- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 23
-
Sparkle (0)
Last Sunday the New York Times ran an article on the changing face of this year's presidential campaign trail. Namely, the increase in the choices the candidates and their families have had to make in regards to negotiating the logistics of campaign life and family life. These campaign circumstances have no recent precedent. It states that "no fewer than five presidential contenders have children under the age of 10." The main focus of this article features the Edwards family who have made the decision to bring their youngest children--Emma Claire and Jack Edwards, 9 and 7-- on the road with them. This has brought Mrs. Edwards' mothering decisions under fire. One thing that really needs to be remembered in this scenario is that Elizabeth Edwards is not just a mother to young children. She is a mother with cancer. Terminal cancer. A mother who wants to spend as much time with her children as possible. You simply cannot take that out of the equation and still get the full picture here.
.
Of course, on the day that the reporter was there, the children were not in the mood for "campaigning" or dealing with reporters.
And they treated an interviewer the way politicians surely wish they could at times, refusing at first to remove their iPod earphones for a discussion of life on the trail.
What parent does not want their children on their best behavior when a reporter-- a New York Times reporter-- is present? My guess is most of us want the best in our children to shine through when a person recording your every movement and word is watching, listening and recording. However, Jack, a child of only 7 did not want to play the "perfect son" to the reporter on this particular day. Who could blame him? He is a child! But that was not taken into account. What was brought to the front was criticism of Ms. Edwards and the choice to bring these children on the road with them as they campaign.
The boy sat for a few more minutes, fidgety but obedient, before being freed and happily bounding with his sister to the fort they were building in the back of the bus.
To me, that shows a normal boy. Any normal boy. It could have been my son at that age. It could have been your son at that age.
However, Rebecca Eisenberg of Silicon Vally Moms Blog saw it quite differently. She quite frankly states that she does not like Elizabeth Edwards and is not afraid to say so.
Elizabeth, I DON'T LIKE the choices you have made!
Take your kids home. Get off the campaign trail. Your husband is not going to be the candidate, and he is not going to be president. He is not ahead in the polls. He is not going to make it. We need a Democratic in office desperately, and you are harming that chance by going around saying negative things about the TOP candidates and splitting the vote. Worst of all, you are forcing your young children, who should be in school to ride in buses and talk to the press when they obviously don't want to. This election is NOT ABOUT THEM. They deserve some peace, not time with nannies and campaign-trail daycare providers, since, as the Times article describes, you don't have time to see them when you are busy campaigning too.
Very harsh words. As it tends to do when when there are essays with such intense feelings, it brought out many commenters. Not all of them voices of dissent. White Trash Mom stood behind Rebecca's words.
Today I got even more confirmation that Rebecca is great. She wrote a pretty opinionated blog post about John Edwards, presidential candidate and future hair club for men patron. Rebecca gave her opinion on a New York Times story about the Edwards family...and the shit hit the fan.
Commenter jen states: "I couldn't agree more. I like John Edwards and don't really care how he made his money, but I think they are crazy. Go home, build up your resume, and you'll have lots of time to run for president when your kids are in college and hopefully your wife is still alive. If I had 10 more years to live I wouldn't spend it on the campaign trail."
However, for
