<p>Well you’d have to do the same to McCain, 1sokkermom. I would love to know why he cheated on and ditched the woman who stood by him and raised his kids while he was a POW, for a woman who was better able to fund and promote his political career. Love, ambition, or just an inability to keep it zipped?</p>
<p>To me that’s more of a story than why a married couple chooses to stay married.</p>
<p>I think the Edwards know as well as anyone that the cancer revealation will probably hurt the campaign more than it will help. Many Americans simply do not like to associate themselves with misfortune. Studies have shown that employees diagnosed with cancer often get fired over it. It’s not that long ago that cancer was such a dirty word that Gilda Radner didn’t find out what her aunts died from till it was too late for her. </p>
<p>And all these power of positive thinking people are now even recommending that you don’t look at fat people–avert your eyes, pretend they don’t exist, otherwise you might get fat yourself–can you imagine what they’d say about voting for someone married to a woman with cancer? </p>
<p>I think the Edwards are sticking, both for the personal reasons that posters have noted, and also because it gives them an opportunity to raise awareness about and destigmatize people with cancer. Additionally, given how grave the issues are facing America today, if you think there’s a good possibility that you could win, wouldn’t you feel obligated to try for as long you could to stick it out, regardless of the personal toll?</p>
<p>^ I agree. However, my comment was directed specifically at the NY Times article that was linked, and the decision to run it. The Times endorses Hillary, thus my comment about her personal decisions, whether they be for love or ambition. If the Times opts to question other candidates personal decisions, they should clearly discuss some of the more contoversial and <em>emotional</em> decisions made by their chosen candidate for public view and opinion.</p>
<p>I do not want to turn this in to a political squabble. ;)</p>
<p>My best wishes to you and your wife, mini. It must feel wonderful to have such a positive prognosis. I have two close friends who are breast cancer survivors - strong and positive women - who have been cancer free for 10 and 6 years, respectivly. They are true inspirations to me, and all who know them.</p>
<p>And thanks, Berurah and garland. I agree, but couldn’t find the words.</p>
<p>If you don’t want to turn this into a political squabble, you probably ought to lay off manifestly untrue and inflammatory statements like, "The [NY] Times endorses Hillary. . . . their chosen candidate . . . " That’s talk-radio crap, not honest discussion.</p>
<p>(Not to mention that the reason you know about a lot of those personal decisions is that the New York Times was willing to publish ANYTHING critical about the Clintons during the mid-90s.)</p>
<p>Mini, I had not read of your wife’s cancer before, but I’m glad to hear that things look so good. Best wishes to both of you!</p>
<p>Thank you, also, for putting the 5-year survival statistics in perspective. I have another point to add. 5-year statistics are moving targets when treatments are continually being improved. The quoted survival rate reflects the effectiveness of treatments more than 5 years ago. I expect that survival rates will be higher 5 or 10 years from now. </p>
<p>If I were in Mrs. Edwards’ situation, I would say to myself, “Why shouldn’t I be in the 16% who survive?” (Or 25%, or 45%, or 2%) From what I know of her, she has been living the (deeply) examined life since her son died. I think that she has made deliberate choices about how to spend her time and energy, and I can’t imagine that this latest health event would change those choices. Whenever she speaks about her cancer, she mentions her concern about those with similar health issues who are without her advantages (health insurance, access to top doctors, support of family and friends). Her deep concern about the plight of the less fortunate in our society is a driving force in her life. On the spectrum of involvment of political spouses, she is about as far from the appendage end as one can get. She is her husband’s closest and most trusted advisor, well-versed on the issues, and an effective advocate for his campaign.</p>
<p>Excerpts from an article in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle:</p>
<p>"What he is doing is absolutely the most positive thing for his wife,‘’ said Matthew Loscalzo, director of Patient and Family Support at the Rebecca and John Moores University of San Diego Cancer Center, who has studied the relationships of men whose spouses have cancer. "If he quit, what is he going to do after he asks her every 20 minutes, ‘How are you feeling, darling?’ "</p>
<p>But surely, critics said, Edwards would be better served if he devoted his time to helping Elizabeth. People who have never spoken to Edwards or his wife had no problem telling them that he owed it to Elizabeth to focus on her. After all, they said, it was the right thing to do.</p>
<p>Cancer survivor Mary Lievore admitted she "got a little peeved’’ at all the talk-show conversation. Lievore has metastatic, stage 4 cancer, just like Elizabeth Edwards. In the 11 years since she has been undergoing treatment, she has learned something that the Edwardses are just now finding out: When you have cancer, it gives nearly everyone else a license to offer advice.</p>
<p>"Oh, yeah,‘’ she says. "People come out of the woodwork to tell you what you should do.‘’</p>
<p>But while others can tell us they think they know how Elizabeth Edwards is feeling, Lievore has cancer in her bones. Before you get too preachy, listen to what she had to say.</p>
<p>"I don’t know of any more devastating news in life than that there is no more hope of a cure,‘’ she said. "But at the same time, life goes on. You can’t just sit in a corner and drop dead.‘’</p>
<p>My sister was told fifteen years ago that the five year survival rate for peope in her situation was less than 10%. She’s heading for Paris next month. She did participate in a clinical trial of a new protocol. We feel like it saved her life, but her experience was the exception, so the protocol was abandoned. But it goes to show that someone has to be in the % that make it, so why not you?</p>
<p>One thing I remember from a sociology of medicine course I took was that the patients doctors don’t like (the ones who question everything and want to be involved in all their treatment decisions) are more likely to survive than the passive patients that just accept whatever they’re told. My sister was definitely in the self-advocate camp.</p>
First of all, I still think that the Edwards family has the same right to privacy as any other family in America. Secondly, the person mentioned above has been dealing with metastatic breast cancer for 11 years. That’s great news! It really can be considered a chronic disease, maybe in the same sense as HIV, so to expect John Edwards to quit everything else right now seems a little premature to me.</p>
<p>The fact that someone has to be in the smaller group works both ways. A while ago I had lunch with a friend who is an oncologist, treating children at a top hospital. At one point in the conversation I noticed that she looked very sad. I asked what was wrong and she burst into tears. She told me that it was the 5-year anniversary of the death of one of her patients, a little girl who had a childhood cancer with a 95% cure rate. This hit her very hard, both because she had become very attached to the girl and her parents, and because she felt that she had failed. Given the high cure rate. it was hard for her to accept the death. I urged her to call the parents and let them know she was thinking of their child on that day.</p>
<p>Yes in early 2006 they published a very controversial piece about the Clinton’s marriage and private life which I linked to on another thread. At least they’re being consistent, which I hope they continue to be.</p>
<p>It’s not a question of “expecting” the Edwards’ to do something and how distasteful that may be so some: it’s a question of whether to allow open debate about personal lives or not. Imo, it’s too late to clamp down on discussion about politicians’ private lives–we’ve been living on an Oprah society for quite a while now. These personal issues for good or ill will be deciding factors in voters’ decisions.</p>
<p>I would just like to point out that there is a difference between quitting everything else and running for President of the United States.</p>
<p>I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that John Edwards or his wife should stop all activity and stay at home. The discussion is focused on one particular activity: attempting to become President of the United States, an activity that requires a reasonable assumption of 24/7 availability of the candidate over specified periods of time at least five and a half years into the future.</p>
<p>None of us has a guarantee of good health in the future. If he were elected President (which would not make me happy!) and THEN his wife became ill, the situation would be the same.</p>
<p>ID raises a good point. The Edwards have enough money to do whatever they wanted. Unlike a lot of people with cancer, who have to stay in harness if they hope to have insurance or stayed housed, the Edwards could find plenty of life-affirming things to do.</p>
<p>So why run? Although Edwards is not my pick, to me his staying in the race keeps coming back to love of country. There’s so much at stake in who we elect as President in 2008, especially given the skyrocketing national debt and the growing movement on the right to accelerate the Rapture by launching an unprovoked nuclear attack in the Middle East.</p>
<p>It can’t be easy to choose to spend less time with each other and with the children right now than their resources would afford, but I can see how they might feel that duty compels them.</p>
<p>Could be. Alternatively, it could be just good ol’ fashioned blind ambition, which is certainly the case with virtually all serious Presidential candidates.</p>
<p>I got attacked earlier in the thread for saying that I would give Edwards a pass for now. I don’t think he and and his wife have had time to fully work through the realities he faces.</p>
<p>Once he has worked through the realities, I think he will realize (or be forced to realize) that he is no longer a viable candidate. After coming to that realization, he may still remain in the race. After all, plenty of candidates campaign for other reasons even when they know they have no chance of actually becoming President (see Ralph Nader).</p>
<p>The only thing I have to say about it is my prayers go out for the Edwards’ family. It is undoubtedly a difficult situation for them, and I believe they will do what they think is best for their marriage and their family and their country and will support any decision they make.</p>
<p>I feel so bad for this family, first losing a son and now her battle with breast cancer. This family has won my heart. She has been instrumental in helping others with the same disease often giving advice to a political opponent going through the same thing. It is obvious that she does not want her husband to give up his dream to run for President. </p>