, so Elizabeth's recurrence and spread of cancer has already caused husbands and wives (who have not already had to deal with this...and many have) across the country to wonder: What would I do if my wife were so diagnosed? What would I want my husband to do if I were so diagnosed? What would be best for my family?

If you want a clearer understanding of all that went through the minds of John and Elizabeth, I suggest you read today's NYT article, "In the Hospital, Mrs. Edwards Set Campaign's Fate" at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/politics/25edwards.html?ex=1332561600&en=135f9e32bd9cb07c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Better yet, tune in to 60 Minutes tonight on CBS when Katie Couric interviews both of them for an hour.

We allow every person running for President their reasons to run, and we allow them their reasons to pull out. For each one of them, it is a personal decision and this is no different. Only the Edwardses know what is best for them. There were two quotes, in particular, from the article that hit me strongly:

"I expect to live a long time," Mrs. Edwards said. "I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that's not the case, I don't want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It's not fair to me, in a sense...My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life's work, wouldn't I be getting ready to die? That's what I'd be doing. This cause is not just John's cause, it's my cause."

When asked about the suggestion some have made that the continuing campaign is an act of supreme denial about her cancer, Mrs. Edwards looked momentarily struck. Then, with her husband looking on somewhat tensely, she hurled back: "Absolutely! I am not giving it anything. If it expects to be the boss of me it's gonna have to earn that...I am denying it control over how I spend the rest of my life."

Can we elect a man President whose wife essentially has a death sentence hanging over her head? Absolutely...if we can come to trust that, should her death occur while he is still in office, his performance of his duties will not be unduly impaired. As others have pointed out, FDR dealt with polio while being elected four successive times, Lincoln suffered from depression, JFK had Addison's Disease. There are enough American families affected by cancer and still going on with their lives that they should be testament enough to our ability to endure and overcome such an obstacle.

Edwards Still Running

When I heard that John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, had scheduled a press conference following days of testing with doctors, my heart sank. First, I feared her cancer had come back and, while nobody deserves cancer, she certainly has already faced more than her share of challenges...but cancer is unforgiving that way. Second, I feared we were going to lose a vibrant candidate among the Democrats, one who is enough of a threat to keep this from being a 2-horse race in the Primary. Besides, between the three--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--I definitely lean toward Edwards.

As it turned out, the news was mixed: her cancer is back and no longer curable...but they're hopeful they caught it early and are not quitting the campaign. And if you missed the press conference but have a chance to watch a replay, I suggest you do so because it will show you, in a nutshell, why the Edwards campaign remains compelling. This is a couple whose public fight for the health of this country is now epitomized by their personal fight for the health of Elizabeth. We are fortunate that they discovered the cancer's spread early and that they are still willing and able to champion his ideas.

And if you think he's using his wife's illness to garner more attention and votes, then you are too cynical by half. Their love for each other and this country was all too apparent. Regardless of whether he lasts as a candidate, I, for one, appreciate his openness and dedication. I will certainly be praying for his wife's continuing treatments to be effective.

If We Leave Iraq, Does Al Qaeda Win?

The line put out by the White House, and by most of those who think we should stay in Iraq until we win, is that our leaving now would only give Al Qaeda the victory. To a certain point, they are right. As pointed out by Kevin Ferris in an editorial titled "Cheney Speaks Truth to Pelosi" in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, getting us out of Iraq is Al Qaeda's first goal:

During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:

"If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people - in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .

"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."

How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.

Here's Osama bin Laden in a 2004 audio message: "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."

Bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, laid out a plan in a July 2005 letter: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy.

But Ferris goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily end the debate.

That doesn't mean there can be no dissent to current policy. A free society debates issues, and there are plenty of reasons offered to quit: War itself is a mistake. The initial invasion was a mistake. The occupation has been a series of mistakes. Refereeing a sectarian struggle that goes beyond fighting al-Qaeda is a mistake.

People will advocate as conscience dictates. All Cheney did was point out that advocacy doesn't occur in a vacuum.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called the vice president's remarks "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Wrong. This is precisely the debate we should be engaged in. Everyone wants the war to end, to see the troops safely home. The question is how? Under what terms?

In any case, our next President will have to think long and hard about how to disengage from Iraq in the near future without ceding the country to Al Qaeda and its long-term plans.

Personally, I don't believe Al Qaeda wins if only part one of their plan takes place. The terrorist organization is like a cancer looking to lodge anywhere a central government is destabilized and weak. Americans are wrong when they assume all Muslims are alike and share the same goals as this fundamentalist group. It never had a chance in Iraq until we invaded. If you doubt me, check the dates on those quotes from Osama Bin Laden and his deputy...after we had invaded. They were simply reacting to, and taking advantage of, our offensive. Once we leave and make it possible for Iraq (with the support of Iran, Syria, and other more secular neighboring countries) to sort out its own mess, let's make sure we don't weaken and destabilize any other Middle Eastern governments by any other hasty, pre-emptive moves.

The Next President Cannot Ignore the Palestinians

We are mainly concerned these days with Iraq and Iran, when it comes to the Middle East, but the issue that gave rise to both of these problem areas has yet to be resolved: a peaceful existence for Israel in the Middle East and a just solution to the Palestinian problem.

It is easy to ignore an essentially stateless people. But a grave danger is building in the Occupied Territories, as more and more hope is being sucked out of the lungs of their youth. Whoever gains the presidency in 2008 would do well to consider an article published two days ago in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html?ex=1331438400&en=41c081f4be010bfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It's tragic to read but, then, most Americans have no idea what daily life is like for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We can wag our fingers and shake our heads at the insanity of suicide bombings, but these are young people growing up without hope in this life and probably longing for any kind of afterlife.

Our next President will have to convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders that it is no longer acceptable to deny these Palestinian youth a basic hope by refusing to make concessions without unacceptable stipulations, walling them in, separating them from each other and the world, taking their land, keeping them unemployed, and inciting them to violent death.

Where Is Our William Wilberforce?

Last night, I saw the newly released movie, "Amazing Grace," which movingly details one British politician's long concerted effort to bring about the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British empire. It took William Wilberforce and his supporters 18 years from the date of his first speech in Parliament until his bill finally became law in 1807. As we left the theatre, my husband and I discussed the irony that, while we fought to be free from Great Britain, they freed the slaves decades before we did. I find myself wondering this morning if we aren't still trailing the British when it comes to certain political causes (such as getting out of Iraq).

I was interested, then, to read a guest editorial in today's New York Times by Rory Stewart, entitled "Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success," giving a British perspective on what is needed in politics today. Part of it reads as follows:

The Labor Party continues to invest in child poverty, but three weeks ago a U.N. agency ranked Britain 18th out of 18 rich countries in a study of children’s well-being. (The United States was 17th.) Islamist terror is answered with unprecedented levels of money and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and comparatively little investment in intelligence and security, community relations and politics at home.

In Kabul I work with a local government councilor called Aziz, who was a champion wrestler. For 40 years, he has dealt with war, pogroms and government. He is assessed by members of his community on whether he is generous to the poor, courageous even in the face of death, a powerful representative of their interests and able to keep his promises. He and they believe that leadership is an exercise in moral virtue and courage, that politics should be a noble profession and politicians virtuous. A British voter might think that is naïve. But I believe Aziz is right.

It is patronizing to assume that voters can’t handle demanding, imaginative and risky policies. More Britons voted for the contestants on the TV programs “Big Brother” and “Pop Idol” last year than in the national elections. But the way to persuade people to vote is to make politics less, not more, like “Big Brother.”

I believe we need a William Wilberforce in American politics today. He saw what was wrong with his country and, with passion, dedication, and courage, set about changing it. Who will step forward to change our health care crisis, our education crisis, our energy crisis, our poverty crisis, and, most of all, our security crisis? Or are we waiting for the country that gave us "American Idol" to wake up, take the lead again, and show us the way back to a more noble political process, the process envisioned and championed by our own founding fathers?

The Need for Real Dialogue

While most of my more conservative friends will probably faint at what I'm about to write here, I must admit that at least one of Newt Gingrich's ideas has captured my imagination. Even though he has not yet announced a run for the presidency in '08 (I'm firmly convinced he still intends to), he has definitely entered the campaigning environment through his new web site www.americansolutions.com (a site I highly recommend, at least for one of its recommendations).

At least Newt and I have one thing in common: we're disgusted with the way this whole election process has been revved up, money'd up, and basically taken away from the vast majority of Americans.

His idea: once the candidates of each major party have been selected through the primary system, then have them sit down, once a week for 9 weeks beginning after Labor Day, in a televised dialogue about a particular issue. These dialogues would not resemble what we've come to see as Presidential debates (designed for short, sound bite material with a journalist firing questions...something a candidate now has to "prep" for), but more so the type of Lincoln/Douglas debates from years ago at Cooper Union in New York with no reporter or moderator and a more lengthy time period in which each party's candidate, uninterrupted, can lay out his/her ideas, thinking, and proposals.

If you want a good idea of what this might look like, I suggest you go to www.americansolutions.com and click on the video of Gingrich engaging Mario Cuomo in just such a discussion, with a brief question period by Tim Russert. The result is that you come away with a much broader view of the speakers, their priorities, strategies, how they think and operate.

I know we live in a fast-paced society and that the news media think Americans only have a short attention span. We probably do, for inconsequential things like advertising and entertainment. But electing our next president is so far from inconsequential (witness all the reverberations from the last election throughout our country), that I believe the American people are thirsting for just such a dialogue.

The Power of the Presidency

Under the Bush Administration, few will argue that presidential power has been stretched as much as possible (the most recent example being the firing of U.S. Prosecutors so that other more desirable candidates can be put in place without congressional interference)...and, mostly, at the urging of Vice President Cheney. Whether or not that stretching has proven successful is debatable but, nevertheless, there has been a real constant tension between this White House and the Legislature as the Administration has tried to extend its grasp in order to establish and carry out its agenda.

But how far should it extend without upsetting the precarious system of checks and balances outlined by our founding fathers? This is a pivotal question for those already campaigning for the office (as well as those waiting in the wings, biding their time before they make a formal announcement). As suggested yesterday by Deputy Editor Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal, Americans should make certain they know where each candidate stands when it comes to the role of the President:

"For the purposes of picking the next president, we should be glad that Democrats have made the presidency itself--its foreign-policy decisions and the use of presidential authority (Guantanamo, wiretapping, the war decision)--the core of their criticism. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are their standard bearers. Logically, one wonders: What do they think a presidency should be? What are their views on the exercise of presidential authority? Let's find out now, before it's too late.

"Historically, a U.S. president's tools are two: soft power and hard power. Soft power is diplomacy. Hard power is the military. The question that one wants answered soon is: Have the Democrats become a soft-power-only party? Hillary Clinton especially has berated the Bush presidency for not being willing to "talk" to the likes of Iran and Syria. Reading Democratic foreign-policy intellectuals of late, it is hard to find the conditions under which they would deploy U.S. military resources. The military option may be on the Democrats' table, but it's buried beneath a foot-high pile of talking points. Have the Democrats, in their opposition to the Bush Doctrine, forced anyone seeking their nomination into a soft-power-only corner? Someone should ask them.

"This matter links unavoidably to presidential authority.

"Presidents and the Congress live in perpetual tension over the uses and limits of presidential authority. Nothing new there. And with George Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have sought to rein in presidential power, notably in their dispute over wiretaps and the FISA statute. But the Democrats have gone further. The current Murtha proposal in the House on troop deployments is a hard challenge to presidential authority. They also have tried to thwart less controversial exercises of presidential authority--refusing votes on judicial nominees and putting holds on executive-branch appointments.

"Sen. Clinton, as president, would you assent to these limits on executive power, or would you refuse to abide them? Sen. Edwards, is Carl Levin's reading of the FISA statute on the wiretapping of suspected terrorists your reading of that statute? Sen. Obama, do you support the Murtha proposal on Iraq? Could you all elaborate your understanding of the term, "commander in chief"? Or the War Powers Resolution. Or the pardon power.

"Congressional ambivalence toward presidential authority is likely a large part of the fact that no sitting senators other than John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding have ascended to the presidency. Rudy Giuliani may be outstripping John McCain because voters see Sen. McCain as a creature, however eminent, of Congress. Bill Clinton established the outer limits of domestic presidential authority. Would Clinton-44 settle for less? Not likely, but someone should ask her.

"Even if you argue that Mr. Bush brought this on himself, the fact remains that presidential authority is in a hole. At this rate of erosion, there will be such lack of clarity about the presidential role come January 2009 that any new president will spend an entire term merely reestablishing his or her authority. A Democratic president who hasn't drawn a line in the presidential sand will be in hock to the party's pacifist left. Absent a vigorous debate on these matters, we are likely to elect a weak President, no matter who wins.

"There is no bigger campaign issue than the proper role of the presidency. On current course, our winner the morning of Nov. 5, 2008 may be uttering Robert Redford's famous last line in "The Candidate": "What do we do now?" As with the primaries, let's move up the answer to that question from too late to very early."

Perhaps this is one of the first issues the candidates ought to debate because, let's face it, they can't fulfill any of their campaign promises without real cooperation between the different branches of government.

Disheartening Smear Tactics So Early

You would think that with the presidential election still 20 months away, any campaigning at this point would be civil, polite, and issues-oriented. And, generally speaking, it has been (except for that brouhaha raised by David Geffen's less than complementary remarks concerning the Clintons...which seems to have died away since both Senators Obama and Clinton appeared to behave cordially to each other in their joint appearance yesterday in Selma, Alabama).

But you must never discount Ann Coulter's appetite for slash and burn commentary in her quest for coverage, book sales, and...oh, yes, the conservative cause. She's like the Republican Party's personal pet pit bull. Watch out for her bite! It's hard to dismiss the notion that they let her and others somewhat like her (because, really, no one is QUITE like Ann Coulter) do the dirty work for them. Who needs negative attack ads when she's prancing from show to show, traveling city to city, slandering/slaughtering any Democratic candidate they may deem most dangerous? (John Edwards is beginning to look better and better to me since they obviously fear him.)

After Coulter referred to Edwards as a "faggot" in a new low at the recent CPAC meeting, you would think she'd had her fill because she's certainly been slammed right and left for her behavior. But, no. According to Editor and Publisher, she's now laying into his campaign manager:

"Coulter: Edwards' Campaign Manager 'Fronting for Arab Terrorists' By E&P Staff Published: March 05, 2007 11:00 AM ET

"NEW YORK Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists." Bonior was elected to Congress 13 times in Michigan, and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1968 to 1972. Universal Press Syndicate distributes Coulter's weekly newspaper column. A spokesperson there told E&P today that Universal would not comment about something Coulter said outside her column. The syndicate also declined to comment on what steps it might be taking if Coulter had used the "N" word instead of the "F" word.Coulter's Friday remark went as follows: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."Audience members at the conservative gathering initially appeared startled, but then many of them laughed and applauded Coulter's slur."

At least, Edwards had the sense and decency not to descend to her level and simply ignored her. But I must say I am disheartened that such smearing has begun so early. I am even more disheartened to realize there is actually a public out there who applauds what she says and the way she says it.

Obama or Clinton? Giuliani or McCain? Not so fast there...

I believe the media, as much as money, is doing its best to force a very early primary decision on the American people and I, for one, won't stand for it. Since I won't stand for it, then I have to do something and I figured this blog might be my best response.

In the last couple of days, with new polls out, I hear everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Chris Matthews marginalizing everyone but the two front-runners in each party. Well, I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a CNN Primary, an MSNBC Primary, or a FOX News Primary. The first state primary in our country is several months away and, as far as I'm concerned, anything can happen over such a span of time.

The problem: media and money are working hand in hand. The money is flowing to those candidates capturing the most media attention. And the media is awestruck over those candidates pulling in the biggest donations. Let's face it. All the media wants is a bigger audience, so they're going to push whoever pulls in the biggest audience. America's real problems are secondary. It all boils down to money. A bigger audience means more money. Of course they're going to cover every little catfight (like the recent dust-up between the camps of Hillary and Barack...and the oncoming one on Sunday when they're both seeking the black vote in Selma, Alabama just a block away from each other) and ignore discussing the positions of "lesser" candidates, until they have to deal with them in one of the few scheduled debates.

I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, but this will be one small corner of the media where all announced candidates will be looked at, reviewed, and given a chance to communicate their message. I don't care so much about charisma, looks, or experience. After all, although he was an excellent speaker, I would guess Abraham Lincoln had the charisma of a log, the looks of...well, I needn't go there, and not a whole lot of experience. But he was a tremendous President. What I do care about (and what I believe most Americans care about) is HONESTY, VISION, REAL AND PRACTICAL IDEAS, and a sense that the candidate can actually DO half the stuff that he/she promises.

This blog will also try to reflect our current and developing political climate. After all, these candidates' positions need to be evaluated in some kind of context. Some posts will have nothing to do with any particular candidate, but merely be a reaction to some current political issue because, after all, once the election has come and gone there will still be a certain group of people running the country. And they need oversight.

Aren't we glad we live in a country where the common citizen can speak, write, or blog freely? I know I am.