<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. :mad:</p>
<p>Having had a sister and two close friends battle this disease, I can tell you that the one thing they all had in common was their desire to continue on with their lives. Keep it as normal or as close to it as possible. They all still worked and cared for their families. Normal for Elizabeth Edwards is supporting her husband’s political career.</p>
<p>Their decision seems perfectly natural to me. </p>
<p>However,I see how the voters, me included, would be hesitant to elect Edwards for President. He’ll most certainly have his focus on the country’s issues diverted at times to his wife’s health. </p>
<p>As a voter, that concern also seems perfectly natural to me.</p>
<p>But then again, I’m a Hagel hopeful so my opinion doesn’t matter in any meaningful way anyway ;)</p>
<p>I think that CC’ers are coming down too hard on Interesteddad and Hereshoping. They’re entitled to their opinion. The first thing I thought when I read of her condition was, “What about those small children?” Sure they’re well off and can hire anyone they want to help with them, but they’re not Mom, and who knows how much good health she has left? What happenned to “kids first”? I guess its not in fashion anymore. Ambition (“love of country”) rules.</p>
<p>yeah, I’m sure their kids are the last on thing on their minds. AFter all, they already lost one, so they probably don’t pay any attention to the needs of the others…Just not in fashion anymore, yep, that sure makes sense.</p>
<p>some people! Hmmm…</p>
<p>Garland, there’s no need to be snippy because you don’t agree with me.</p>
<p>You’re right; there is entirely too much snippiness.</p>
<p>Thanks, glad we agree on something!</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I said their decision wouldn’t be mine (I’d want him to stay home and do some pro bono legal work while spending time with me and the kids), but I 'm not criticizing them for it, since I’m not in their shoes. I also have a feeling this is probably her choice more than his and that he’s doing it to make her happy. Perfectly understandable.</p>
<p>Not to be crass, but I agree with JHS that it may help his chances–I practically choked up watching him on tv yesterday. What they have gone through (this on top of the death of their son) is so sad. It will make it much harder for people to slam him–pure and simple.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, that’s an interesting way to look at it. (that it’ll help him). An article in the NY Times yesterday mostly said the same thing, although one guy was quoted saying that he’d be leery of voting for someone who may be preoccupied with health issues down the road.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know what you are saying, but lets not get carried away. Of course, the decision to continue campaigning is his. </p>
<p>Unless I have misread John Edwards, he’ll milk the sympathy vote for all it’s worth. Remember, this is the guy who once channelled the voice of a dead child to a jury and whose stump speech begins, “somewhere in America an 8 year girl went to bed hungry last night”…</p>
<p>By the time the Edwards have made the rounds on all the tabloid TV shows telling us that she couldn’t deprive the country of their savior, we’ll probably be begging for more Anna Nicole Smith stories.</p>
<p>
While I think that eveyone is absolutely entitled to his own opinion, I think that what the CCers are trying to say about ID’s contributions is that they seem gratuitously cruel and biting. In addition, he seems to be perseverating a bit and using his opinion on this very personal issue related to Elizabeth Edwards’s health to attack her husband in every way possible. If ID wants to register his opinion on this, he has done so…about fifty times over. I think we all know where he stands on this issue by now. 
<em>AND</em> how he feels about John Edwards, his job, etc.</p>
<p>hereshoping, I have not read your contributions, so what I posted here has nothing to do with you.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Gosh, does that mean you have me on “ignore”? :eek:</p>
<p>They’re on “60 MInutes” tonight.</p>
<p>As I said long ago in this post either way it doesn’t matter. Those who don’t like him are going to find ways to chip away via the thousand cuts and those that do will consider him heroic. He’s probably somewhere inbetween.</p>
<p>I heard an old saying the other day that makes some sense…Sweep your own front steps before you sweep anybodys else’s.</p>
<p>I just don’t think this is a situation that any of us are that worthy to comment on. I wouldn’t have voted for him before and I still won’t after this. However, he and his wife decided together and everybody should respect that. That’s more than some relationships have right there.</p>
<p>
Heck NO!!! 
It just means that I have had five kids home full time for a week, prom shopping, tons of schlepping, etc., etc., etc. and have only had time to skim most threads! Sorry if I made you think that I purposefully don’t read your posts. I actually read them regularly.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Thanks berurah.</p>
<p>I agree Opie; most marriages don’t survive the loss of a child. Say what you want about Edwards the candidate–his marriage appears to be strong and genuine.</p>
<p>Needless to say, Newt Gingrich is making a huge point of saying that the candidate’s personal lives should be off limits in this campaign. </p>
<p>No kidding. He’s got the most to lose, especially by comparison to Edwards.</p>
<p>Well, Newt’s right in the club there with McCain and Giuliani, right?</p>
<p>Newt’s treatment of his wife when she got cancer puts him in a class by himself though when compared to Edwards.</p>
<p>Calling a press conference to tell the world you’re leaving her for your mistress before you tell your wife (which is one of the things Guiliani did) is bad enough, but it kind of pales next to dumping your wife when she gets cancer and pressuring her to sign a property settlement while she’s in the hospital getting treatment.</p>
<p>And I completely forgot–Gingrich refused to pay his alimony or his child support. The Baptist Church in their hometown had to take up a collection to support the kids he abandoned.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/94_columns/122594.htm[/url]”>http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/94_columns/122594.htm</a></p>