Is it good for the country to have John and Elizabeth Edwards continue to campaign?

I remember Paul Tsongas being asked how he thought the country would react to having a President suffering from cancer. Tsongas replied that the country would learn to go through the process of battling cancer, just as the President would.

I think that lives will be saved by having the country go through the process of seeing how a high profile political family battles this terrible disease. Elizabeth Edwards's has shown the importance of early detection and regular medical checkups. As the Edwards go through the dual rigors of a Presidential campaign and cancer treatments, they can also highlight the importance of bringing health care to all Americans. Cancer hits the poor a lot harder than it hits the middle and upper class. Millions of Americans without health insurance do not seek medical attention until it is no longer possible to ignore the symptoms of disease. This is particularly true in diseases in which early detection is so critical, such as prostrate, colon, and breast cancers.

The poll question is, is it good for the country to have John and Elizabeth Edwards continue to campaign? Regardless of how you reply, please provide comments. Thanks

but to continue on. Usually the other spouse must keep working. Why shouldn't they proceed as if they were Mr and Mrs Joe America?

I pray for the best outcome,for the Edwards Family. The comments about health care for all Americans was spot on. That is why I support him at this time.

There has been a lot of poison from the right already about how he should drop everything and hover over his poor, sick wife.

The best answer to that one is to remind them of how one of their candidates dealt with the same situation, served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from breast cancer surgery.

They hate that.

Edwards staying in the race. You mentioned "One of their candidates" and how he mishandled a similar situation. I've gota better one than that! John McCain battled cancer HIMSELF! HE'S the darn candidate!!!! I don't see or hear any Pubs saying HE should drop out!!!

So did Rudy...and it caused him to pull out of his matchup with Hillary in 2000.

So no, they haven't a leg to stand on about this.

B-)

Had surgery in early 2003. I think that's another reason he didn't take some of the right wing attacks seriously. After you've faced war and cancer, he's a flip-flopper must sound hysterical as a serious attack.

You know, family values for us, a ticket out of responsibilities for them.

I rub their noses in their hypocrisy over Newtie. It's very effective.

but...I like John Edwards a LOT. I admire his
wife, Elizabeth. Her courage, of course - but
also her humanity.

I realize that John Edwards is a distant third
right now, but I truly believe American needs him.
And yes, America needs Elizabeth Edwards as First
Lady, in the best and truest sense of the term.

I guess I'm being selfish.

coming from them and ours going back. They are admirable.

And it's good for the Edwards as well; so long as she feels like travelling, it's far better than having her sit at home every day waiting for test results, etc.

If it is what they want to do, it's fine with me.

No offense to Indiana, but it's a morbid SUCKY poll.

And btw, Tsongas ran for president, not first lady.

A poll like this is tacky because it assumes that Elizabeth has been handed a death sentence.

She could outlive you, your kids and your grandkids for all you know.

This poll is not cool. Not cool at all.

I think that's the point I was trying to make in the OP.

And again, you have no idea how long she'll live.

She could easily out-live you by 30 years or more.

YOU DO NOT KNOW.

BTW, I noticed the DU'ers who voted that Edwards should drop out didn't have the balls to explain why.

I'm sorry Indiana, but the poll is tasteless.

I beg to differ in your characterization of the OP poll.

And besides-- when has anyone on here ever listened to Paul Begala?

Ever?


---You think the poll was fine. I found it inappropriate.

---You believe Elizabeth was handed a certain death sentence, I believe that there's always hope.

Let's just agree to disagree. :shrug:

Having hope is fine, but one cannot escape the necessity of entertaining the potential scenario of having the Democratic nominee off the campaign trail at a crucial time because his/her spouse is critically ill (this applies to all candidates, not just Edwards).

It is indeed brave for both of them to continue with the campaign, but, at the same time, she needs to honor what her body's telling her about the rest it needs to heal--or as least to TRY to heal. While it will probably--most of the time, at least--lift her spirits to help John in his quest over the next year, how much will it help her in her battle?

Not to sound wishy-washy, but on the one hand, I admire them both greatly--especially her--for deciding to continue. On the other hand, having witnessed my mother fight a year-long losing battle with this disease, I want Elizabeth to have a fighting chance to get well, and not to see her get worse. I'll just lay it on the line: if John Edwards makes it to the White House in January 2009, I want to see Elizabeth walk through its doors with him.

In either circumstance, her bravery in this situation is beyond words for me.

B-)

it smacks of FDR's "splendid deception" which devalued people with disabilities by raising expectations. So that the public began to believe that if people with disabilities could "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" with no help from anyone else.
When people get sick they take on a role where if they are a "good sick person" they will be plucky in good humor and just do their job and try to get well. Anyone who does not meet those expectations is just feeling sorry for themselves.
God forbid a person need public assistance or need to stop working altogether they should find a way to keep working if they are dedicated to their role.
Similar to what happened with the Splendid Deception, having a person publicly take on that role and play the "good sick person" to the hilt does not help people who are not able to "keep up."

The country goes through this process every minute of every day in some house or hospital somewhere in America. Having been primary caregiver to two family members with terminal cancer at different times, both times lasting more than a year, both of whom died in their beds, I will tell anyone who hasn't been through this hell on earth that the focus is absolute for the entire family. There just isn't anything else happening. The rest, even a presidential campaign, is small change. It's hard for me to see how turning this family tragedy into a public campaign can be counted on to work as planned.

My family never had the money or resources Elizabeth Edwards will have, of course, so it's a very different matter, however well it fits into the OP's point, and I have some difficulty viewing the subject unemotionally, as well. But I keep thinking about my much older sister who, probably as a coping device, railed bitterly against Rose Kennedy, who died around the same time as our mother. My sister's claim was that our mother could have lived as long as Rose Kennedy had our family the same kind of money as the Kennedy family. And maybe so, but even if it were not true, the flood of pure resentment from my ordinarily timid and kind sister was shocking.

Reactions by the voting public will be very much colored by experience, and by pain; they will vary because of it. Some will see this as a courageous sacrifice for the good of the nation, while others will see it as politically opportunistic, or as something that should be kept a family matter, or even neglectful of the young children. And it will not be a right wing plot, necessarily, although we know it will be exploited by the other side, but elemental human reactions.

A clue might even lie in yesterday's sentiments expressed over thread progress here on DU. In the morning, before the press conference, when the rumor was spreading that the Edwards campaign would be suspended or ended, the reactions were along the lines of, "Now, this is true family values. John Edwards will give up his dream of the presidency for his ailing wife's sake." Universal applause. Immediately following the press conference and since, the posts were something like, "How wonderful, how brave, what a sacrifice for the country they will be making." Universal applause.

Which response is more true? Neither. Both are true. That many times yesterday both responses were often expressed by the same posters between morning and afternoon only says how volatile this issue actually can be. DU's response can represent the different ways this will be viewed among voters, and since just about every family has had or will have their own cancer experience, that won't be predictable.

She's got a tough battle to fight--but she could be fighting it for years. There will be good days & bad. Even if she's not at his side, watching him campaign will get her mind off how the chemo is making her feel. When he returns, they will have something else to discuss besides her disease. (Athough I'm sure it's never far from his mind, either.)

The time may come when he needs to concentrate on his family, 100%. But not yet.

but sure, anything to raise cancer awareness is a good thing.

Per J. Alter's recent biography, I believe the truth is that FDR went to great lengths not to SHOW that he was paralyzed. However, everyone KNEW he was paralyzed.

Just because he didn't want people to see him in a wheelchair didn't mean that everyone didn't know he was paralyzed.

Before he ran for president he ran his camp in Arkansas and most Americans were very aware of his health and his work at the camp.