Although I admire the Edwards' decision, I'm still at a loss to understand why John Edwards is such a strong candidate for this election to begin with. I mean, he was considered "too young" and "too inexperienced" in the last election, and he's not aged that much or done anything political in the intervening four years....

Don't get me wrong- I'm from NC, I've voted for him twice already, I like him as a candidate personally, but I don't understand why his candidacy is so much better-regarded this time.

Sent by Jess | 2:17 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I wish people would stop trying to second guess their decision. They, of all people, know what they have to deal with and how to deal with it.

I look forward to future programs discussing the possible effect of Mitt Romney's wife's MS getting dramatically worse? Or, a melanoma returning to CANDIDATE McCain? Or, a recurrance of cancer in CANDIDATE Giuliani? How about CANDIDATE Clinton's husband having a repeat heart attack? These are only some of the known problems. ANYTHING can happen to anyone at any time and we should stop this obsessing about them.

Sent by Mari | 2:18 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I have absolutely no doubt that John Edwards has the depth, integrity and fortitude to take much better care of this country than any person in the current administration has. The arrogance of anyone who believes otherwise overwhelmes me. The critics of this subject must be the very same folks who support the Bush/Cheney fiasco.

Sent by Regina Henault | 2:20 PM ET | 03-26-2007

the choice made by Mrs. Edwards is her's to make. who the hell am i to even question anyone else's personal health choices? i realize this is a campaign and everything's fair game, but it's a little bit of a bummer to hear all the judgements that have surfaces since Mrs. edward's announcement last week.

I can give you half dozen reasons why I believe Elizabeth Edwards is doing the right thing. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK!

How anyone chooses to cope with their cancer is THEIR choice. And who's to say Mrs. edward's very public battle won't be theraputic for her and the nation?

If you ask me it's a bit twisted that we can accept a presidental candidate whose family is dealing with such a real-world problem.

Sent by jay lassiter | 2:20 PM ET | 03-26-2007

Given that all people die, it is ridiculous to suggest that Edwards should not be president because of his wife's situation. If that is an appropriate argument, then we should require that our candidates must have no living family. Any President's spouse, child, parent, other relative or pet could die at any time.

Sent by Robin Leguillow | 2:21 PM ET | 03-26-2007

There's a precident for a major illness casting a shadow over the White House, and FDR did a fine job for many years, by most accounts, despite his polio condition.

Sent by thenekkidtruth | 2:23 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I am the spouse of a person who was diagnosed and eventually died from cancer. His first comment to the oncologist was that we had to schedule his treatment times around my busy musical rehearsing schedule--and we did. Life has to go on as best you can--I applaud the Edwards' decision.

Sent by Raymonde Rougier | 2:26 PM ET | 03-26-2007

How is Elizabeth's struggle with cancer so much different from Dick Cheney's struggle with all of his various health problems? There didn't seem to be so much uproar with him taking on the role of vice president as there is with John Edwards seeking the presidency.

I fail to see much difference and I support Mr. Edwards' decision.

Sent by Shannon | 2:28 PM ET | 03-26-2007

corvallis, oregon, calling:
my thoughts include: i, too, admire the Edwards' decision. i have no doubt at all that, if elected, mr. edwards could run the country while also being a caring husband and father. hasn't humanity, throughout history, shown this is not only possible but required of us all on some level? who has ever had (or wanted to have, really?) one single focus...and isn't the presidency a job that requires the ability to multitask in an holistic manner? i have weighed my own personal experiences with this disease and applied them to my conclusions, and they have helped me to see that this is more about the strength of our abilities to make choices rather than a particular timeline of life...thanks! ...back to listening

Sent by suasn pachuta | 2:28 PM ET | 03-26-2007

Cancer (a heterogeneous mix of diagnoses) is a chronic disease much as diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, HIV, rheumatoid arthritis, Chron's disease or ulcerative colitis. Until the discovery and purification of insulin, Diabetes was considered a rapid death sentence. Same with HIV/AIDS until the first antiretroviral. In the early 1960s when we first began seeing more cancers (because people lived long enough to get them), we had dismal ability to control the disease process. Each organ/cell type of cancer is different. The difference is in the type of treatments - infusions and radiation rather than primiarily fully outpatient type treatments. (Although Rheumatoid now has lots of infusion treatments).

This was merely an announcement of a change in health status. It actually makes me feel a bit more sanguine about Edwards as a candidate - He understands the need to be present in the NOW and to think through consequences.

Sent by Susan Woo | 2:28 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I can understand what John and Elizabeth Edwards are facing, as my late husband and I had a similar situation. He was diagnosed with lung cancer, which was metastic disease. I don't think anyone can judge their situation unless they walk in their shoes. My husband was always adamant that he would never undergo chemotherapy, yet that changed.
We all need a purpose in life and especially to live. My hat is off to the Edwards as they are in my late husband's words "keep on keeping on".

Sent by Laura Fromm | 2:34 PM ET | 03-26-2007

Dick Cheney's heart condition was far more threatening (statistically) than Elizabeth's cancer.

Sent by Peggy Harrington | 2:35 PM ET | 03-26-2007

So how could we wonder if this is a good choice. You don't stop living when you have a diagnosis. You live your life perhaps even more fully. I guess you could say this campaign is something they can choose. Good luck to them and blessings

Sent by Bobbie McGarey | 2:37 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I admire the decision - but I think another issue should be raised. It is my understanding that Elizabeth Edwards took hormones to get pregnant and I wonder if there is a connection to the cancer.

Sent by Nancy E Landgrten | 2:37 PM ET | 03-26-2007

Their decision reflects a positive trend to treat illness and death as a natural part of life, instead of something one talks about in whispers.

Those who find reasons to criticize their decision to continue (cough Rush Limbaugh) are just doing the bidding of his opponents anyway. If this is political opportunism, why would they spend all of this political energy now?

I commend their honesty, choosing to inform and disclose instead of dodge and refuse details--unlike the Bush administration???s constant evasion and deception despite their campaign promises of restoring honesty and respect to the White House.

Sent by muddy | 2:38 PM ET | 03-26-2007

What about JFK when baby Patrick died?

Sent by PC | 2:38 PM ET | 03-26-2007

Certainly not all Presidents have been endowed equitably with intellect and integrity. As far as Mrs. Edwards's diagnosis being a distraction to a President Edwards, some could argue that Sen. Edwards probably could function as well using half his brain and attention span as some other Presidents, not naming any, could with extreme exertion of all their faculties.

Sent by Larry Hicks | 2:40 PM ET | 03-26-2007

George Bush picked a partner/Vice Presidential Candidate who has serious heart problems. Edward's partner/wife, who would not be in line for the Presidency, has cancer. I think the Edwards know what is good for their family.

Sent by Paula Lacey | 2:42 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I admire and support the Edwards. If our current president takes a record amount of time out for vacationing to unwind and relax, why shouldn't we accept a president who takes that same time to care for his wife when necessary? I think that John Edwards has shown he only grows stronger and more capable with crisis. I think that, and his honesty are fine qualities for a president to have.

Sent by Jill | 2:46 PM ET | 03-26-2007

We are born and then life becomes terminal. There is no way to predict an individual's life expectancy. Statistics are about probabilities, not definitudes. So what if Mrs. Edwards breast CA is metastatic? People with metastatic CA can live full lives with current treatments and may not necessarily die from the CA. I would be proud to have a president and first lady who have shown courage, dignity, and a "can do" attitude. I agree with the comments that this actually shows how he will handle a crisis.

Sent by Jo | 3:08 PM ET | 03-26-2007

My wife died 7 years ago leaving me with 2 small kids. If he runs and wins the kids lose both parents, if he loses he breaks contact with his kids as mommy is dying. His kids should come first now. Remember Regan spent 20 years on the talk circuit.

Sent by Ernie Richards | 4:50 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I can't believe how shamefully the Edwards campaign has been exploiting this tragedy. Yes they can continue if they want but do they have to milk it so much? And does the media have to feed into this so much and give the campaign so much free air time? Let's face it if Elizabeth wasn't dieing no one would be talking about the Edwards campaign at all.

Sent by mountain man | 12:40 AM ET | 03-27-2007

Now that Elizabeth Edwards's cancer diagnosis has opened up this can of worms for the nation to scrutinize, I would like to see the topic of illness in the family discussed from a broader policy standpoint (future TOTN topic? Hint, hint!). While I'm sure the Edwards family can afford the time off and expense required to treat Elizabeth's cancer, many middle and lower class Americans can't. The United States is way behind other nations in offering nationally mandated/subsidized paid maternity leave, paid leave to care for sick family members, child care, and health care coverage. These are basic human services that could make or break the lives of many of the working class Americans Edwards heralds.

How do other nations provide such services, and how could the United States? Would these services help reduce health care costs and violent crime in the long run? Now that's a topic!

Please see Ruth Rosen's article entitled "The Care Crisis" in The Nation magazine (3/07) for more on this very broad and important topic.

Sent by Jill Hocking | 11:33 AM ET | 03-27-2007

I'm appalled that only one of the responders above has made any reference to the Edwards children and the impact that this decision will have on them. These children are only 6 and 8. When Mr. and Mrs. Edwards decided to have a second family, it stopped being about them and started being about their children.

I've been through this. My husband was diagnosed with a recurrence of Melanoma when my children were 8 and 10. He was given 6 months. We were fortunate enough to be able to drop what we were doing and devote our time and energy into prolonging his life which we did for 3 very precious years.

I can't imagine telling my 10 year old that yes, his daddy might die but that everyone has to die sometime. Nor can I imagine suggesting that children this age will just have to grow up. Finally, I cannot imagine hiring a private tutor and hauling the children around on a campaign bus and taking away everything that is safe and familiar to them.

My vote is no. The Edwards should be at home dealing with this very private and very serious situation with their family, spending every available moment with those children. Believe it or not, this country will survive without Mr. Edwards at the helm.

Sent by SRB | 12:10 AM ET | 03-30-2007