John Edwards and Cancer

[Rearden]

Until today I hadn't heard much of him outside of Ann Coulter's bad attempt at humor/slander.

Let me preface a question by saying that I have lost loved ones to cancer and have myself dealt with the disease.

How does this announcement and his intent to stay in the race impact your thoughts on his campaign/person (if they impact your thoughts at all)?

Though I think that it's a very stiring story and wish Mrs. Edwards the best (which sadly may just be leading an active life until she can die with dignity and peace) I find the concept of running for anything while someone that close to you is dying pretty shocking. I know she is hardly on her deathbed at this moment and that treatment could extend her lifespan to... who knows... but the point is that running for the most challenging office in the world (in an election year where the campaigns are likely to be pretty heated) is a full time job; as is perhaps being with someone that you love during such a time.

Im curious as to other peoples opinions on this issue. I dont know if Im way out there on this or if even in a person's evaluation of a candidate this is something of a third rail. I am not saying that he's some horrible monster for this... just that Im glad he's not a member of my family. [I did not intend to vote for him regardless in the primary or main election... unless it was him vs mitt romney at which point I feel as though Canada is the obvious choice]

Again, best of luck to Mrs. Edwards and anyone else dealing with this terrible disease.

[AlexM]

The form of cancer involved looks so mild that it's questionable that this is even news. Seems more like an attempt to get Edwards some more name recognition to me.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
The form of cancer involved looks so mild that it's questionable that this is even news. Seems more like an attempt to get Edwards some more name recognition to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards does not need name recognizion (VP Democratic candidate in 2004 - hello?)

I still see Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers everywhere - it's our way of saying "don't blame us" when all goes to hell

and I'd love to see you shrug off incurable bone cancer as "mild" - esp. after getting it from a struggle with breast cancer.

If he gets even close, the dead pool on Elizabeth Edwards will be disgusting - half the Repubs will want her clinging to life so they can chide him for running should he get the nomination, and the other half will be praying she doesn't die and give him a sympathy vote.

The well-wishes Republicans pay her the next few months as the primaries unfold will be as phony as the oaths they took when they swore to protect the constitution - and they'll play dirty with it too in the Primaries and the General Election -

I actually think it will hinder him in his run, since a spouse campaigning for you is almost a requirement these days, but I expect the ghouls to be out chanting in force any day now about what a terrible family decision it will be and how could he do that to her by still running, blah, blah blah.

rb

[Mickey Brausch]

It is not at all morally inappropriate for him to be running while his wife is dead/sick/cheating/a lesbian. All these non-issues mostly concern the American voters, it seems, rather than voters in other western democracies. (In France, for example, the president had a well known affair and an "illegitimate" daughter from that affair without so much as a ripple in the media. In Italy, Berlusconi's serial philandering is an issue that concerns only the comedians --- and I don't mean the Italian Congress.)

But while there is nothing morally wrong with it, it'll probably be political suicide for his candidacy.

The best course, realistically speaking, IMHO, is for Edwards to run as the "sympathy candidate" for awhile and then play king maker.

Mickey Brausch

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
All these non-issues mostly concern the American voters, it seems, rather than voters in other western democracies.

[/ QUOTE ]

but to be fair, usually only in the primaries of their opponents - [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

rb

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The form of cancer involved looks so mild that it's questionable that this is even news. Seems more like an attempt to get Edwards some more name recognition to me.

[/ QUOTE ]


If he gets even close, the dead pool on Elizabeth Edwards will be disgusting - half the Repubs will want her clinging to life so they can chide him for running should he get the nomination, and the other half will be praying she doesn't die and give him a sympathy vote.

The well-wishes Republicans pay her the next few months as the primaries unfold will be as phony as the oaths they took when they swore to protect the constitution - and they'll play dirty with it too in the Primaries and the General Election -

rb

[/ QUOTE ]

(preface: I am libertarian...usually vote for repubs when no LP cand. on ballot)I feel sorry for the guy on a human level. I know I would not like my wife to be diagnosed with a disease like this, and even though I agree with almost nothing Edwards says, I do not wish harm or illness upon his family.

(on to my thoughts on the words above mine)

You have serious issues if you think repubs would use the death or illness of someones wife to try to gain some advantage....and even if they were evil m f ers, they wouldnt. number one edwards is really a non factor in the primary...he has no chance of winning as long as BO and HC are in it. Two, he failed as a running mate with Kerry, he wont be on the ticket as VP. Three...any trace of this kind of distastful tactic and the press would have a field day. The negativity toward the repub party would be huge for years. The only person I could see conspiring to use this would be Hillary and her attack machine. But Edwards is so far behind her she has no need do it.

(Back to the original question of....)

"Should he stay in the race? " Really thats for him and his wife to decide. I know if I was in the same situation I would likely drop out and re-evaluate after some indication of how she was responding to treatment. He is still young for the job he seeks....so even 4-8 years down the road....he is not too old for the job. He has plenty of money from raking doctors over the coals in the legal system...it's not like he needs the paycheck. But all that being said...I dont think there is a right and wrong way for him to proceed. I dont judge him based on this choice....I would never vote for him anyway.

[4 High]

Combine this with his low poll numbers and his fund raising expecting to come in 3rd at best, i dont understand why hes staying in.

[NickMPK]

The notion that Edwards is too far behind in this race to matter is silly. The national polls are not useful at this point. The candidate who does best in the four states that vote before Feb. 5 will gain a huge amount of momentum going into the big state primaries. These are the polls you need to look at:

- Iowa: Edwards has been winning in the polls here for months, although Hillary has recently closed the gap.
- Nevada: Edwards making a big push here, although there hasn't been much polling; a lot of speculation that he could get the endorsement of the relevant labor unions.
- New Hampshire: Probably not great for Edwards.
- South Carolina: Edwards won it last time; right now looks like a close three-way race.

Basically, Edwards is as strong as anyone in these four states. He doesn't have anything locked up, but he's got more groundwork laid that Clinton or Obama. Overall, I think it's a pretty even fight, assuming Edwards continues his campaign at full strength.

[John Kilduff]

Maybe I'm just selfish but if I had $10 million plus a sweet wife I'd retire and spend time with her instead of running for President (which would apply even more if she might only have a handful of years left to live). Of course that's just me, and we can't know what their personal feelings on such things are. I'm not saying I think poorly of Edwards for this; just that it would be foreign to my way of thinking and feeling about such matters.

[4 High]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that Edwards is too far behind in this race to matter is silly. The national polls are not useful at this point. The candidate who does best in the four states that vote before Feb. 5 will gain a huge amount of momentum going into the big state primaries. These are the polls you need to look at:

- Iowa: Edwards has been winning in the polls here for months, although Hillary has recently closed the gap.
- Nevada: Edwards making a big push here, although there hasn't been much polling; a lot of speculation that he could get the endorsement of the relevant labor unions.
- New Hampshire: Probably not great for Edwards.
- South Carolina: Edwards won it last time; right now looks like a close three-way race.

Basically, Edwards is as strong as anyone in these four states. He doesn't have anything locked up, but he's got more groundwork laid that Clinton or Obama. Overall, I think it's a pretty even fight, assuming Edwards continues his campaign at full strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

When your opponents will have 2-3x as much money then you and much more ground support it will be really hard. I think the only way Edwards wins the nomination is if Hillary keeps attacking Obama and Obama finally relents and attacks back. This would allow Edwards to pull a Kerry and sneak in. Otherwise i dont see him winning the nomination.