Couric and Edwards: The Griller Gets Grilled

I am a supporter, but a troubled one, of Edwards. I agree with him and Elizabeth and others that cancer patients should not be expected to hide in a dark corner. They should live as normal a life as possible and with medical care this would be the best way to prevail over the disease.

However, running for president is not exactly living a normal life. It is not like continuing your profession in the law, business, or what have you -- even running a beauty salon. It is an extremely abnormal process. I wonder if a cancer patient or his/her spouse should really continue such a life with cancer as an every present reality.

I've always thought Couric was a lightweight, but this interview was very good -- pointed and on the mark. At first I was a bit uncomfortable with it, but the questions really did need to be asked, and she even seemed relentless. I was not particularly an Edwards supporter, but because of their answers I'm much more interested.

I'm very impressed by their - and especially Elizabeth's attitude - cancer is NOT a death signal; one may or may not die from cancer, but one sure as hell can live with it. That's an attitude of hope and health and I commend her for it.

As for Drudge and other such hate-mongers, I don't care what they have to say. They are irrelevant.

I hesitate to judge the Edwards's decision. Elizabeth Edwards strikes me as a strong woman who would say no to continuing the campaign if it was not what she wanted. I am troubled, though, by whether they will be able to meet the needs of the two small children they have. If their children were all grown adults I would not hesitate a bit in applauding their decision to do whatever they felt was best for them. Though being on the campaign trail while facing a terminal illness sounds like torture to me, it might be what will give them the greatest peace and fulfillment in the face of this tragedy. But it is not just them, or their adult daughter. These are very young children who will be losing their mother in their childhoods. This will shape their lives in the most profound way and, though my head says John and Elizabeth Edwards have every right to continue this race, my heart longs for them to be home in North Carolina with their children.

George Bush was given a pass on his disease...alcoholism...and how it would affect his judgements and world view as president. Why shouldn't John Edwards get a pass on how his wife's condition would affect his presidency.
The fact that Couric didn't ask that question is actually to her credit.
Couric,like the other network "anchors", is no longer a journalist if she ever was one. She is, is, like her colleagues, in the 'info-tainment' business.
Her interview of the Edwards reflects that.

An insensitive hit job? But I thought Katie reigned supreme as the female representative of the evil liberal biased MSM. At least that is what I hear on a daily basis on the web, cable "news" and radio. How could a MSM maven do a hit job on a liberal candidate? I mean.....are they not all in cahoots with one another?

If she had been easy and lobbed soft balls, that would have been plastered all over Drudge, Hannity, Rush and Coulter as yet another example of how unfairly "their" folks are treated and how the other side has it made.

What I typically find is that the MSM does their job and does it well and they do it fairly. I watched the interview and admit that it made me uneasy, but she asked legitimate questions that people are wondering. In short, she did her job.

What would people rather see, Ann Coulter saying, "hey faggot, aren't you trading on your wife's cancer to get the sympathy vote?" Now THAT would be insensitive.

Keith,

We can only hope that Ann Coulter would be dumb enough to say something similar. Maybe that way we could get her bounced from the MSM all together!

C. Brown,

Ann calculates an oops moment about every 6 months to stroke her vanity and keep her name out in public. Unfortunately, she only loses a venue or two here and there because of it.

Sometimes I cringed at Couric's questions, i.e. "How did you feel..." But then the Edwards would invariably come back with an astute answer that made perfect sense. So, overall, I believe this interview allowed the Edwards to cover all the questions, soft and hard, that they need to get public, without falling into the trap of evoking over-sympathetic reactions. Couric is not my favorite t.v. personality; still seems (to me) immature, & not quite objective enough, (and that terrible make-up job on this interview), but I acknowledge her sincerity and I believe the interview strengthened John and Elizabeth's image and my belief for their decision.

KC,

More than the make-up, she looked like she was sucking on a lemon. Maybe she is just trying to develop the gravitas here critics believes she lacks.

First let me preface this by sending best wishes to Elizabeth Edwards and the entire Edwards family as she goes forward with her fight. As for the interview, if you accept the premise that A) Elizabeth Edwards being diagnosed with cancer is news because B) she's married to a prominent candidate for President of the United States, and C) his and his family's response to the issue in regards to remaining in the race is news, than I see nothing wrong with Couric's asking of the question.

James, not to steal too much from your TV territory, but imagine if on the West Wing Jed Bartlett's MS had been revealed during the first campaign - surely asking questions about it, the decision to keep running despite the diagnosis, and whether the disease would effect his abilities as president would have been newsworthy and appropriate. In fact, it's because Bartlett didn't submit to those questions and kept it secret that he got censured eventually. So to me, Couric asked the questions that needed to be answered, in a respectful manner.

If I were Katy Couric I would gather up my millions and go back to the University of Virginia to teach journalism. She has had great and varied experiences as a journalist, and in my opinion, does a creditable job with whatever she is given. I think her CBS news broadcast is fresh, but obviously very few people who watch the news are ready for a fresh approach. Katy comes across as a warm,caring, passionate human being which is not what people who watch the nightly news seem to be looking for in an anchor person. And let me just add this-I think the fact that she is a woman bothers some people-not me, I am a viewer of Katy- I just think it is extremely hard for women to break that glass ceiling as an anchor. I wonder if Katy is enjoying her j0b.

I used to like Katie Couric.

I lost all respect for Katie Couric on the Today show when she would be interviewing people who had lost a loved one in a tragedy in the past 24 hours and ask with so much pain in her face, "so...how does it feel ?"

I wish someone would have stuck a microphone in her face the day after her husband died and asked her the same question.

She is just another shill -

There is a reason that Katie is not cutting it. Credibility could be the reason.

Now, as noted in Swampland, a follow up of other candidates with health issues is in order since there is no rewind.

McCain: Age, Melanoma with some clinical expertise, temper-is it related to PTSD which would be a serious consideration

Mitt Romney: Wife's MS which clinically as a progressive disease needs much more discussion that it has been given with the 'pass' of his announcement week coverage.

Giuliani: Prostate Cancer and the odds of recurrences.

Bill of the Hil: His health is relevant as they have long been sold as a 'couple' package.

Any other candidate that to date has a health issue. Or the pass that folks like Rush gets without a real clinical discussion of the amount of oxycontin that he took as an addict. More discussions are being heard on the MSM about addiction as a disease, which is good, but the effects of long term use even while in remission is ignored much as the above poster noted the 'Bush' question. Tom DeLay is another shining example. Addictive personality + usage have real consequences. long term effects.

The really unfortunate thing that is 'the bother' is that while this focus was happening, many significant and more timely political stories went untold.

His wife is dying from an incurable disease and what may give it most meaning at this point is participating as best she can in his campaign. It is the nature of that business that makes this all important. You can't take a leave of absence from it, which I assume Couric did when her husband was dying.

I imagine that the Edwardses would welcome an opportunity to respond to the things people are saying about them. When one is judged by strangers (or friends, too, for that matter), one ought to have a chance to respond. My opinion is that we have no right to judge how the Edwardses are dealing with Elizabeth's illness. They may be public figures, but their private life is private.

My problem with the "Some say..." formula is that it's been used effectively by Fox News to get away with saying awful things that may or may not have been said by anyone other than Fox. (See the video "Outfoxed"). There are other ways that Ms Couric could have done the same thing without echoing something that, for me anyway, has distasteful associations.

To your question: It's KC's tone and (as noted by Keith) the visual of lemon-sucking that produce a visceral NO to her conduct of this particular interview.
Which is not a big rap on KC - everyone has moments of not rising fullyt to the occasion. What was left in the dust was John Edwards' side of the marriage: yes, we see that Elizabeth is a tough, feminine, wonderful individual. Now, is John up to being her mate and standing by her, and being there for the kids? The answer is probably "Yes", but it depends on how things go during the race and afterwards - he may change his mind about the candidacy. But were he to be elected, he had better have the real concern for the nation to think out and deliver on a strategy.
Think FDR ...

Spencer Jones
Westwood, MA

Now, would Ms. Couric challenge Tony Snow over the possibility that the announcement of his cancer relapse might be something that the Administration can use either to elicit sympathy and (by proxy) softball questions or to serve as the distraction-du-jour that takes some of the scrutiny off of the White House?

That may seem beyond the pale, but if it is germane in one direction, why not in the other?

It wasn't just the questions - yes, they needed to be asked and the Edwardses did a masterful job at responding to them. Her extremely cold and tense demeanor was off-putting at best. There were no genuine acknowledgement of their (very personal) assertions and rationale re: their decisions... no transitional remarks. Couric just seemed to focus from her own agenda, no sorry, "some say"....