Should He or Shoudn't He?

It appears the announcement by John Edwards and his wife that, in spite of her recurrence of cancer, his campaign will "continue strongly" is throwing America into division or, at least, creating a discussion of how best to deal with such a diagnosis.

If you bother to read any of the blogs or comments posted in response to any story on the topic (and I have), it is apparent that approximately two-thirds of the country understands or, at least, respects the Edwards's decision. But another third see it as either a form of denial or craven ambition and neglect of wife and/or children.

There is a certain aspect to this that reminds me of the press conference when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive: he was such a popular and well-loved athlete that no one could dismiss him or his plight out of hand and it brought about a greater sympathy for those in similar circumstances. Likewise, Elizabeth Edwards is universally liked and respected (I haven't heard or read a single negative response about the woman from any public or private official). And so, as with Magic, the country's heart has gone out to her and her family in this moment.

I am certainly not comparing HIV/Aids with Cancer, except to say that both can be terminal, and both can strike indiscriminately in ways that sometimes seem most unfair. And, as Magic's high profile gave rise to a greater discussion of how to best deal with his ailment, so Elizabeth's recurrence and spread of cancer has already caused husbands and wives (who have not already had to deal with this...and many have) across the country to wonder: What would I do if my wife were so diagnosed? What would I want my husband to do if I were so diagnosed? What would be best for my family?

If you want a clearer understanding of all that went through the minds of John and Elizabeth, I suggest you read today's NYT article, "In the Hospital, Mrs. Edwards Set Campaign's Fate" at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/politics/25edwards.html?ex=1332561600&en=135f9e32bd9cb07c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Better yet, tune in to 60 Minutes tonight on CBS when Katie Couric interviews both of them for an hour.

We allow every person running for President their reasons to run, and we allow them their reasons to pull out. For each one of them, it is a personal decision and this is no different. Only the Edwardses know what is best for them. There were two quotes, in particular, from the article that hit me strongly:

"I expect to live a long time," Mrs. Edwards said. "I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that's not the case, I don't want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It's not fair to me, in a sense...My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life's work, wouldn't I be getting ready to die? That's what I'd be doing. This cause is not just John's cause, it's my cause."

When asked about the suggestion some have made that the continuing campaign is an act of supreme denial about her cancer, Mrs. Edwards looked momentarily struck. Then, with her husband looking on somewhat tensely, she hurled back: "Absolutely! I am not giving it anything. If it expects to be the boss of me it's gonna have to earn that...I am denying it control over how I spend the rest of my life."

Can we elect a man President whose wife essentially has a death sentence hanging over her head? Absolutely...if we can come to trust that, should her death occur while he is still in office, his performance of his duties will not be unduly impaired. As others have pointed out, FDR dealt with polio while being elected four successive times, Lincoln suffered from depression, JFK had Addison's Disease. There are enough American families affected by cancer and still going on with their lives that they should be testament enough to our ability to endure and overcome such an obstacle.