CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 24, 2007 12:30 AM UTC
160 Comments
I wouldn’t put it above Edwards. But the Edwards probably were doing what they thought was right, and when your mind is muddled by the prospect of death, you make mistakes.
I don’t care about the press conference. I care about the decision to stay in the presidential race, which is likely to be changed, depending on Mrs. Edwards’ health.
A big group of folks, many cancer survivors and women, support the decision. Another big group, mostly men and conservatives, think it is wrong.
Speaking as one I understand and agree with their decision. It would be interesting to see if even a conservative male cancer survivor would disagree.
What gets me is all these people who know nothing about this spouting off. Cancer is not a reason to go hide at home any more than a broken leg is.
Those of us who have been through that know that.
but I am a survivor of open heart surgery to repair a defect that has already killed four family members. When I found out I needed the surgery, my close friends and I had already planned a reunion week vacation. They all wanted to postpone.
My answer was an EMPHATIC, “NO WAY!” Sure there were all kinds of bad outcomes that could have happened but for me, the idea of going forward with a positive belief I could beat this, was IMPORTANT. I did not/do not expect everyone to behave in the same manner as I did, but it worked for me.
Why the hell cannot conservatives have the decency to respect the Edwards’ decisions? Anyone who has met, read, and listened to Elizabeth Edwards KNOWS she is not John’s
“obedient” wife. If she wanted John to quit, she would have said so.
I do not understand why some cannot respect that people deal differently. I have seen women lose a child, and then lose their own lives afterward while others went forward and either advocated for others, got engaged with others who suffered the same loss, or just quietly move forward. No one has the right to judge any of them. It is really clear to me, after reading and listening to Elizabeth Edwards, that what works FOR HER in times of personal crises and pain is to reach out.
The fact that closed minded conservatives need to condemn her and John for what is a personal decision is no surprise. Just like so many of them, who PREACH “what God has put together, let no man put asunder” (ie, DIVORCE IS WRONG.) condemn Hillary for staying with her husband, they are condemning the Edwards for something that is a personal choice. Scary, sad but not unpredictable.
I haven’t noticed such a limit yet.
Did you? Are you sure? Maybe I need to reiterate one more time cause you sure have missed the point.
“how dare a righty question the noble agenda of the noble and godlike Edwards” might do it.
On the other hand, nah. The guy is an opportunist.
Pretty sad too. But with the complete moral decay of the left, it figures.
I don’t call anyone a god, or godlike since I don’t know even there even is one. But you and your good conservative friends are pretty regular in accusing the “left” of being godless and thus wrong, living without family values since obviously you feel you can determine for everyone what those values should be.
You attack a man for a personal decision and then get all bent out of shape when called on it. How about just answering my original question. Who gives YOU the right to define “normal?”
But then attacking me is much easier for you….it’s what conservatives do best…judge and condemn anyone who does not look, act and think like them.
Your cancer was curable hers is not. She will NEVER recover from this. It is a horrible turn of events for the Edwards family and its a shame the family had to politize it.
The fact that John decided to make it public domain by holding a national press conference about it makes it fair game for people to comment as they wish about it. John brought that on himself if he wanted to keep it private then he should have kept it private.
Personally I think this sends a mixed message to people. I’m not sure how he can talk about family values now when he is putting his campaign ahead of his wife’s health and going back on his word, but that’s his choice.
given you a crystal ball? Do you get messages from your god telling you that Elizabeth will NEVER recover from this? Do you see into the future for everyone or just for the Edwards?
If HIS family, which does NOT include you, has decided that as long as Elizabeth is feeling well, they will move forward, is that not their right? Do you condemn everyone who does not see the world through your eyes or just politicians, or just progressive politicians?
I do not think there is a mixed message at all. John and Elizabeth know this: SHE has had the best health care possible and will continue to do so. SHE also knows that there millions of families faced with cancer, and most of them HAVE to continue working. Maybe, just maybe, John and Elizabeth Edwards decided that despite their enormous success and wealth they want to choose to face this the way many, if not most, families have to face it…..by going forward, one day at a time.
but the best medical Drs in the country have told them that her cancer is uncurable. The cancer has progressed and is into the bone. Only one out of four people will live five years. Several people at this stage die within months.
I also couldn’t agree with you more. This is totally a family matter and that is where it should have stayed. The Edwards are the ones who decided to politize this by holding a press conference about it and getting as much free press as they could. If they didn’t want people talking about it like this then they should have been more discrete about it.
for having done so. You can’t hide a life-threatening illness in your immediate family, nor even “be discrete about it,” if you are running for the presidency. That would have truly been scandalous. Any “West Wing” fans out there? Remember the plot thread about Bartlett hiding his MS? Come on! You know better than that.
I’ve actually never seen West Wing and I don’t base my political comments on them. I guess I should watch more TV.
I’ll keep that in consideration. I guess holding a national press conference exploiting my family would be a more humble and compassionate way for me to go.
Is that really your position?
Imagine what Rosen and Limbaugh would say if Edwards failed to disclose the information and it somehow leaked a few months from now. They would call for his withdrawl. Without a doubt.
the opportunity to announce he was withdrawing from the race to tend to his sick wife.
That is something a “normal” man would do.
I know I would.
He should have said, “I love you, Elizabeth, and we love our little kids. They need us both while you’re under treatment, and we can’t give them the atention they will need if we are on the road. This is for the children. I’m withdrawing. I love you and I know we’ll make it through this. Trust me, I’m doing the right thing for you and the kids. This is for the children.”
What century is this?
Only John Edwards can withdraw from campaign.
His wife is a consultant, and consultants know their advice is followed less than half the time.
that some people prefer to NOT be “cared for” as if we were a plant or a pet!! Some people, cancer patients, heart disease patients, people with all kinds of serious chronic illnesses prefer to continue to live their lives the way they choose.
Some choose to keep working.
Some choose to not work and to travel.
Some choose to paint, to teach, to learn.
Who the hell are you to decide what is “normal” for the rest of us???
This isn’t just about John and Elizabeth. It’s about their little kids who have no say about what their mom will be doing.
So it’s okay for these little kids to sit at home watching the news that reports hourly on their mom’s fight with cancer and her chance of survival. They answer their friends’ questions. They know cnancer kills.
Where will mom and dad be in the dark of the night when the little kids are having their night mares, crying for mom and dad?
Stop thinking about you, the patient. Think about the family, the children.
The children. Isn’t that what the left is all about?
Oh, I forgot. The Left is all about power, children be damned.
The best thing you can do for the kids is to tell them what is going on and then get life back to normal. The worst thing you can do is have them spend all their time wallowing in it.
Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I said it was a self serving thing for him to do and at the end of the day his press conference helped his campaign a lot more then it helped his wife’s cancer. I don’t see how you could call that anything but self serving.
Nothing will help her cancer. Can you wrap your mind around the possibility that this was her call? That she wants him to continue the race? That your dispassion for Edwards is leading you to a conclusion that allows you to disparage him?
She is just as progressive as her husband, which leads me to assume that she told him to continue.
But he did say in the past that his wife’s health would keep him from running. I can’t speak for everybody, but if my wife had cancer, I would probably drop out and spend what time with her I could.
Mitt Romney’s wife has a similar issue with health and he has also indicated that he would stop running if her health got worse. If she had a similar situation and he didn’t drop out, I would be very pissed.
I’m glad that the cancer doesn’t seem to be too serious at this point.
I refuse to believe that he found out his wife’s cancer had metastisized, and he thought to himself, “hmmmm….how can I use this to my advantage?” Anybody who thinks this is the case is clearly looking for any reason to bash edwards.
If a similar situation, god forbid, happens to Romney, or for that matter, any other candidate, Repub or Dem, it should be up to them and their family as to whether they should press on. If they decide that the candidate should press on, or drop out, thats fine, but it is up to them. If you want to be pissed about it thats up to you, but if a couple makes a mutual decision why should they care what you think?
Im glad the cancer’s not bad, too. And maybe, just maybe, that is why she gave him the go ahead.
I don’t find it that far fetched to think that the thought crossed his mind. I would say he was sub-human if it was his first thought, but it’s not too outlandish to think that at somepoint during the conversation about what to do, some one thought (or said) “dang, this could really help us out!”.
I mean people in politics lie and say things all the time just to get elected. People use situations that are out of their control for their benefit. I don’t see why it is a stretch to think that this could be the same
You’re not that naive.
Or, maybe, Im not so cynical as to think that they are exploiting it for personal gain. Maybe I think the reason they came forward is that openness and honesty is a value in a president, and as public as Elizabeth has been about her past stuggles this was a natural step she would take. The fact that it coincided with his campaign is not some nefarious power trip, it is life.
I find your argument that he should drop out because his wife is sick disingenuous and, frankly, stupid. If we were to tell all potential candidates that while they are in office, or, for that matter, running for office, that any intrusions by “life” disqualifies them, who would we have left? Single men and women who have no children, siblings, parents, or friends. In fact, we would have to have a person who has had no personal relationships with anyone, ever, lest their judgment be clouded by a personal tragedy. We would have to have an automaton.
If he doesn’t make good decisions when his wife gives him bad advice, he’s not qualified to be president.
n/t
Are you serious? I wait with baited breath for you to explain this one.
something other than self-serving.
Having cancer is not a crime. Having a spouse with cancer is not a crime. Having a disease of any kind, or having a loved one with a disease is not criminal and does not require one STOP their lives.
Some people actually become more empathetic when they live with a disease; some become more active in working toward helping fellow citizens who have the same disease; some work toward finding a cure; some work toward making sure that all citizens facing disease have adequate healthcare.
What a concept….knowing that the disease that may kill you can be stopped and maybe you can help.
Only the judgmental conservatives of this country would look for a way to make the Edwards family “evil” for going forward. I am betting many of you probably don’t get that Elizabeth Edwards book dealing with the loss of her son was not about fame and money but about sharing, catharsis, grief, empathy and all the other HUMAN emotions one faces when dealing with loss, with pain, with suffering.
Not surprised but definitely sickened.
He made so many wrong decisions about going hard left, dissing the middle class, supporting bloggers who smear Christians, surrendering to Iraq, aiding abetting the enemies, and now, abandoning his poor little kids when they need mom and dad more than they ever will.
Edwards is just showing he has no business running for the White house.
It’s called “connecting the dots.”
for judging the Edwards. Not all conservatives are looking for a way to make the Edward’s family evil, and not all critics of the Edwards are conservatives. Your points would be stronger if you limit your comments to the posters who offend you, instead of demonizing a whole group of people who do not all think alike and whose opinions you couldn’t possibly know.
Unfortunately my experiences here with self-proclaimed conservatives has been more often than not negative as their comments, evidenced on this issue are indeed judgmental.
Condemnation of a couple’s private decision is, to me, judgmental! It fits in with the years of condemning Hillary Clinton for not leaving Bill and condemning those of us who do not think cheating on one’s spouse is a public issue. Yet, pushing the the “family values” of marriage is for one man and one woman down everyone’s throat, is their game. Hypocrisy and sanctimony get old quickly.
Now there are indeed many liberals/progressives with whom I have disagreed. But my experience here is that it is the conservative, Dr. Dobson crowd, the “we are Christians” crowd, who cannot let go of the judgmental condemnation. Intellectually, I am quite aware my generalization was way too broad. Emotionally it felt damned good because this issue truly pushed my buttons. Sometimes “what comes around, goes around” really does work.
about the Edwards (where negative opinions about their decision has been forwarded from posters of both parties, and from non Christian conservatives) and about every other political figure mentioned. Conservatives do their fair share of judging to be sure, but they certainly don’t have a lock on that box. In an ideal world, ideas, issues, and policies would be sliced, diced, and frapped, and people would be given the benefit of the doubt. Feeling good about generalizations and demonizing broad groups keeps it going on both sides. Not sure where all this judgment and loathing gets us as a nation.
I am confused Ms. Bacall.
I looked through the thread and I saw no finger wagging, tsk, tsk, tsk, toward the very rude attacks by others here. I challenged those posts with which I disagreed. I thought that was the purpose of the discussions.
As for moving our country forward, I am not sure calling someone a beast is productive either. Challenging someone’s comments and behavior (which is what I did) as judgmental is what it is: A CHALLENGE; a part of a debate. By judging the Edwards personal decision relating to a personal health matter (just like judging a woman’s decision to stay with a husband who has cheated) too me is unfair, biased on a personal attack level is inappropriate for anyone. But for the party that boasts constantly about “family values” the rhetoric is sanctimonious.
It was the conservative wing of the republican party who has made the personal lives of politicians the issue; particularly during the Clinton years. So here comes a couple married for 30 years, facing a hellish situation, making a decision together and once again the same old, same old. It sickens me and I am sick of it. I will speak out when the hypocrisy and sanctimony show their ugly heads.
I am confused Ms. Bacall.
I looked through the thread and I saw no finger wagging, tsk, tsk, tsk, from you toward the very rude attacks by others here. I challenged those posts with which I disagreed. I thought that was the purpose of the discussions.
As for moving our country forward, I am not sure calling someone a beast is productive either. Challenging someone’s comments and behavior (which is what I did) as judgmental is what it is: A CHALLENGE; a part of a debate. Judging the Edwards personal decision relating to a personal health matter (just like judging a woman’s decision to stay with a husband who has cheated) to me is unfair, biased on a personal attack level and inappropriate for anyone. But for the party that boasts constantly about “family values” the rhetoric is sanctimonious as well as laughable.
It was the conservative wing of the republican party who has made the personal lives of politicians the issue; particularly during the Clinton years. So here comes a couple married for 30 years, facing a hellish situation, making a decision together and once again the same old, same old. It sickens me and I am sick of it. I will speak out when the hypocrisy and sanctimony show their ugly heads.
Well gee, Jjc, I didn’t have to wag my finger at the negative posts re the Edwards as that issue was well covered by you and other posters. I am perfectly willing to admit that Republcans and conservatives go over the line on the judging and demonizing the opposition. I assume based on your posts, that you believe your judging, and the judging that goes on within your own party, is always justified and righteous. Pity that, as long as each side feels justified and vindicated, the judging and intolerance continues.
however you want. You can assume whatever you want.
Elizabeth Edwards cancer was not about politics. And yet, the neocons felt the need to name call, attack, insult and play is as politics.
I never said once that liberals do not attack. Saying I said that is your straw man. I attacked the hypcrisy and santimony. It is the conservatives and neocons who play the holier than thou family values games. And then they attack someone based on what? Is there a family value booklet the rest of us don’t know about that lists the ways a person is allowed to deal with cancer in their family? And in that family values book is there even a section on compassion. I am betting there isn’t.
Give me a break. I did not attack these people for their politcs. I attacked them for their total and obvious hypocrisy.
“those conservatives who…,” or, even better, “those who…,” thus directing the criticism specifically at those who have earned it, and avoiding turning it into a debate over whose ideology is better.
There are sincere, conservative, christian, etc., people who are honest and exercise the highest integrity. There are insincere, self-serving, liberals who are loathsome human beings. Why quibble about which side has more losers?
To the extent that “conservativism,” or, more particularly, “social conservativism,” describes a coherent philosophy which is intollerant of certain groups not defined by their values, beliefs, or opinions (e.g., gays), and is didactic rather than analytical (e.g., policies based on religious fundamentalism), criticisms which target those aspects of the ideology are definately in-bounds. Unfortunately, “conservativism” comes in several forms, and not all adherants except all aspects, so it is probably still best to identify the precise ideological elements being criticized rather than to lump them under that clumsy label (the same goes for “liberal” and “liberalism”). Also, just as in child-rearing it is best to criticize the behavior rather than to indict the child, so too in all discourse it is best to criticize the ideas, and not to indict the speaker.
You could hear those two pigs squealing now: COVER UP! COVER UP! COVER UP!
How could we possibly trust him in the Oval Office if we couldn’t trust him to be up front about his family and the health of his wife!
Or that many months from now, some will go to the voting booth and say to themselves, “You know, I really feel for the Edwards. I think I’ll vote for him.”
Come on, do you REALLY think that votes will be had for sympathy?
Dissed by Rush and Limbaugh. What an honor!
He was very clear in his comments not to say that Edwards did this for political gain.
But any rational non liberal biased person understands that Edwards main motive was sympathy.
To deny that is blind bias.
Too assume it blind conservative bias.
But I haven’t been very good at it.
Tyler, you think that Rush and Rosen are the only media commentators to bring up the possibility that the announcement was politically motivated? If you can’t admit that they weren’t, you’re as partisan as Rush is!
There were a ton of commentators discussing whether it was politically motivated and whether it was a good move! Where’s the link for those? You seem to have spent the time to find the links that you think make Rush and Rosen look bad, I wonder how long it will take you to find the ones that prove that just about everybody was asking the same question.
Tick Tick Tick……
Also you have to be truely a left wing partisan to think (even sarcastically) that Rush and Rosen are suggesting that the diagnosis is fake. As others have said, the diagnosis is very real and sad for Mrs. Edwards, but that doesn’t mean that John isn’t milking the situation for what it’s worth.
Don’t forget that John Edwards also said that the only thing that would keep him from running for the white house would be his wife’s health. What is your partisan explaination for that flip-flop?
Tick Tick Tick……
best wishes. The most important thing fighting cancer is motivation. Get it? Do I need to explain? I will.
Edwards getting elected is going to help Mrs. Edwards fight her cancer? If I don’t vote for him am I destroying that hope?
You’re killing her!
Vote Edwards 08!
But the fuzzy heads caught up in breast cancer mania will be as success as the Obama obsessives.
The public, ultimately will focus on Edwards as a presidential candidate, and right now, he doesn’t look very good when put up against other candidates.
as I found out in a different post, I guess I’ll be voting Edwards.
Listen, calling a press conference was crass. If it was his wife’s idea, it was dumb. If the cancer is incurable, as someone suggested above, he should drop out. This isn’t partisan, its common sense.
What do you love more, the idea of becoming President, or the remaining time you have with your family?
Is Elizabeth dying, as in fast spreading incurable cancer, or does she have slow growing cells that with treatment, will allow her to possibly live many years?
I didn’t see the press conference either, but the fact he had one is tacky, IMO.
The press would have knocked him either way, but if it was me, I would have dropped out. Family is more important than power and if a politician can’t see that, than he isn’t worth the office.
Because it was extremely classy. Elizabeth is a heroine, and would make a great first lady.
I dont know if you are familiar with the trials and tribulations the Edwards family has suffered, but if anything can be said about them it is that they are family oriented. I would highly suggest that you research the family and watch the press conference.
Couldn’t find a video link.
I did like Elizabeth’s comment, “The children are disappointed, that I won’t lose my hair this time.”
Look, this whole topic is blown up and it is easy for the more cynical of us to see this in a different light than some others.
I don’t want to research the family, I have better things to do with my time. It didn’t sound like, from the transcript, they were doing this for politicl gain. Their kid was killed in a car wreck and that is tragic and now they have to suffer cancer.
I still think it is crass to hold a national press conference about something I would hold more private. If they thought otherwise, whoopie.
She got cancer nearing the end of his vice-presidential run in 04. She wrote an autobiography called “Saving Graces,” in which she went into detail about her son being killed, cancer, the works. She has been very public about the tragedies in her life. She is a person that for at least two years was very much in the public eye, and was very frank with the public about almost everything. It does not surprise me that they announced this.
Dont research the family if you dont want, but if you have some free time, and if you find it, watch the video. Crass is the last word I would use to describe it.
I’d fold up my tent and go home to spend as much time as a family as I could. I get the sense though, that with treatment she could live a lot longer, and if that is the case, moving forward and living life as planned is the best thing for them, IMHO.
At least, that’s the way the media descriptions have sounded. The cancer has mastasticized to her bone and is terminal, but, it appears, many people live many years with such a condition.
As for the arguments about motives, tackiness, etc., with all due respect, my friends, nothing is more tacky than this debate! The real answer is: Who knows? Who cares? Vote for whomever you think will do the best job.
You folks are way too smart to waste your mental resources second-guessing the Edwards’ motivations for the press conference. And SOME of you (of the reptilian persuasion, who shall remained unnamed) are clearly exploiting an opportunity to take pot-shots, something that people from both parties and from all points on the ideological spectrum have been known to do from time to time.
is that it is incurable in the sense that the cancer will never totally go away, but that it is treatable in the sense that there can be periods of remission and/or slowing of the growth of other tumors.
A friend of mine has a sister who has been in the same situation. She got cancer, had the treatment, was “cancer free” for a few years and then it came back two years ago in her bones. Tumors also have shown in her liver and lungs. But each time, her doctors try different treatments, and as one doctor told her, “the longer she survives, the better chance there is for more, newer, albeit untested, treatments.”
This woman continued to work for the first three years, and has only stopped working recently. She continues to go on trips with her family (husband, sisters, mother). Her husband continues to work. So does her sister (who happens to be her twin). She has had weeks where she does well, and weeks where she needs care. Her husband does NOT do all the caretaking. That is a huge burden on one person. When my best friend was dying, her husband quit work to be with her, but it became unbearable for him and he turned to alcohol to deal. I tried to get there as often as possible just so he could go play golf, or take a ride, or just do something outside. I am sure some condemned him. I didn’t. Watching someone you love slowly die is not something one can do alone. She was drugged and often in a state of strange euphoria towards the end. He was losing it. I had wished he had stayed working.
But I contend EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. For conservatives to turn this into one of their judgmental games is an all time low. Somehow, when I think they have gone so low, they can’t go any lower, they manage to show me that they can go even lower.
what is best for someone in Elizabeth’s or John’s position?
Who gets to judge what is crass? Are you kidding me? In this media ready society, you don’t think that the Enquirer or the Star would be blasting the NEWS, spinning it their way.
The Edwards were smart and honest. THEY, not the corporate controlled press, controlled how the story was told. And they, NOT YOU, get to decide what is best for them and for their family.
Obviously you feel strongly about cancer and surviving it and about Edwards. Happy for ya.
You’ve posted umpteen times defending your position. Got it.
If you don’t like my opinion, fine. Don’t need the CAPS FOR EMPHASIS to show I don’t decide what is best for Edwards. Already had that one figured out there Sherlock.
When you’re running for president, everyone has a responsibility to judge your every move, like it or not.
Those who don’t judge have no right to vote.
focusing on things that are more relevant to their actual job responsibilities in office. We all know that anyone who is successful in democratic politics both knows how to play the game and does play the game enough to be successful in democratic politics. So instead of trying to determine how political or how non-political were Edwards’ motives for this press-conference, why not focus more exclusively on how efficacious would be his policy ideas?
I know, I know, the whole “character” thing. I’m not trying to elect a saint, and I don’t think that the criteria for sainthood are the same ones we should apply when looking for a president. In fact, some of our most saintly presidents were some of our worst, and some of our least saintly were some of our best. We elected saintly Jimmy Carter because of Watergate-fatigue (otherwise he never would have had a chance), and, as much as I like and respect him, by most measures he wasn’t a highly successful president. We elected horny Bill Clinton and bemoaned his extreme unsaintliness, but many people (including myself) still maintain that he was an excellent president.
For the most part, the demands of democratic (or any)politics prohibits extreme honesty and integrity. Manipulating large numbers of people is a requirement of political success, and antithetical to the character qualities that are considered by some desirable in candidates. The result is that we select people who are most talented at being able to appear to have those qualities without actually having them. I don’t think that’s really in our best interest.
We’d do a lot better to focus on policies and political philosophies, and pay less attention to those things that have less to do with the job we are hiring them to do.
I generally agree with your post, but I believe in looking at what candidates do and how they behave as well as their white papers and YouTube clips.
Actions speak louder than words, and I don’t what I’m seeing in the way Edwards treats people, makes decisons and campaigns for office.
This is not to say I like Clinton or Obama any better. They have their flaws, as do the GOP candidates. Tonight, we’re looking at the Edwards. The others will get their turns, and, indeed, have had them.
Most accurate prediction made on this thread:)
to suggest that the Edwards’ decisions to hold a press conference to reveal her most recent diagnosis, and to continue on the compaign trail, are indications of flawed decision making. Outside the bloggosphere, other than highly partisan commentators trying to make hay off of this, there seems to be no agreement with that sentiment: Women with brest cancer are coming out saying, “Of course you go on.” Main stream conservative commentators (e.g., George Will) are saying “Of course they handled it correctly.” The only legitimate (though still debatable) negative statements are: 1) He may be distracted by this, as a candidate or as the president, and 2) He may win a sympathy vote as a result of this (not that this was a ploy to win a sympathy vote: That simply involves too much supposition).
the things that are relevant, i.e. their views concerning public health care, public education, foreign policy, public energy use. I also judge whether or not a candidate has a conflict of interest; i.e., whether or not their decisions are based on the good of the country and ALL of its citizens or the opportunity for them and their rich friends to make money.
I certainly judged the Bush family and their Cronies as it was evident from the get go that their oil buddies would make millions off war; their corporate friends would and have made millions off NCLB.
What I don’t judge is what I cannot know: the intimate relationship between a husband and wife; their spiritual beliefs; their parenting skills; their family relationships.
Being positive doubles your chances of surviving. So if your vote decides if he wins or loses – you hold her odds of success in your hands.
Or actually the programmer at Diebold who has already pick the winner holds that in his/her hands 🙂
– dave
Note – I am not an Edwards supporter (I’m for Gore, then Clinton).
I had cancer (I’m cured now). And if my wife was running for anything when I got it I would have done the same thing as Elizabeth Edwards.
And I did do that – as much as possible life went on as before for my wife & 3 daughters. The last thing I wanted was them putting their lives on hold for a year. That would just make things worse.
In addition there have been numerous peer reviewed studies that show a positive attitude doubles your chances of success. What is more positive for her – sitting home full of regrets about the cancelled campaign or out on the trail making her husband the next president of the United States.
Until you have had cancer (and I hope you never do) – shut the F#@K up about how a family chooses to handle this. It’s incredibly tough and the last thing a family needs is others throwing crap their way when they clearly have made a positive mutual decision to proceed.
– dave
Everyone has one.
I have stated that I personally think he is politically motivated to continue with his campaign, and is using this cancer to his advantage. I could be wrong but I’m betting not.
I lost my mom, two Aunts and two Uncles on my mom’s side of the family, plus her parents to cancer. (Luckily my grandparents on my dad’s side both died from heart attacks, not cancer) My mom was one of 7 kids. Only two survive.
I’m not making this shit up. My mom’s side of the family is riddled with it. That said, when cancer strikes, “most” people will put aside their personal ambitions and help out the family member that is stricken.
It happened with all of my family members. They had to keep working to pay the bills but surely wouldn’t go out of their way to use the cancer as a career enhancer.
Oh yeah,
Love,
Gecko
He did not decide to run because his wife’s cancer came back. They decided to “keep working” on their present job – which is running for President. And yes that is a job and a full time one with lots of required overtime.
You’ll also note that when they got the news he immediately cancelled all appearances and was with her. They both say that nothing will change but this will affect their personal schedules. And based on the last couple of days he is clearly putting his wife first.
– dave
The right is obviously having a hard time with the fact that their top candidates want to crow about family values while maintaining that “family issues” such as multiple divorces and serial adultery are irrelevent and here come the Edwards actually walking the walk.
The Edwards have remained devoted to one another through all kinds of trials including the death of a child and Elizabeth Edward’s illness. Besides that, Edwards is a very handsome, charming, rich man who served in the Senate, a body in which the overwhelming majority of members routinely indulge in affairs as a perk for the powerful, without anyone ever being able to dig up the slightest hint of a rumor of infidelity on his part. If you don’t think all of that makes him a man whose family values, personal honor and integrity are superior to those of McCain, Newt and Giuliani, just to name a few (yes, including Dem congressmen, Presidents etc.), then you are clearly just a hypocrite who uses “family values” as code for a very narrow political agenda.
Instead of letting news and rumors of Elizabeth Edward’s condition come out in dribs and drabs, some true, some false, they did the only logical thing. They went public with the facts. Period.
If John Edwards makes most of the Republican front-runners and mouthpieces look like weasels by comparison, too bad. The way people choose to live their lives every day, not what platitudes they parrot, is who they are. The fact that drug addled, lying, serial adulterers like Rush Limbaugh are heroes of the “family values” right speaks volumes. What a load of BS they’re pushing.
Righties, if you don’t agree with Edward’s positions don’t support him but don’t smear him just because he embarrasses you by making more admirable life choices than your front-runners ever have.
just like Clinton, a real family man.
Yeah right.
all have Newt to pin your hopes on…he presented one of his wives with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery. Or you go have Rudy, another “family values” rightie who announced his divorce papers publicly so he could humiliate his second wife.
The Conservative Hypocrites are out in full force. Hey, maybe you could go pray on this and your God will tell you he is going to condemn John Edwards to hell for not having the RIGHT family values you so cherish.
Just another two cents….He’s a public figure. It’s not good politics to hide the truth. Ask Gonzales.
Bill Clinton is still (happily? perhaps) married to his first and only wife, unlike the top three GOP presidential candidates in ’08 (Giuliani, McCain and Gingrich) who have an aggregate of eight wives between the three of them.
Chelsea Clinton still talks to her dad, unlike Andrew and Carolyn Giuliani.
Roger Clinton still talks to his older brother, unlike Candice Gingrich.
The Clintons are an excellent example of a family of fallible individuals who have strengths and weaknesses but who stick together through good and bad!
God bless the Clintons!
repeatedly by conservatives because his wife is a presidential candidate. His dumb ass could become our nation’s First Lady, so he can start this shit all over again. So him and her are fair game. We will not and should not just let bygones be bygones. He could be in the fuckin White House again for christ’s sakes.
Come on, you guys know their mariage is a joke. The ONLY reason the Beast is still married to his lying worthless cheating ass is to “pretend” they are still a couple.
Show me one person, male/female, that would stick around a spouse that did what that pond scum did, and then lied about it to the entire WORLD. Even if it didn’t become public, a normal person would have sent his ass packing. But not the Beast. She wants the ultimate power.
You guys keep pretending that they are a couple. They aren’t. And if they were, do we want people with morals that low in the White House?
Not me. I’m agnostic so I really don’t want the fuckin Pope in there either but people like the lowly Clintons are the worst of the worst.
That is the main reason I and millions of other people have zero respect for the Beast. She is a snake in the grass and I do not want her running this country. If she can put on a fake smile with that waste of flesh hiding behind her skirt, what else will she do to us.
Of all the candidates the libs have, Obama is the best choice. Although his name alone will scare many people away, thinking he is a Muslim from the Middle East or something. Gore is a nutjob, Clinton is a worm, and Edwards will have a tough time getting past his image as an uncaring husband.
Tell us how you REALLY feel!
Stop with the milk toast mealy mouth responses. We aren’t mind readers here!
Please enlighten me since I have very limited experience with the heterosexual lifestyle (and what experimentation I did was many years ago), but is Bill Clinton the first and only straight man who ever cheated on his wife and whose wife decided not to seek a divorce?
As far as his lying about Monica and the infamous blow job, I pose the same question: Is Clinton the first man who, when confronted by suspicions of infidelity by his wife and others, lied about it?
If so, then Gecko may be right and what Hillary did may be ground-breaking and unconscionable……..But I think not.
As for the Clinton marriage being a joke, I have no idea whether it is a deep, intense commitment of one to the other, a joke, or some type of double dare………..nor is it any of my business. If you believe the supermarket tabloids, George and Laura Bush have a joke of a marriage. Who gives a f***!
P.S. Gecko, please try to get the gender right. Bill Clinton will be the nation’s first First Gentleman, not First Lady.
both cheated on their wives, both lied about it. And both are viewed as great presidents now.
Maybe cheating on the wife is required to be a great President???
Neither do I! There’s something we are actually in agreement upon!
who think that Edwards appears to be an uncaring husband are the people who would never vote Democratic under any circumstances anyway.
By the way, I’m not defending Edwards because I prefer him as a candidate: I prefer Obama.
Oh, yeah, like those Republican couples like the first three marriages of Guiliani (sp.)and McCain and Gingrich and and and
Gecko, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and certainly entitled to post it here. But I have gotten weary of your alleged ability to know what people are thinking, and judging their intents, especially in something as private as a marriage. You rant, but seldom have your facts straight or have a foundation for those rants. It’s just hate for hate’s sake.
So they chose to stay together? So what? Maybe for political ends? So what? Are the Clintons the first to plot? No, I think not. Read “The Prince.” Who are you to judge what motivated them to stay together?
The Clintons could shit golden turds and Bill’s sweat could heal the lame, but you would still hate them. Makes me want to vote for Hillary if Bill were VP (he already stated in 2004 that he believes it is a violation of the two term rule, however.) Just think, the most brilliant president since FDR in bed with the current president and then casting deciding votes in the Senate!
And Gecko self-destructs.
on one hand, the “family values” crowd believes marriage is sacred, marriage is defined ONLY as between one man and one woman, and yet, when a woman decides to forgive and stay in the sacred sacrament of marriage, she is labeled “a beast.”
Sanctimony, hypocrisy…the definition fits here.
Let’s see….who is the “family values” candidate here.
Can’t be Edwards since he is deserting his wife in the eyes of the “Judgmentals”. Can’t be Clinton cause she stayed in her marriage. Can’t be Obama since, OMG, he might be a MUSLIM, which means he is not a Christian (even though he is, he is not white Christian). Oh wait, why does it matter, cause conservatives wouldn’t vote for a dem anyway. That leaves you with the republican family values slate: Newt, Rudy and McCain.
Youy keep talking about her as though she is the next Margret Thatcher. Don’t you prefer your chief executives to be tough and to get the job done no matter how many laws have to be broken?
If she ain’t the Iron Lady, I don’t know who is!
That’s the thing with you wing nuts. Someone says Green (or nothing at all) and you hear Brown.
You’re just pissed off that all the Dem prez candidates have walked the walk of family values, insofar as we know. And all of the Pub’s are hypocritical serial adulterers.
I meant to give Romney credit for being faithful.
Based on the information available to date, it appears that Multiple Choice Mitt has not cheated on his wife.
A little fidelity to his principles and positions on issues would be nice, but that’s apparently too much to expect…..
All my observations on what we know, and reasonably expect from behavioral patterns. When rumors swirl that a politico is an adulterer or worse, sooner or later it is verified. Where there’s smoke there’s hypocrisy.
In fact I’ve never once voted repub, but I think this whole thing was a shameless political stunt. They did not need to have a national press conference to let the world know about her condition. They could have handled it in a way that was open and honest and clear, but that also wasn’t so on message for Jonny boy’s campaign. I think it would have been easier to swallow if it wasn’t so perfectly orchistrated to also promote campaign Edwards. Makes me wonder what his real priorities are.
Do you really think she timed her cancer diagnosis to coincide with his campaign? What the hell is wrong with you? She got the diagnosis the day before and they called the press conference the next day. Their priorities are telling people as soon as possible so they can deal with it as soon as possible.
Go crawl back under your rock, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You don’t know me or my priorities so let’s just stick to the facts here. You are trying to twist my words around and that’s not right. No one is suggesting that she planned her cancer. All me and several other bloggers have been saying is that this is a personal family matter and it is shameful the way the campaign has used it to their advantage. The press conference was orchistrated in a true rove like fashion. I would have a lot more respect for the campaign if they didn’t exploit this personal tragedy for political gain.
What a dickhead. Compassion at its best from a liberal.
I am asking sincerely. If you want to answer seriously (i.e., without the added invective), that would be most welcome, though I’ll take whatever you offer. Here, let me ask a couple of questions:
1) Do you think liberals are more malicious than conservatives?
2) Do you think liberals are dumber than conservatives? (I thought I’d throw you a softball, with that one).
3) Do you think liberals have poorer hygiene than conservatives?
4) Do you think liberals have kudies (sp?)? (There’s a shot for that, you know).
not to slime dwellers who have questioned Elizabeth Edwards’ integrity.
I just saw a repeat of the Russert show she was on last fall. She is a beautiful, strong, intelligent woman and none of the wingnuts on this page are fit to wipe her shoes.
Trust me, I’m seeing posts and having discussions with conservatives and liberals, and you get all kinds of comments opinions from both camps.
You might say it’s a cancer victim opinion versus a family of cancer victims’ opinions split.
People are giving both their gut reactions and their intellectual reactions to the situation. Gut reactions are split, while people who can sit back and think about what’s going on can see that the Edwards quite likely will have to change their minds sooner than later.
I look at this as both a story of a family tragedy and sadness and as a political story, or situation.
On the personal level, as someone living who’s had cancer in the family, I’m very sad about the Edwards’ plight.
As a political analyst without a candidate in the Dems’ primary, I see big problems ahead for the Edwards, and if he is nominated or elected, for his party and the country.
If Elizabeth should become very sick, what kind of candidate or president would we have? What would happen to the Edwards’ kids? How would the country and our enemies react and try to take advantage?
If you’re not willing to discuss these issues, okay, but the rest of us will.
First of all, most people don’t even have the option of quitting their jobs for a sick spouse. They need the income and/or the insurance coverage. Besides, most families wish to maintain as much normalcy as they can for as long as they can.
As far as whether or not Mrs. Edwards will stay relatively well or become sicker or even die at some point during a campaign or Presidency, this nation has done a perfectly good job of crossing those kinds of bridges when we get there throughout our history. The list of Presidents and presidential spouses who have become gravely ill, died or been assassinated in office is a long one, including FDR during WWII.
Our constitution provides us with mechanisms for dealing with just such eventualities and they have worked remarkably well, so objections based on that kind of “what if” are pretty weak. With few exceptions, most politicians don’t find themselves in position to run for President until they and their spouses are at a stage in life where things like heart attacks and cancer tend be more common.
As for the children, more harm is done by creating a huge mystery around a parent’s or sibling’s illness. They pick up plenty regardless and understand more than most would like to imagine they do.
There is no reason why the Edwards shouldn’t remain in this race if that’s what they want. There is no compelling reason why they should be denied the right to make this decision. After that, it’s up to the voters. Pretty simple.
family, including my own, who has not been touched by cancer. Or heart disease. Or something.
Bill Clinton has had open heart surgery and has risks for heart disease. He is being treated. Just because he had heart surgery does not mean necessarily that his arteries will not clog again.
Almost all of the candidates are at an age where they (and their spouses) have a higher risk for disease that say the twenty and thirty something crowd. My point here is this: no one can predict the future. A man’s risk of heart disease goes up immensely when he hits 50. His risk of prostate cancer goes up a great deal at 60. A women’s risk of breast cancer rises at age 50. Her risk of heart disease triples at age 60.
Every human being has a risk of dying as long as they are alive. The Edwards are facing and have been facing those risks earlier than many. How they handle facing these things is a personal decision. But if one wants to go by the medical community, overwhelmingly they are supporting the notion of “going forward, continuing with life as normaly as possible.” Overwhelmingly cancer patients and survivors agree. Molly Ivins was writing columns to within weeks of her death. For some the notion of going home, packing up and waiting for death is not appealing. Obviously the Edwards do no favor that approach either. For many of us, the decision of the Edwards is not only admirable, it tells us that they are strong people who believe in fighting for those things in which they believe.
How they handled his stroke was totally wrong. But the country survivied and moved forward and the executive branch kept functioning. We just did so under our first de-facto woman president (Hillary will be the first de-jure woman president, but only the second to exercise the power).
Remember Nancy Reagan coordinating the scheduling of U.S.-Soviet summit meetings with her astrologer?
and that started with Dolly Madison. Possibly even with Abagail Adams.
What does Clinton have to do with it. Did you even read my post? I never said a word in defense of Clinton’s behavior. Whenever righties have no good response and can’t come up with even a generic talking point sound-bite they just default to yelling “Clinton!”. Just like I said, you righties are having a real problem here. It’s so hard to say that a man who has stuck with his first and only wife through good times and bad for 30 years has no “family values”. I almost feel sorry for you. Then again…
It’s instinctive for them. They are like Pavlov’s dogs only not quite as bright.
They will blame Clinton for whatever long after he is dead.
(well, a teen) but I seem to recall Reagan blaming some of the countries problems on Carter for years, possibly into his second term, and stopped only when Carter pointed out that he’d been out of office for so long. The Clinton haters make me think of that.
But at least there were concrete political screw-ups and policy mistakes Carter was responsible for. The Clinton haters never point to anything that Clinton the president did to earn their ire; it was just what Clinton the man did, and very few of them will say a peep about Republican politicians guilty of the same behavior. I see this as evidence of the irrationality of the Clinton haters.
If you don’t get that, I guess denial is ok.
but the Clinton haters never bring that up. So they are so blind in their hatred that they don’t even think to try to beat Clinton over the head with that stick. That supports my point, it doesn’t refute it.
Whatever the Clinton administration either did or did not do that might have led to 9/11, it pales in comparison to the crew on watch.
Bush and ineffective yet promoted National Security Advisor blew it bigger than the building’s collapse. WARNED 50 times in six months.
‘Nudder golf swing……..
Carter put us on a program to wean us from foreign oil. I believe is was to reduce foreign dependency, i.e., Middle East oil, by 70% by the year 2000. Reagan was elected and dismantled the program. There’s the nuts and bolts of it folks.
I heard Carter on the radio a year ago; he said that if we had kept the CAFE standards – read this slowly – we would be importing NO oil from the Middle East.
No 9/11
No Afghanistan
No Iraq
No Saudi Arabia dictating policy
Blood for oil? Indeed.
Reagan’s policy of “cutting and running” when confronted with terrorism i.e., Beirut.
Clinton did focus on Al-Queada. But he was limited by the Lewinski mess (yes that is to a large degree his fault) that constrained what he could take the initiative on.
He was in meetings where the bottom line was that they could not go to war against Al-Queada because the country would not accept it.
He could have done more to try and sell the need to do more. But the right wing would have said he was doing it just to take the subject off Lewinski and he probably would not have been successful.
The bottom line is he was paying attention to them and trying to do what he could. And that’s more than you can say about Bush and Company.
Clinton is the ultimate Type A personality and they can’t stand it. Intelligent, successful, charismatic. Audacious, got a BJ right in the Oval Office. Orifice? The Big Dog.
Little dogs stay in their safe fenced yards and bark when the Alpha Male checks out his domain. Then after he passes, they full of pseudo-confidence shit.
Usually I can’t stand Alpha Males, but he pulls it off without a puffed chest or obvious authority, almost an “awe shucks” style.
I love it.
amazing as he actually saved capitalism but facts never got in the way of many wingnuts.
dimwit blind liberal nutcases tonight.
Funny to watch.
Edwards/Clinton……..peas in a pod. I bet their wives are real proud…..oh wait, at least one isn’t…
hahahahah
even weirdness has to have consistent context, perhaps a larger metaphor.
The dots on your weirdness are galaxies apart.
“dimwit”…”blind”….”liberal nutcases”….”funny to watch”…”Edwards/Clinton peas in a pod”….Then you have the chutzpa to put yourselves into the minds of women…mind you…who loyally stay with their men through tremendous challenges (unlike Republican wives)….
What’s your point? “hahahaha”?
You’re losing the last vestige of credibility you might have locked up with the kool-aid. FYI..name calling without substance is the lowest rung of the blogosphere.
Apparently, in this particular case, even the Clinton default has failed and Liberalism is a Sickness’s head has just exploded in a cloud of gibberish.
or Daddy let you use his computer again. I’d advise him to take it back. Now run along Roy and go play with Trigger while the grownups talk.
adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own.
2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms.
3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform.
4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal.
6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
• noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
– DERIVATIVES liberalism noun liberality noun liberally adverb.
– ORIGIN originally meaning suitable for a free man: from Latin liberalis, from liber `free man’.
noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress
adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness (Example: “A liberal newspaper”)
adjective: not literal
adjective: given or giving
What’s the source, BTW?
Liberal has been slandered, much like “progressive” and “socialistic”…for some, the status quo of inequality, injustice and war is acceptable….to others it isn’t. Long live the isn’t!
Edwards’ first important case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. In that case, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse. In 1985, Edwards obtained a $5.75 million settlement in a cerebral palsy case for medical malpractice during childbirth, representing Jennifer Campbell, a five-year-old cerebral palsy patient. This established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.
The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a Raleigh, North Carolina girl, Valerie Lakey, who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes.
doing a whine job on his show about losing his hearing. Perhaps he should have simply kept his mouth shut about that….especially since it was likely brough on due to his Oxy-cotyn abuse.
I’m not an Edwards supporter (frankly, I don’t like him), but I am certainly not going to judge him based on his family tragedy. I’ll give him this, he hadled it in a much classier fashion than Newt Gingrich did when his 1st wife was diagnosed with cancer….
is an eater of human flesh.
he is an eater of lots of things…..
Nice touch.
Ummm, how do you know this?
Or is this just another shining example of how low liberals can stoop?
You’d be rightfully angry if that was written or spoken by a prominent journalist or commentator, but coming from an anonymous blogger it’s just for yuks.
You don’t see many of us up in arms over Gecko calling HRC the Hildebeast, do you? It’s in the same vein.
Is a liar.
Is obese.
Has bought street drugs to satisfy his addiction.
Has had three marriages while supporting “Family Values.”
But doesn’t eat human flesh.
“…Is a Big, Fat Idiot”?
I was surprised to the extent that Al Franken footnoted and documented his many charges in “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.” Pretty much proved his title.
with his money and his Viagra.