Apologizing and Clarifying

A response to this post is from Elizabeth Edwards and her comments can be found here–for a lot of reasons I believe this is actually Elizabeth Edwards and as soon as I finish this post I’ll follow it up with an e-mail.

Usually I would let a post like this slide, figuring life is short and no one bats 1000%. But I also know how lore is built, particularly on the internet. The post itself is a great example of that actually, moving from a post elsewhere about the 2004 differences between David Axelrod and me (David Axelrod knows that I like him personally then and now) to a conclusion in this post that I was, well, a pretty awful sort of person altogether, with an odd reference to Mudcat Saunders. Mudcat and I are a dear friends; I have always respected him and I think the feeling is reciprocated. It has been that way from the beginning and I have remained one of his strongest cheerleaders. The post is simply wrong. Wrong on the facts but most wrong in the huge leaps it takes.

But listen, wives have a tough time in this. Do I want the best for John? You bet, but not one smidgen more than Christie Vilsack or Cindy McCain do for their husbands. And these women will — when and if the time comes — spend a lot of themselves in the campaign that bears their husband’s — and their — name. They will know although it is not their campaign, it is their life that will be affected. It was unfair in 1992 to suggest that Hillary not speak up in Bill Clinton’s campaign; it is unfair to suggest that if one of us expresses our opinions, pro or con, on anything that we are being petty and certainly unfair to suggest that we are being vindictive.

You can have at me. You don’t have to like all you see. None of us ever expects to bat 1000%. But — and this is not just for me but for all the spouses — be fair.

First, an apology–the post wasn’t clear in what I was saying and several other people I talked to noted that to me. I’m sorry for giving the impression that she has a bad relationship with the two people listed, though I think it’s safe to say the professional relationships were strained at times. It was sloppy writing and I’m sorry for hurting Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings. She is an incredible woman and doesn’t deserve that.

Second, the point I was trying to make was that she has people who absolutely love her and people who absolutely hate her. I think that’s very accurate and even her strongest advocates will say that. I don’t see that as a bad thing because one thing that such loyalty brings are people who will work their asses off for you and I intended for the point to be made with the rhetorical question of what is the problem then? What is clear in my mind isn’t always so clear in my writing. There are a couple testimonials to her in comments that fit with other descriptions I’ve heard previously and they are quite touching.

And the post isn’t about spouses only, though they often are the most frequent category of person fitting into this sort of problem. I think any candidate who had a remarkably talented wife would be stupid to not include her or him in the campaign–as some pointed out this sort of complaint that the wife is involved is often a sexist point.

The point was supposed to be far more narrow and clearly from the reaction, I didn’t make it very well which is my fault and I can’t blame Elizabeth Edwards or some commenters for calling me on it because I reread the post as a neutral observer I’d probably have come to the same conclusion.

So the point was supposed to be in regards to her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword. But here is the key to what I meant:

The problem then? Campaigns cannot be run when the entire staff has to answer to someone outside the traditional hierarchy. It creates fear and people tend to avoid taking risks.

To me the problem isn’t the spouse is involved, it’s that in this case, as I understand it, there are problems with the way the campaign is managed with people answering to more than one voice at the same time. Elizabeth Edwards is free to disagree on that point as well–in fact, she’s welcome to a front page posting if she so desires.

It is great that she reads blogs and that she sticks up for herself. It shows one of many reasons she is considered very smart politically (as I did say–many think she’s the brighter of the two which is pretty high praise given John is pretty smart himself).