First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy.  Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail.  I am not sanguine.  People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot.  We’ll see. 

But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through.  Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at  Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her.  She is indomitable.  I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats.  Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.  

Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it.  Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.   

Read the rest of this entry »

The war in Iraq has begun to take center stage with the big hearings in Congress. The Democrats’ tooth and nail battle continues in Pennsylvania. And the blogosphere continues to boil with political posts galore. Here’s our linkfest taking you to some of them on weblogs of differing opinions. Links do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

BARACK OBAMA FACES A PUBLIC FINANCING QUANDARY – or does he?

WHAT’S THE BIGGEST THREAT TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES? Can it be a hand-held lie detector? Bob McCarty writes:

Imagine the practical benefit to voters if presidential candidates — Democrat and Republican alike — are monitored by hand-held lie detectors each time they speak in public. Americans would no longer have to struggle to determine whether or not a candidate is being truthful.

While experts warn that this device is not 100 percent accurate, I’m willing to risk a few “false positives” — or “false negatives,” depending upon how you look at it — when it comes to scrutinizing the endless stream of pledges and campaign promises made by presidential candidates.

McCarty believes this should be troubling news for Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But we could expand this list and say it could ALSO mean sleepless nights for Senator John McCain as well and also Ralph Nader, President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, anyone involved in White House or governmental agency spin operations, members of both houses of Congress of both parties, fire-breathing talk show hosts of the left and right — and actor William Shatner if he’s asked about whether it’s his real hair.

SHOULD JOHN McCAIN PICK SECRETARY OF STATE RICE AS HIS VEEP? The Glittering Eye thinks it would a huge mistake and here’s why.

AND WHAT SOURCING WAS BEHIND THE RICE AS POSSIBLE VEEP STORY, ANYWAY? Pundit Guy has an interesting theory.

WHO SHOULD OBAMA PICK AS HIS VICE PRESIDENT? Here’s one idea.

HILLARY CLINTON WANTS THE U.S. TO BOYCOTT THE OLYMPIC CEREMONIES: Steve Clemons calls it “wrong headed.”
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s becoming a pilgrimage, of sorts. First, Senator Hillary Clinton visited former Senator and former Presidential wannabe John Edwards — seeking his endorsement and support. And now, in yet another meeting at Edwards’ home, Senator Barack Obama has visited Edwards.

The goal of each campaign: get Edwards’ endorsement and, not parenthetically, his delegates — particularly as the battle between Clinton and Obama goes down to the wire amid predictions that, if one of them doesn’t pull ahead, it could come down to a party-splintering convention where “superdelegates” could make the final decision.

The most intriguing report about the Edwards-Obama visit comes via ABC’s Political Radar …particularly the last line of it, which will have pundits trying to read the political tea leaves:

ABC News’ David Wright and Sunlen Miller Report: Mother Nature may have called a cease-fire in the snows of Wisconsin, but Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appears to have put the time to good use.

A helicopter cameraman for ABC’s Raleigh-Durham affiliate WTVD spotted Obama leaving former rival John Edwards’ house on the North Carolina.

Such secrecy. (Who does Obama think he is? Tom Cruise?) MORE:

Clinton met with Edwards on Feb. 7.

Obama speaks with Edwards over the phone regularly. On Wednesday at a campaign event in Racine, Wis., Obama said, “He is going to be a major voice in the Democratic party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”

But much had happened in terms of political junkie stories before that:

–A story came out saying Edwards was seriously considering endorsing Clinton, because he didn’t think Obama was tough enough to do what it took to change some aspects about America.

–Other stories said Edwards had decided to remain neutral like former Vice President Al Gore.

And now?

The weather helped the meeting take place this time, as Obama’s event in Appleton, Wis., was cancelled because of snowy conditions. Obama, who had spent the night at home in nearby Chicago, took advantage of the unexpectant gap in his schedule and flew down to Raleigh early afternoon. Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was present for the meeting.

Apparently, Obama and Edwards hugged at the conclusion of the meeting.

So what does that mean? To play the speculation game:
–He is going to endorse Obama in the end.
–He isn’t going to endorse Obama, but respects him and wishes him well
–He’s going to remain neutral but had a good session with him.

What would an endorsement mean? Firstly, if the timing came soon, it could influence the remaining primaries.

Endorsing Clinton would signal Edwards is in-effect saying “Whoa. Wait a minute. I don’t care what Ted Kennedy says, this dude isn’t really ready for prime time. We need someone who has more experience and is tougher.” Endorsing Obama would likely carry a lot of weight right now, it’d be a signal of yet another prominent Democrat who feels Obama is tough enough to bring about some changes but also can combine that with political skills so that he could bring about substantive change without polarizing the country.

And if Edwards stays neutral?

It would signal that Edwards, seeing how close the race is, is keeping his options open so he can be the Kingmaker/Queenmaker at the Democratic convention (on the other hand, a Clinton adviser says nothing really matters since Mrs. Clinton will win all the superdelegates in the end and be nominated, no matter what happens in future primaries).

Here is a cross section of other weblogs indulging in some tea-leaf reading and reaction:

–Wake Up America:

An endorsement from Edwards could be very beneficial to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns, which are in a virtual dead heat at this point. Clinton has moved on in her campaign from Wisconsin to Texas in an attempt to rally her support there.

–Blue Crab Boulevard:

The report says that the two men hugged at the end of the meeting. (They know this how?) That doesn’t sound too good for Hillary Clinton, does it?

–Talk Left:

They hugged as Obama left John Edwards’ home after their sit-down today. Elizabeth was at the meeting too.

More tea-leaf reading anyone? Will Edwards wait until after March 4 and Ohio and Texas to announce his endorsement or will he give a much needed boost to Obama in those states? Or, could he be considering endorsing Hillary?

–Ace of Spades:

I wrote before that I think Edwards has waited too long to announce an endorsement for it to really sway anyone. But Obama and Clinton clearly disagree, so what do I know? It occurs to me that Obama is also on the lookout for a running mate and Edwards may help bring some of the southern states which in Obama vs. McCain matchups seem to be going overwhelmingly to McCain. People are talking about a Republican Southern Sweep. That’s got to have Obama worried.

–Random Thoughts From Reno:

I doubt any endorsement is in the works, particularly given how close the race is between Obama and Clinton.

–The Daily Kos has an extensive and intriguing diary which includes this as an update:

CNN: Elizabeth Edwards was also in the meeting. Obama campaign said it was about the campaign and the issues that are facing America. Edwards looking for two things: who will be most effective in carrying on his message RE: fighting poverty; which of these candidates is most electable? He wants to make sure that whoever he backs can beat a Republican. Notes that Edwards has not committed to endorsing anyone at all — wanted to keep out of the endorsement business for a long time. Notes that an endorsement from today would make a lot of impact in Wisconsin. Notes that it was planned in advance, not a detour due to the weather (so I was wrong?). Planned in advance to essentially talk about an Edwards endorsement. Notes that endorsement will likely carry either candidate over the top in Ohio.

Note that Elizabeth Edwards was reportedly lobbying her husband in favor of Sen. Obama, per a CNN report which the family later denied.

–Faith Progressive:

John Edwards is still very popular here in Wisconsin–he lost narrowly to Kerry here even after Sen. Kerry had built up momentum. (I’ll always remember being on the stage in Middleton, chatting with Kerry’s siblings and meeting Sen. Max Cleland ,while we waited for the results to be final in 2004.) The day before our Feb. 19th primary would be the perfect time for an endorsement of Sen. Obama.

–Prairie Weather:

Barack Obama avoided a snowbound Wisconsin today and flew to North Carolina for a visit with John Edwards. The reasons for this meeting are probably obvious. Edwards has had a lot of attention lately, particularly from Hillary Clinton. This quiet meeting may turn out to have been more definitive as Obama edges ahead of Clinton in the primaries. But no one’s talking right now.

It is ON. 

The race between Obama and Clinton is tightening (Gallup currently describes it as a "statistical dead heat," 46-44%) and McCain may—or may not— be on the verge of solidifying his hold.  Or not.  As Gandelman says, "Polls have been hideously wrong this year."  Shut up, polls.  Meanwhile, I’m gearing myself up to cope with a result that might not be to my liking (Romney) or  not quite to my liking (Obama or Hillary? I don’t know). It’s a moot issue for me in one sense: we had our votes in Florida last week and it doesn’t matter anyway since the DNC—who I will never, NEVER forgive—stripped us of our delegates, thus disenfranchising me for a procedural decision over which I had zero control. On the other hand, I’m as invested in seeing the best outcome for both primaries, so I am certainly sitting on the edge of my seat, super-Tuesday-wise.

I just wish I had a clearer idea which Democrat I want to win. I swing back and forth every time one of the candidates or one of their everlasting "surrogates" puts a crafty thumb on the scales.

While I’m clear why I prefer McCain (duh) to Romney, I am very unsettled in my own mind what outcome I’d like to see as between Hillary and Obama. You can see Obama’s "Yes We Can" video here. Shut up, Obama’s "Yes We Can" video. I want to know what Obama is going to do about the problems in his health care platform.

Read the rest of this entry »

Two heavyweights, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, got out of the ring today and left behind different modes of fighting for the presidency and being beaten.

Edwards, who began his campaign in New Orleans a year ago, ended it there and symbolically went to work building a house with Habitat for Humanity. He worked hard on the campaign trail, basing his claim to the nomination on an honorable Democratic tradition of fighting for the poor and dispossessed.

Giuliani, on the other hand, all smiles and guile, tried to ride the 9/11 wave that made him rich all the way to the White House, disdaining the early primaries and expecting to be anointed the Republican candidate with even less exertion than lackadaisical Fred Thompson, who at least showed up for the early contests.

Typically, Giuliani is trading in the fruits of his minimal effort by endorsing John McCain in return for who-knows-what if McCain gets to the White House. Edwards may eventually attempt to convert his delegates and supporters into leverage, but for now is pushing Clinton or Obama toward greater emphasis on the issues he raised.

Their personal stories are a contrast as well. Edwards made a run despite his wife’s cancer and with her spirited support. Giuliani was brought down, in part, by revelations of his misuse of New York Police to run errands for his third wife-to-be while he was still married to his second.

Running for President is a brutal trial. Edwards is being carried out on his shield. Giuliani leaves without a scratch, except to his ego.

Cross-posted from my blog.

We’ll still going to try to pass on saying her name and even indirectly promoting her, but you can watch this for yourself:

And we won’t say more expect to suggest for other views on The Saga you read THIS,THIS,THIS, THIS, — and our PREVIOUS POST HERE.

Science defines mutualism, one form of symbiosis, as “an interaction between two or more species, where both derive benefit.” Think bees and flowers.

In putting the relationship of Ann Coulter and John Edwards under the microscope, another example seems more apt: the birds that eat parasites off crocodiles and are in turn protected from predators by their hosts’ giant jaws.

The gnashing of Coulter’s mandibles against him have not only nourished her notoriety (and lecture fees) but served as a fund-raising boon for Edwards.

When she called him a “faggot” in March, his campaign converted it into $300,000 in contributions. This week, when Elizabeth Edwards protested Coulter’s remark about wishing “he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” the fund-raisers went into high gear and raised more money than from any previous e-mail campaign.

So we have here another instance of Nature’s grand design, in which two victims of Reverse Attention Deficit Disorder serve to ease each other’s affliction.

Cross posted from my blog

We really won’t give her more hits in Google searches. So we won’t mention her name (OR even put the category with her name above this post). So no one can accuse us of promoting her.

But a certain person who has done more to further the vulgarization, polarization and insulting nature of 21st century American political discourse — and is consequently a monster success and a HUGE favorite with political groups, cable and radio talk shows — has been at it again. This time she made a statement suggesting she’d be happy if John Edwards was assassinated (just joooooooooking, of course!).

But then Elizabeth Edwards (who happens to be married to John Edwards) confronted her (I mean, what’s cable political discussion without controversy and confrontation unless you want to have to watch those boring old policy wonk issue discussions that you see on CSPAN that don’t have people yelling over each other) by telephone while You Know Who was making her latest (verbal) bomb-throwing cable appearance (with bombs only thrown at one political party).

You can watch it here.

PS: Yes, it is schtick. Schtick that sells books. But there is a cultural PRICE to the high profile schtick: it’s helping create, nurture and validate a culture of political demonization and seemingly perpetual confrontation. Hopefully, young people see through it and will do better when it’s their moment to replace the old, screeching. name-calling political guard.

People can discuss and debate without hating each other — and without wishing those with whom they disagree be blown up in a terrorist attack.

Remember the old adage: “Politics makes strange bedfellows…” when you read this:

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, kicked off San Francisco’s annual gay pride parade Sunday by splitting with her husband over support for legalized gay marriage.

“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me,” Mrs. Edwards said at a news conference before the parade started. “I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”

She made the remark almost offhandedly in answering a question from reporters after she delivered a standard campaign stump speech during a breakfast hosted by the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, an influential San Francisco political organization. California’s presidential primary is Feb. 5, one of the earliest contests in the nation.

She conceded her support puts her at odds with her husband, a former senator from North Carolina who she said supports civil unions among gay couples _ but not same-sex marriages.

OOPS. Or IS IT oops??

“John has been pretty clear about it, that he is very conflicted,” she said. “He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that’s up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town.”

No serious presidential candidate from either major political party has publicly supported gay marriage.

“John believes that couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples,” Edwards said earlier during her speech. “He supports civil unions.”

There are several ways political junkies can look at this:

–It will hurt John Edwards because those who oppose gay marriage will think he’s just opposing it so he won’t lose social conservatives’ votes.
–It will help John Edwards because some will think Ms. Edwards is saying what John REALLY thinks.
–It will be the best of all worlds since John Edwards opposes it, Elizabeth Edwards supports it.
–It will be a wash.

But there is one certainty. Elizabeth Edwards is an independent person and reportedly quite issue-oriented. And — no matter what — her comments will draw additional media (and blog) attention to her husband.

Which they already have.

For those wondering how courageous Elizabeth Edwards is, I’d say, read this article at Newsweek. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter sat down with Elizabeth at the Edwardses’ new house in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Some excerpts:
“When I was first diagnosed, I was going to beat this. I was going to be the champion of cancer. And I don’t have that feeling now. The cancer will eventually kill me. It’s going to win this fight. I come from a family of women who live into their 90s, so it’s taken something real from me. There was a time during the day when we were getting test results when I felt more despair than I ever felt in any of the time I had the breast cancer. I have a lot that I intend to do in this life. We’re here at the house. I’m going to build paths through these woods so we can take long walks that I intended to take when I was 80.”

“You didn’t lose your faith, you changed your faith? Or did you lose it for a time?
I’m not praying for God to save me from cancer. I’m not. God will enlighten me when the time comes. And if I’ve done the right thing, I will be enlightened. And if I believe, I’ll be saved. And that’s all he promises me.”

“What do you say to the Rush Limbaughs of the world who have the nerve to judge how you should cope with your disease?
Words don’t bother me. If John had pulled out of the race, they would have said, “Oh, he was failing in this race and this was just an excuse to get out.” This is a no-win situation with those folks, and you just have to accept it. But what you hate is that other people might listen and say, “Oh, that’s right, it’s our job to tell them what is right.” There’s going to be a day before each of us die, and you have to think a little bit about how you want that day filled. Maybe when you’re doing that judging thing, think about how you want the day before you die to look. I want that to be a productive day about which I am enormously proud, as opposed to a day where I had the covers pulled up over my head. That’s unbelievably important to me. And if somebody is judging me, and doesn’t hear me say that, maybe it’s partly my fault for not saying it clearly and maybe it’s their fault for not thinking about it.”

Read more at Newsweek.

I am interested in hearing more about how the loss of her son, and her own disease, changed her perception of God. The problem with that is, though, that I also fear that her words in this regard will be used against her by Edwards’ political opponents. In love, war, and politics all is fair I presume.

Quite a fascinating read and a remarkable lady.

Cross posted at my own blog.

A new Fox News poll gives yet another “snapshot” of voters’ perceptions on who will hold the White House in 2008 — and of what voters feel about President George Bush. And it’s good news for the Democrats…except one…and bad news for GWB:

The latest FOX News poll finds that Americans think the next person to move into the White House will be a Democrat, and while many voters would be enthusiastic or pleased if any one of the current front-runners were to win, one candidate scares more people than the others — Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In addition, voters are twice as likely to say that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards made the right decision to stay in the race despite his wife Elizabeth’s recent cancer diagnosis.

President Bush’s job approval rating dips a point this week to 33 percent, matching a previous low in approval almost a year ago (33 percent, April 18-19, 2006). Disapproval of the president’s performance has increased to 61 percent — the highest disapproval rating of his presidency.

The key question: Bush is virtually certain to veto any bill that comes before him with any kind of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And the game of political chicken — and the final verdict of which side’s political chicken will wind up fried — will begin.

Will Bush’s position in polls and public support further erode if he vetoes the bill and blames it on the Democrats or will the Democrats find themselves shooting themselves in the foot and reviving Bush’s fortunes, just as the Republicans who closed down the government gave President Bill Clinton a needed political boost? Are the Democrats (again) underestimating Bush? Or are Bush and Rove (again as in the 2006 elections) underestimating the Democrats?

When I worked on the staff of the San Diego Union as a reporter I was lucky enough to get to work with Michael Grant, one of the paper’s best writers and columnists. He’d often frame an issue or write about a story in a way that left you thinking long after you read it. He also has a jewel of a weblog.

He has recently been thinking about John Edwards. And here’s a small taste of the piece on his website:

If my wife came home tomorrow with a diagnosis of breast cancer, I know exactly what I would do.

I would support her.

How? I don’t know. The only way I could, I guess. Be with her.

An old pal of mine has been through it, and he says it’s like the two of you, after hearing the news, being escorted into an unfurnished, featureless room with a wide window overlooking the world outside. Behind you, he says, the door closes, no knob on the inside, and the room becomes hermetically sealed. In this room the two of you live, until death do you part, looking out at a life you will never again be a part of.

He told me he read that many husbands in that situation cut and run, refuse to go with her into the room, leave the marriage. I can’t imagine that. On that, John Edwards and I agree. Three years ago, when his wife Elizabeth received her diagnosis, he walked with her into the room that my pal describes. That is the coolest thing I could ever say about John Edwards, even if he were elected president, Pope, ruler for life, entertainer of the year, Oscar winner, Nobel Prize recipient, all on the same day.

He continues to ponder the issue then asks:

It makes you wonder: what would I do?

Read it in FULL and find out.

This has been a wrenching — and revealing — week for many Americans of both parties and no party.

First, Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer returns and she and her husband Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards decide that given the fact we all are not guaranteed more than the present and our yesterdays, they will continue his campaign for President.

Now, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, a star among conservatives and on Fox News for years before he took the stress-inducing job of White House press secretary (but seemed to enjoy the give and take most of the time) goes in for an operation and learns that his cancer has now spread to his liver.

On a more personal note, a very close relative of mine is now valiantly and uncomplainingly battling a particularly brutal form of cancer and it is one of several reasons why my posting output here fell off until recently (when I decided to follow HIS example and try to focus on the tasks at hand and making full use of the moment). I learned about this in late January when I cancelled all my shows for a weekend and went to visit him…but suspected the reason why he wanted me to visit ASAP.

The wonderful thing about the new Wild West of the 21st century called the Internet is that ideas, thoughts and arguments all move within a megasecond. And anyone hooked on reading websites (like yours truly) could see early on that the VAST majority of politicos, readers and weblog writers realized a truth:

When it comes to some things such as learning someone has a potentially terminal illness the REAL CANCER is to remain focused on their political party or ideology.

It’s not the time to try and use the news to score political points or either partially or openly root for that person’s physical deterioration or death…because you simply disagree with him, her or his or her husband or wife on political issues.

In fact, there were some on the right and some on the left who seemingly couldn’t put aside the angry passions of mega-polarized America. But most Americans we are sure (and would bet) didn’t do that at all. And, certainly, if you read weblogs you could see most weblog writers and commentors wished these people well.

Tony Snow and Elizabeth Edwards do not live in a vacuum and they’re not engaged in the political world 24 hours a day. They’ve touched many people in their non-political moments. They’ve laughed and cried over personal events in their challenging lives. They most certainly had positive non-political impacts on some young people. They have friends and relatives whose warm relationships and long friendships with them don’t hinge on their political positions. And if you hired a detective you could place money in Vegas that you’d find that they are well-liked by people who may bitterly disagree with them — who would even likely wish them failure in their political goals.

I did shows at a middle school last year where a student got in trouble because he brought a hat and just would not take off his hat in school. He didn’t care what happened, he didn’t care what school freedoms he lost, he simply would not take off his hat.

When things like this happen, it’s time to take off the political hats.

And although there are some who still won’t take off their hats, most Americans all over the country have been taking off their political hats and wishing two fellow flesh-and-blood human beings well.

And tonight they may say a prayer…or two.

Bad news for White House Press spokesman Tony Snow, news that transcends political battles:

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow’s surgery to remove a small growth showed that his cancer has returned, the White House said Tuesday.

Snow, 51, had his colon removed in 2005 and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. A small growth was discovered last year in his lower right pelvic area, and it was removed on Monday. Doctors determined that it was cancerous, and that his cancer had metastized, or spread, to his liver, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

She said Snow is resting comfortably after his surgery and has pledged to aggressively fight the disease with an as-yet-to-be-determined treatment course.

“He said he’s going to beat it again,” Perino said in an emotional morning briefing with White House reporters. “When I talked to him, he was in very good spirits.”

To read our earlier post about Tony Snow and his unique perspective on news that Elizabeth Edwards’ breast cancer had returned HERE.

Newsweeks’ The Gaggle notes that it was a particularly tough — and revealing — week for White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.

Beset by various controversies, Snow was steadfast in his defense of the Bush administration….but there was a different in tone. And at one point he was moved to tears — and not by reporters tough questions:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has been more than a little dire this week when discussing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ future in the administration. Asked on Monday if Gonzales had offered his resignation to President Bush amid fallout over firing of eight federal prosecutors, Snow answered in the negative, but offered some blunt commentary. “None of us knows what is going to happen to us over the next 21 months, and that’s why it’s an impossible question to answer: will somebody stay throughout?” Snow said. “Nobody is prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold.” On Tuesday, Snow tried to dial back those comments with even bleaker talk. “When I answered yesterday, do you know who’s going to be [attorney general] at the end of the term–as a cancer survivor, I don’t know if I’m going to be alive at the end of this term,” Snow said. “So when you try to put together a question about what’s going to happen for the two years, you don’t know.” Turns out there was a reason he was so serious.

A reason, indeed: Snow is a cancer survivor and on Monday he will undergo surgery to remove a small growth in his abdomen.

It’s fitting to post this on a Sunday — a day of religious reflection. Because even in the rough and tumble political world — and in the brutal 21st century political world with its barrage of shoutfest talk shows and perpetually outraged weblogs — there is a time to take a pause. And Snow reminded everyone that no one is guaranteed he or she will be here beyond this very instant.

Snow was even more pointed, and poignant, when the subject of John and Elizabeth Edwards and Elizabeth Edward’s renewed breast cancer came up:

Snow, who became emotional when responding to questions about Edwards’ cancer fight on Thursday, offered up praise for her courage on Friday. “The reason I got choked up with Elizabeth Edwards yesterday is she is doing a wonderful thing,” Snow said. “The biggest problem you have a lot of times with cancer is just flat-out fear. And when you’re seeing Elizabeth Edwards saying, I’m going to embrace life and I’m going to move forward, that is a wonderful thing, because once you decide that you’re going to embrace life, you become a much better patient. And once you decide that you proceed with a sense of hope and optimism, people are going to rally to your side, and they do- What she is going to do is going to provide a lot of encouragement and example that I think is going to help a lot of people, and that is a truly wonderful thing, and I congratulate her for it.”

Snow provided a STARK contrast in humanity to conservative talk show Rush Limbaugh who didn’t wait a second before going after the Edwardses politically and trying to turn the announcement of her illness into yet ANOTHER chance to whip up Republican listeners’ suspicions and hatreds against Democrats. Read THIS and THIS.

Whether you like Snow’s answers on political issues or not, Tony Snow got it right twice this week. Humanity does count. And Limbaugh? As in the case of Michael J. Fox, Limbaugh seemingly enjoys going after high-profile people who are ill and questioning their motives (even if he later partially backs off on it due to an outcry later) if they do an appearance with high media impact in public.

Why? Because they belong to the “wrong” party.

But, Rush, on this Sunday perhaps it’s worth remembering:

The mili-second after each of us leaves this earthly scene, we’ll no longer be Republicans or Democrats or independents. Just souls.

And it’s unlikely God will say: “Ditto.”

UPDATE:
–Be sure to read Richard Blair’s take:The Politics of Humanity.
–Read skippy. And also here.

How can ANY thinking person listen to him?

Take that, Ann Coulter….

Amid tragic circumstances, America at the beginning of a tempestuous 21st century has just seen a role-model couple in politics. Not the kind of plastic, smiling presence indicative of many political couples for so many years. But something that seemingly went beyond the political or perfunctory.

John Edwards’ dramatic press conference announcing that his wife Elizabeth’s dreaded breast cancer had returned, but that the couple decided he should press on with the campaign anyway, truly seemed the real thing. It was a moment in Presidential campaign 2008 — which actually begun about a milli-second after the calender changed to 2007 — that transcended politics.

Or did it? Hotline On Call notes that the political calculations were going on as the event was breaking:

John Edwards’ crusade is larger than John Edwards. And what a way to show that to the world. Some of Edwardses opponents are grumbling, quietly, that the candidate orchestrated this event for maximum publicity and hang time.

. On the other hand, a Democratic pollster wondered to us whether middle America might be creeped out that Edwards wouldn’t suspend his campaign to go tend to his wife. The Edwardses and their staff might be willing to promote the idea of a movement candidacy, but it’s by no means clear that Democratic primary voters are ready to buy it, just yet.

And, indeed, if the behavior and accusatory tone of American politics holds true in this case, it won’t be long before some talk show hosts will soon insinuate this was somehow timed, somehow in some way campaign ploy, and that the Edwards’ should have ended John Edward’s campaign if it was really life threatening. Or (if you read the positive comments from all parts of the political spectrum in the roundup below), maybe not… (UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh has apparently already started.)

But if it happens — and it would not be surprising — would that represent how the American public viewed this bittersweet moment…bitter due to the resurgence of cancer…and sweet due to what came across about the dedication of these two people to each other. Perhaps most Americans would hold the view of CNN’s senior political analyst, Bill Schneider:

The personal is now political. We hear that all the time. Elizabeth Edwards has been called John Edwards’ greatest campaign asset. That may have been true Thursday with her display of courage and confidence.

As she addressed a crowd of reporters in North Carolina about her cancer coming back, was she making a political statement? Of course she was. Just by showing up.

“One of the reasons to do a press conference as opposed to a press release is so that you can see, I don’t look sickly, I don’t feel sickly,” she said.

Mrs. Edwards was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004. She went to the hospital on Monday for pain in her side and doctors saw something suspicious in her X-ray. The Edwards were told on Wednesday that the cancer had returned to her bones.

By talking about the ordeal herself, Elizabeth Edwards made it clear that she was very much behind her husband’s decision to continue his campaign.

Otherwise, if he had just gotten up and said, “I’m continuing with my campaign, we’ll put out a statement,” he might have been criticized for not taking his wife’s condition seriously enough. The fact that she was there, by his side, made all the difference: it was their decision, not his.

Her husband was making a political statement, too, by not saying anything about his campaign until he was asked. When a reporter asked Edwards if he was going to suspend any campaign activities, he replied, “No.”

And Schneider sees a bigger theme in all of this:

A campaign is a series of tests. Edwards portrayed this as one more. “The maturity and the judgment that’s required of the president, especially in these historic times, requires the President to be able to function and focus under very difficult circumstances,” he said.

This also proves something about him, his wife said: “He has an unbelievable toughness, a reserve that allows him to push forward with what needs to happen.”

And the he hits the nail on the head:

In the past, Edwards has been criticized as a rich populist who lives in a mansion. But now it’s going to be very hard for anyone to portray him as isolated from the real-life problems ordinary people face.

ABC’s Kate Snow recaps the truly breathtaking challenges the Edwards have faced “the loss of their son Wade in 1996, the cancer diagnosis almost 2½ years ago and now all over again.”
She writes:

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of 2008 presidential contender former Sen. John Edwards, is the first to say she’s not special. At a press conference today outside their home in Chapel Hill, N.C., she and her husband announced that her cancer had returned and Elizabeth Edwards said she’s just like every other survivor.

“Every time you get something suspicious, you go into alarm mode,” Edwards said. “Every cancer survivor that you know personally has exactly that experience.”

Edwards has become the voice of those survivors.

Since her diagnosis more than two years ago, Edwards has campaigned not just for her husband on the trail but for cancer victims who don’t have a public podium.

Now there’s a new dimension out there in campaign 2008. Will Edwards stay in the campaign? In a sense, it almost seems a petty question. Because the Edwards’ are going to do what they feel they have and want to do. This new component doesnt mean Edwards’ opponents or the press go any easier on him. But it adds a new twist — something that isn’t the product of campaign strategists.

Meanwhile, the decision to stay in the race has a particularly 21st century dimension to it.

Once upon a time (like in the last century..) someone with cancer or HIV would consider a normal life almost ended. But that increasingly is old century thinking; today many people with life-threatening diseases decide they will learn to live with them — and live to the fullest, not listening to voices that impose limits on them (which are not always accurate anyway).

Maybe in the end Edwards will have to drop out. Maybe his campaign will be dwarfed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But no matter what happens Americans just witnessed a couple displaying something that wasn’t cynical exploitation but, rather, something rare — a display of commitment to each other and a genuine profile in courage.

OTHER NEWS STORIES OF INTEREST:
Candidates’ personal lives become public domain
Hormones factor into cancer’s spread
Edwards Facing Personal, Political Battles
For Elizabeth Edwards, Life Goes On With Cancer

SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THE EDWARDS ANNOUNCEMENT (These are excerpts so read the entire posts):

–David Kuo:

Elizabeth Edwards and I shared a common experience of overcoming dreaded disease. Hers was breast cancer. Mine was a brain tumor. We got each other.

I told her how one of my blog readers, a neuro-oncologist, had chided me because I had taken up professional bass fishing after my White House days. I was irresponsible, the doctor told me. I should be advocating for brain tumor patients. I told her I didn’t want to become known as “the brain tumor guy…

….When I interviewed John Edwards a few weeks ago, he answered a question about the suffering he’d endured - the loss of a son, Elizabeth’s cancer - by saying that his faith had come “roaring back” in order for him to survive. We all need to pray for that roaring faith - for him, Elizabeth, and their children. We need to pray for healing for her. And for us? That this illness puts politics in perspective for more than the next news cycle. For the other candidates? That they focus more on issues of compassion.

–Wizbang’s Lori Byrd: “In my earlier post today I expressed my hope and prayers that Mrs. Edwards would not have bad news to report. I neglected to reiterate that sentiment in this post, which just conveyed the information from the press conference. I go into more detail in my earlier post, but for several reasons, in addition to simply being a compassionate human being, I will be praying for the Edwards family. I think they handled the press conference exactly as they should have. As for those saying Edwards should suspend his campaign now, I don’t think anyone can know what is best for the Edwards, but the Edwards themselves.”

–Andrew Sullivan:

He was admirably candid about his wife’s cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common - and it’s affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn’t give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That’s what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.

The campaign should go on, as life goes on. The cancer should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration.

–Jane Hamsher (who herself battled cancer) blasts a pundit who raised an eyebrow over Edwards staying in the race:

For the good of the nation…. Elizabeth Edwards is no longer entitled to free will, self determination, and certainly not capable of making decisions about her own life. Nor is she entitled to respect for her choices which we think are honorable but are really just selfish. No, she and her husband owe it to white males everywhere to do the brave thing. Edwards must forthwith kneel by her bedside, teardrops falling on her porcelain hand as he scribbles love sonnets with parchment and quill. Because let’s face it, she’s got one foot in the grave..What patronizing drivel. How thoroughly offensive.

–Kos: “He’s not dropping out or suspending. Good.”

–Protein Wisdom: “Best wishes to him & his family, as the race just got unimaginably more grueling for them.”

–James Joyner: “I’m not sure what to make of his decision to press on despite what would appear to be terminal cancer in his wife. My instinct is that a wealthy man, who can certainly afford not to “workâ€? (if you want to call campaigning for president “workâ€?) should spend as much time as he can with his wife under the circumstances. Then again, I presume they made this decision together as a family and, for all I know, Elizabeth talked him out of quitting.”

–All Spin Zone: “I’m not so sure I could make the same decision as Sen. Edwards, but Elizabeth has been John’s most vocal advocate. She knows what’s at stake, not only for her but the country, and this amazing woman won’t let her husband quit. We wish her the best.”

–Dean Bartlett at Hugh Hewitt’s blog: “The campaign will go on. So will Elizabeth’s fight. Godspeed to them all.”

–Ed Morrissey:

It’s a tough call for Edwards to make, and it’s tough to criticize it either way. I think it’s fair to say that Elizabeth has invested herself pretty deeply into John’s campaign up to now, and she probably strongly resisted a suspension in the campaign. If this is what will keep her spirits high, then Edwards made the right decision….

….Edwards has the good fortune to have a fortune, so he can keep his family close while on the campaign trail. If he can balance the needs of his family with a presidential campaign, then he’s made the right decision. I’m not hoping he succeeds in his political ambitions, but I do hope he stays strong for his family and that Elizabeth can remain as healthy as possible from now on.

–Attytood: “Whatever you think of the politics of Elizabeth Edwards and her husband, it is simply impossible not to admire their personal courage.”

–Steven Taylor:

1) I hope that Elizabeth Edwards has a swift, full recovery.

2) The earlier reports appear to have been wrong.

3) I am a little surprised, to be honest. Given Edwards’ wealth, the time needed for a campaign, and the long odds for anyone running for President, I would think that perhaps he would have at least suspended the campaign. The decision, obviously, in theirs–but I still find it odd

–Ezra Klein believes Elizabeth Edwards didn’t want her husband to quit and adds: “There’s a sort of subtle insinuation that sick people should crawl back into their caves and stay there till they either die or get better. But when you hear the Edwards’s discuss the idea that her cancer is now incurable, that it’s not something she will get better from and so not something where they can hit pause, wait for it to pass, and then resume their lives, you have to think that the question they’re asking themselves is not how can Elizabeth best get well, but how would they like to spend the rest of their years. And knowing her even casually, I’m not surprised to learn the answer is “fighting.”"

–The American Street’s Kevin Hayden: “The choices belong to Elizabeth and John. Whatever they decide will be right. Who else has the right to determine how best to live out a life than the person living it? That Elizabeth chooses to live her live fully is the course of a champion. I join her and all her loved ones in hoping she gets to reign as a champ for many years ahead. And may we all grow more enlightened and considerate from her example.”