Edwards to Continue '08 Bid Despite Wife's Cancer

The New York Times ^ | 3/22/07 | John Broder & Christine Hauser

[tiki]

Tell me about it, I've had to deal with her for 37 years. (I'm patting myself on the back. ;-)}

My husband tried to reason with her but it didn't help, hence the hissy fit I had in front of the Dr. which mortified her and she was desparate to shut me up. The Dr. had to go by her wishes, I guess, as my FIL was pretty out of it. I had to go behind her back and call my SIL and my FIL's sister and tell them that if they wanted to see him again they better come. I had gotten firm orders not to tell anyone to come home when I mentioned that we should call them. It was like she was ashamed that he had cancer or something. It was a pretty rough time but I found out that when I have to be I can be one strong woman.

On the very wonderful side, we farm and there was a lot that I couldn't do on the farm while my husband was with his father for most of 2 months, one weekend all his farmer friends came with their tractors and did all the spring work that needed to be done before planting.

[dc-zoo]

Rhemo sounds more accurate.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Thank you. It perfectly captures my loathing of Enviro-Wackos and my love of All Things Chocolate. :)

[MockTurtle]

OMG is that his wife? She's lost 50-75 pounds since her last go-around of public appearances, and she looks ashen-gray. If Stage IV, then I'd give her 6 months, tops.

She will not see Christmas. Even if she stays off the campaign trail, the stress caused by media coverage and polls on her husband will weaken her further.

And if you think John Edwards is sick...wait till you see the women who start throwing themselves at him on the campaign trail.

[veronica]

You are being very naive if you think this decision was his alone. I am 100% sure she is encouraging him to run.

[PackerBronco]

Presuming we need a candidate for whom Politics isn't their life, as evidenced by less than 6 years in the Senate I suppose, who on earth are you supporting?

To answer your question, I'll refer to a story about Reagan and Eugene McCarthy. When Reagan was running for president in 1980, Eugene McCarthy came out and supported him for president. People we surprised that a Democrat like McCarthy would support Reagan. McCarthy replied that he was supporting Reagan because "he was only candidate who understood the difference between being President and the Presidency."

Presidents need to be grounded in the human condition. One of the reasons that Reagan was a great president was that he never forgot that. I always felt that he was happy to be President, worked hard, did his best, and would be just as happy to leave the job as to keep it.

I distrust a candidate who's be-all and end-all is politics. Politics is a necessity of course, but if that is your focus and the only thing you live for, I don't want you anywhere near the Whitehouse.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Prayers for Mrs. Edwards' health.

[finnman69]

read what I wrote

[khnyny]

Becoming the Pope is along the same vein - the more the individual craves the position, the less deserving they are of the office. Humility and a desire to serve with integrity have to be the main desire and focus.

[tina07]

My great aunt did a similar thing to my grandfather (brother & sister). Once my mother arrived at her father's deathbed, having traveled from NJ up to Maine, as he lay moaning in excruciating pain, she demanded the doctor give her father pain medication immediately. God knows how long he had suffered with no medication, cancer also. Never heard why the aunt withheld medication from her own dying brother, and she didn't call my mother and grandmother until the very end, barely leaving them time to see him before he died.

[tina07]

as I've read many posts and now yours, I am thinking that perhaps he is staying in 'just for her' and really wanted to step down. She may not want him to quit because of her illness, but I think as she deteriorates he will stop campaigning when they both realize she can not do it anymore. All very sad for her and their family.

[from occupied ga]

Yeah, no one knows more than you. Especially not those of us fighting this battle on a daily basis.

The level of venom toward me exhibited by you and that other sanctimonious bag of wind, seanmerc, is truly astonishing. By your "logic" only someone who has had cancer or a relative who has had cancer is entitled to speak on the subject. You're both "Jersey Girls" claiming that your relatives' experiences somehow elevate you to say what you want without contradiction. Just ain't so. If that were the case your relative would be being treated by other cancer patients and their famlies, but I'd be willing to bet that your relative is being treated by an MD (who probably never had cancer)

Oh and BTW I had two close relatives die of cancer or cancer related causes (in one case heart attack during treatment). Does this entitle me to speak on your exhalted level of hypocrital sanctimony? It's TOTALLY irrelevant to any knowledge I have of the probabilities of survival as I said, that came from statistical analysis and background information in a clinical trial analysis job. So yes, I would say I probably know more about life tables with various treatment regimens than you do. So rather than whine at me for speaking the truth about the prognosis for Stage IV cancer of any sort (grim) accept it.

[seanmerc]

Tell you what--when you're able to make an intelligent argument without resorting to name-calling [I'm not from Jersey, nor am I a girl] and schoolyard insults, we can talk some more. I don't see that happening, though. People generally resort to name-calling, insults and the ever-popular "I know more than you" statements when their argument is weak and unsupportable, or they're just plain insecure. From the look of things, that's where you're at.

[from occupied ga]

Tell you what--when you're able to make an intelligent argument without resorting to name-calling

Well rather than call you a hypocrite I'll just say your posts are hypocritical. Poster r called me an "ass" because I posted an opinion she didn't like. You said, and I quote " hear-hear! Couldn't have said it better!", So I'd say the two of you started with the name calling. So I'd say that's where you started and went downhill from there.

[seanmerc]

If you're going to quote, at least take it in the whole context. I can understand how you might assume that I was referring to the name that the other poster called you. That was not the case. When I complimented the other poster for their comment, I was referring to the substance of their comments. I respected their feelings about cancer--you, on the other hand, did not. I don't like name-calling, by anyone. Having said all that, I understand why the other poster felt so strongly. You dismissed their point as invalid because they don't qualify as an expert in your eyes. Their experience, their opinions, their insights are not any more or less valid than yours. I looked at your profile page. You seem to revel in being disliked. I won't give you the satisfaction. I don't dislike you. I don't know you well enough to decide whether or not to like you, and I'm sure you don't care whether I (or anybody else) like you. That's fine. It would just be nice if you could give others a little respect. They will be more inclined to respect you and listen to you if you do. You have some good points to make. They just get lost in your hyperbolic rhetoric.

[from occupied ga]

If you're going to quote, at least take it in the whole context

So where did I

dismissed their point as invalid because they don't qualify as an expert in your eyes

[seanmerc]

We've been through it all already. You don't get it, and you're just trying to be obnoxious and antagonistic. You have succeeded. Over and out.

[from occupied ga]

We've been through it all already. You don't get it, and you're just trying to be obnoxious and antagonistic. You have succeeded. Over and out.

Like I said hypocrisy on your part from the get go.

[gulf1609]

Ditto
I find it hard to believe that John Edwards would not be insisting to his wife that they stop this campaigning, not for him, not for her, but for the two very young children. There is almost no doubt that at some point they will be without a mother. Why not make the hard, courageous, difficult, self-sacrificing choice to spend quality, normal family time with their two younger children. Travel, volunteer at school, be the Brownie leader, coach the sports team, help with the homework, play games. If you want to carry on with your normal life, then make a normal life for those two kids. A presidential campaign is not normal, even under the best of circumstances.

[reluctantwarrior]

I've been a soldier for 25 years, I've worked for so many men that wanted to be Generals that they would say do and condone any behavior or action. In the end they were horrible leaders because they lost their humanity and personal courage along the way to do the harder right then go along to get along.

They traded up when their wives got fat, they ignored their kids until there was a ceremony that needed a kid prop to show the family man tableau for the public. they whored around but went to the Post Chapel to show their piety. They lied about readiness and training metrics so they looked good. If caught they threw subordinates under the bus.

John Edwards cares little for wife and kids unless he needs them to be President. This is my opinion.

But I pity the wife as she lies alone in their bed at night sick from Chemo.

The children will resent the lack of his support during the hard times to come, it will mature them early and it will be a wedge he won't overcome.

If he cares about power here on earth then the FATHER will ensure he has none when he leaves it.