indeed-y

Good for Edwards, but I am kind of curious exactly what Greg thinks is controversial about this.

Mark, good point. I guess I meant politically tricky.

I think this. Edwards is a good man, but excuse me for this--his wife is terminal and will die in not too long a time. He has been stricken and to continue on, as his wife slowly dies, seems to me somewhat inappropriate, as much as she wants to see his succeed.

Sorry, his life experience will affect his nomination. He is a good man, and she is a good woman--but we need to analyse this situation. He is in a life situation and his wife is terminal. We cannot apply some magical thinking to believe that she will even live two more years. It HAS TO HAVE AN EFFECT on his candidacy.

-

We all are terminal. That is the human condition.

And both the advice that they discussed on the day of their press conference and the recent news on the markers on the cancerous cells is that she is far from her sickbed. Since she would rather that the two of them continue with the campaign, and since they have the means to bring the children along with them on the campaign trail, there is no actual reason why they should not continue the campaign.

I don't think this is politically tricky at all for Edwards. In fact, quite the opposite: it is politically smart. First of all the general public benefits from repeatedly hearing "Fox News" associated with "the right-wing agenda." As we all know, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes true. Well, the same thing applies to the truth.

Second, this can't hurt Edwards because I'm willing to bet that the majority of Fox viewers are going to be voting for the Republican anyway, whoever that might be. The number of of Fox viewers who will say to themselves, "well, I was considering a vote for Edwards, but now..." has to be astronomically small.

In sum, it's good for the Edwards campaign, good for the public and most important, good for journalism.

Once again, Senator John Edwards has demonstrated LEADERSHIP. Again, he takes the lead while others follow.

Recently, Democracy For America asked each of the announced Democratic hopefuls to take a stand on the situation in Iraq. While Senator Obama and Governor Richardson subsequently also provided answers, Senator Edwards was first out of the box, responding almost immediately with a video specifically prepared for the DFA audience, setting both the tone and the standard for other responses which followed.

Mark my words, you'll see more of this. Despite the distractions he faces, Senator Edwards and his campaign have 'figured this thing out' and he will continue to lead, rather than follow. I am certain of that.

It's very early to commit, but I must say: I am very impressed with the conduct of Senator Edwards in the early stages of this campaign. And, I say that as an early Dean for America volunteer staffer with his feet on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona and Oregon, working opposite the first Edwards presidential campaign effort.

Sigh--but the contuance of theis campaign and bringinb along the young children is not, imo particulary commendable. Sorry, it is not.

Her condition is NOT CURABLE and will be, in a few short years, her death. Her children will not understand at all. AT some point in their maturity they may understand, but let us be realistic.

Elisabeth Edwards, not matter how much she says and how postive she sounds, will not live much longer. Unless one believes in religious miracles and I do not.

Ninepatch, how long do you have to live? Do you know for certain? There's a very good chance that Elizabeth Edwards will outlive you; the latest word is her prognosis says she can treat her cancer and live for decades.

The truth is, nobody gets outta here alive.

In the meantime, I'd rather be busy living than be busy dying.

Wouldn't you?

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

Good for him.

I like him more and more.

Even granting that what you say is true -- that Elizabeth Edwards will die before Edwards were to take office -- I really don't see the conclusion which you are apparently trying to draw, namely that his candidacy is either doomed or somehow callous.

I personally don't feel that I'm in a position to judge how other people deal with the prospect of a death of a loved one. Given their long term commitment to Democratic causes, I can certainly understand why both Elizabeth and John chose to continue. Obviously, if Elizabeth were to die, some time anyway would have to be taken out of his campaign to prepare for her death and as an appropriate grieving period. But that's something we must all deal with when a loved one dies of cancer or a like disease. Life must go on, in a manner of choosing appropriate and comfortable to the family. Obviously, there would be some impact on the campaign. Would it effectively end it? I can't presume to say so.

Really, again, I just don't see how I can put myself in a position to pre-judge how such an issue must be handled for another family.

What makes you think you can?

I'd just like to say that, as a doctor, I've read ninepatch's comments and I would diagnose ninepatch as being in a persistent vegetative state.

Part of me applauds Edwards, but the other part thinks this will bite him in the ass later -- or sooner -- because it's really a form of self-censorship.

I think his opponents can score points by agreeing with Edwards' characterization of Fox News, but being the bigger man (or woman) by still appearing at the debate as a means to communicate with the network's viewers, as well as others that will tune in.

I also think it leaves Edwards open to accusations of being a hypocrite when he appears on Fox Sunday News shows. Which he absolutely cannot avoid for the entire campaign.

By the way, does anyone recall the last time he did appear on a Fox News Sunday show?

How do you think Elizabeth Edwards' illhealth would affect Edwards' candidacy?

Damn right it'll earn Edwards another round of praise from Dems. Here's mine. Good going John. You're looking better every day.

Also, Repugnicans smear campaign tactics only work as long as Democrats yeild to them. Edwards' bold step says politely what I would like to say in private. What can they say in response that they havent already said about the couple! Bravo to Edwards! I am so glad Edwards isnt listening to polsters and instead listening to his instincts!!!

Too bad he didn't show leadership in the Senate to combat poverty. I'll grant that Edwards has leapfrogged way ahead of Obama in my book, but I'm still a bit skeptical of his ability for legislative leadership.

He seems quite naive in his approach to poverty and I hope he learns quite a bit more. But given that he went from doing nothing in the Senate to a leader now, hopefully he will take the time to do so. I'd be happy to support an effective anti-poverty candidate. Right now I just have a hard time overlooking his lack of initiative as a Senator. I still like that former economics instructor that's considering a run...

They gain more by hosting a Democratic debate than the Democratic candidates do by appearing on their little cable network

My 100 bucks on his way. Plus he is seriously pulling me away from Obama.

No one knows how long they will live.

Those of us who have not faced a terminal diagnosis, still do not know how long we will live. Some children only live five or more or less in their lives.

NONE of us know how long we will live. But, Elizabeth has had a diagnosis, and I assume it from the most succinct of diagnostic physicians--she is terminal and that does not mean that we can attribute any other causes from any of our hopes and dreams to combat the science. They have said to us that she is "incurable" and the fact is that she is "incurable" and will not live much longer.

What else can I say except that this is the reality. Elizabeth Edwards is stricken with an incurable cancer and it will cause her to suffer over the next years, the next short years, of her life. OK?

Elizabeth Edwards, much as we would like and wish and hope, will die in the future.

 Elizabeth was on Oprah today and she said that she plans to LIVE until she dies

. She also remarked that the people most unable to understand what her and John are doing are those who have not ever had cancer or a family/relative with cancer. They are the most judgemental of their decision and least compassionate. Those who understand the decision and the terminable nature of it appreciate and support her decision to LIVE until she dies.

Well thanks a lot, mr. MD. Feh

Get back to me in a couple of years, OK?

right. the difference is between a creeping, insidious right-wing agenda and a deliberate and deliberately dishonest right-wing agenda.

NYT:

After visiting her doctor last Friday in Chapel Hill, N.C., Mrs. Edwards said she learned that her cancer was more likely than previously expected to be controlled by drugs that control excessive hormone levels. She said that her doctor initially believed she had a “triple negative” form of cancer, which would be harder to treat this way, but that additional testing revealed otherwise.

The point is, you have no idea how long or how "short" she has, and it's silly to make such absolute statements. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

In light of this person making bets now on how long Edwards will live, I have no problem with the above language.

Troll rate me, too, if you'd like.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'd just like to say that, as a doctor, I've read ninepatch's comments and I would diagnose ninepatch as being in a persistent vegetative state.

Rather optimistic aren't we, Doc?

I suspect he's dead already.

Best, Terry

I keep a little money for sending to candidates when they do the right thing. It's a little Skinnerian, but what the hey. Edwards just earned some po$itive reinforcement.

I think this. Edwards is a good man, but excuse me for this--his wife is terminal and will die in not too long a time.

What the hell does any of this have to do with Edwards and the Fox debate?

Methinks I smell a concern troll ("Concern Trolls". Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn't pay to think about it too hard.)

I'm still not impressed. Its going to take a lot more than that to make up for the fact that John Edwards cosponsored the Iraq war resolution on the Senate side and voted for the bankruptcy bill.

Ninepatch,
Didn't you learn anything from Shavio?
Let the family decide what it wants to do and then SUPPORT AND RESPECT THE FAMILY'S DECISION.

I support Elizabeth Edwards and her decision.

"She is incurable and cannot live for more than two years"

So you are saying that nobody has ever survived with her prognosis for more than two years? Based essentially on the fact that you wish it to be so in order to score imaginary debating points online?

Anyway, you are basically saying that the five year survival rate for type IV breast cancer is 0%, because you are saying that the two year survival rate is 0%. That would be a factual claim, and that claim would be what is called in the trade a "lie", which would then make you a "liar", in the same category as the kid at camp who claimed to live in a mansion with a swimming pool bigger than the lake, or the President and Vice President of the United States when leading the country into a reckless and ill-advised foreign entanglement.

This is three year old data from MD Anderson on average survival...

Thanks, rmrd0000.

You probably know as well as the more knowledgeable that the data gives only the barest glimpse of the facts.

The average is probably the median. That would tell you nothing at all about how long (or short) a time any lived. It wouldn't even tell you what they died of. It wouldn't tell you what sort of cancer they had except as to a probable site of origin.

These data preceded development of newer agents many of which were not available during the observed period which ended in 2000. Some of the more potent agents have been available for five years or less.

Some are not "available" now; i.e., approved for marketing by the FDA.

There is one incredible statistic that is both frightening and encouraging. That is more women are developing more aggressive breast cancers at a younger age - and survival continues to lengthen. One can develop all manner of theories as to how that can be but the most obvious is that treatment is improving.

Good health and long life, Elizabeth Edwards.

Some remedial math and science for many of the rest of you.

Thanks again, rmrd0000.

Possible we taught the slow learners anything?

I suppose not but it can't hurt to try.

Best, Terry

Kudos to Edwards. He is 100% right on this.

"I hate those teddy bears," said a woman who had Stage IV breast cancer. She was one of the first volunteers in a double-blinded, controlled pivotal clinical trial of a breast cancer vaccine. For 5 years she waited for word that she had even gotten the vaccine. She and her doctor wouldn't be told until the trial was unblinded.

She complained mightily about all the pink teddy bears and feel good messages from the media and hucksters. She felt shunned by those in earlier stages of breast cancer. She said women who were in Stage IV made other women with breast cancer in earlier stages feel uncomfortable.

The woman's Stage IV breast cancer was one of the aggressive types. Not so nice knowing that as she waited year after year to find out if she had even gotten the drug and was checked regularly for 5 years to see if her Stage IV cancer was advancing.

Then finally she got the word. When the trial was unblinded, the lady found she was one of the lucky ones that had gotten the real vaccine instead of the placebo vaccine.

Then word came from the biostatistician that the vaccine had failed miserably.

I heard from the lady a few more times. She didn't know what to do. You see there was no approved drug for her cancer - until and if it started advancing again. She said she knew a number of others with Stage IV breast cancer in the same fix.

A Scottish scientist in Florida told me why the vaccine failed and why her pre-clinical drug that targeted the same receptor wouldn't. I didn't really understand why but then I don't know all about these receptors.

Neither did she.

The new drug was abandoned a few months later.

The drug targeted a carbohydrate receptor. Carbohydrates have been called the accent on the DNA word. Lots of people think they know a lot about those sugars on cells. They are used by tumors to form unstable tumor masses that can spread the cancer cells throughout the body. They also shield tumors from surveillance by the immune system that can kill cancer cells.

Not many glycobiologists in all the world that know about the sugars on cancer cells. Sadly they don't know much but at least they know they don't know.

Truth is none of us know much about cancer at all. We think we do sometimes.

We are learning. Slow going.

Thank you, Elizabeth Edwards, for helping us learn a bit more about breast cancer. Terribly sorry you have to do it the hard way.

Best, Terry

Why is John Edwards afraid of FOX NEWS? Really. Everyone knows it's a mouthpiece for the Republican/conservative point of view. So it's not like anyone expects anything other than leading questions that will either make the candidates look like crazy extremists or craven sell-outs or wimps. But people will filter all that out.

The funny part is that if this were Joe Lieberman or Harold Ford doing this, the netroots would be excoriating them for caving in to the DLC and wondering just why they don't want to appear at an event sponsored by African-Americans.

Come on, you know it's true.

Why is John Edwards afraid of FOX NEWS? Really. Everyone knows it's a mouthpiece for the Republican/conservative point of view.
-------
The voters aware of Fox's bias will not change their votes based on whether or not a Democratic Party debate is carried on Fox. The diehad wingnuts will view Edwards' position as cowardice. Hard core Democrats will view Edwards position as one of courage. Independent's will listen to Edwards debate on other networks and vote accordingly. Edwards can say that he will not appear on a GOP mouthpiece network. If other Democratic candidates pull out, they will be following Edwards lead-again, just as they did in Las Vegas. The overall impact of not appearing on Fox, a net plus for Edwards.
Since there is a financial cost to preparing for a debate, such as question prep, looking at issues of importance to various questioners, etc. Why expend the effort to gain virtually zero voters. Think about it, how many diehard Fox viewers will for Edwards?
The wise thing is not to participate.
Another point is why, except for Keith Olbermann and occasionally Scarborough and Carlson all on MSNBC, is MSM so reluctant to label Fox as a biased news channel? I do notice that Bill Hemmer formerly of CNN is now on Fox. Kiran Chetry formerly of Fox is now on CNN. Are reporters relucant to challenge Fox because it is a possible future employer?
Edwards can spin his position on Fox as showing backbone. Those who argue for having a Democratic debate on Fox have the harder case to make. Should there have been debates hosted by The Birmingham Alabama White Peoples Council in the 1960s?

I find it kinda chicken not to go.
I think if he went and let them know what he thought of them, that would be admirable.
------
A debate is not the format for Edwards to air a his feelings about Fox's bias.
Perhaps C-SPAN would be a proper format for such a discussion.
Consider the following scenario. Fox is there to sponsor the "debate". Fox's crawls roll comments about the "Democrat" Party. The moderator asks each candidate why they are qualified to be President. Edwards begins his comments by attacking Fox News. He would appear to be mentally unstable.
Responding to verbal taunts from Fox News is something associated more with a todler than a Presidential candidate.
Another consideration, you don't fight the battle that your enemy wants to fight, you make your adversary fight the battle you want to fight. Fox has to demonstrate that it is impartial. If Fox presses the issue, Fox would have to explain the Obama madrassa story and the fact that Rupert Murdoch stated in public that he tried to use Fox News' airwaves to garner support for the war.
Fox is not going away. It's biased impact can be managed by the proper candidate