DeclinetoState
04-08-2007, 12:50 AM
Susan Estrich (http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich.html?columnsName=ses)
The news that the Edwards campaign solicited cancer well-wishers for campaign funds shouldn't really be surprising. Why wouldn't they?
Not to be crass about it, but Mrs. Edwards' cancer has given her husband's campaign something of a boost. It's reflected in the latest polls in Iowa and New Hampshire; my guess is it's also visible in fundraising, particularly the Internet variety. It's certainly not a strategy anyone would choose to emulate, but it makes sense in Edwards' case — not because he was an unsympathetic person, but because he had a gravitas problem. And nothing gives you gravitas faster than what John Edwards is going through now.
The spike in John Edwards' numbers isn't about his wife, per se. People feel very strongly about spouses, but they don't vote accordingly. Betty Ford couldn't save Gerald Ford any more than Barbara Bush could save the first George from Bill Clinton and the headbanded harpy who wouldn't bake cookies.
It's the candidate that counts, but his choice of partner and what that relationship says about him are potentially important to the total vote count. Teresa Heinz Kerry didn't cost her husband the nomination, which tells you it wasn't spouse popularity that determined who got the delegates. On the other hand, she certainly didn't help him in the general, and the picture of him off windsurfing on vacation with his rich wife instead of answering the attacks against him did not improve his image.
So, too, the political question is not what you think of the way Elizabeth Edwards is facing her challenges, but whether it changes the way people see her husband and relate to his candidacy.
The news that the Edwards campaign solicited cancer well-wishers for campaign funds shouldn't really be surprising. Why wouldn't they?
Not to be crass about it, but Mrs. Edwards' cancer has given her husband's campaign something of a boost. It's reflected in the latest polls in Iowa and New Hampshire; my guess is it's also visible in fundraising, particularly the Internet variety. It's certainly not a strategy anyone would choose to emulate, but it makes sense in Edwards' case — not because he was an unsympathetic person, but because he had a gravitas problem. And nothing gives you gravitas faster than what John Edwards is going through now.
The spike in John Edwards' numbers isn't about his wife, per se. People feel very strongly about spouses, but they don't vote accordingly. Betty Ford couldn't save Gerald Ford any more than Barbara Bush could save the first George from Bill Clinton and the headbanded harpy who wouldn't bake cookies.
It's the candidate that counts, but his choice of partner and what that relationship says about him are potentially important to the total vote count. Teresa Heinz Kerry didn't cost her husband the nomination, which tells you it wasn't spouse popularity that determined who got the delegates. On the other hand, she certainly didn't help him in the general, and the picture of him off windsurfing on vacation with his rich wife instead of answering the attacks against him did not improve his image.
So, too, the political question is not what you think of the way Elizabeth Edwards is facing her challenges, but whether it changes the way people see her husband and relate to his candidacy.