I was pretty disgusted by those comments as well.  But seeing whom they came from, I didn't give it a second thought.  They both have used the "he shouldn't run because his wife has cancer" schtick before, along with Areyouready and some others.  I think it's in their talking points.

I promise you that if Bill is incapacitated by a major heart attack, they'll be here saying Hillary's a strong woman and can do this for their sake or something.  It's just how they are.  We have to ignore them and move on.

What you wrote needed to be written and your diary is in the same vein as when Elizabeth Edwards engaged Ann Coulter on Hardball.

It's about decency.

Some people have it and some people don't.

Their comments crossed a line.

I'm glad you wrote it.

I can't see the comments, they must be hidden or something.  Anyway, I don't think they are exploiting her cancer- I don't think she even mentions it unless asked.  It comes up so rarely, I even forget she has it at times, so I don't think they are making it an issue in the campaign- certainly not one they are exploiting.

As much as I may respect John Edwards, his personal ambition does not trump the overriding importance of a Democrat winning the White House in 2008.

There is no margin for error. We cannot elect a Republican and continue the Bush neocon war policy. We cannot appoint one, two, or three more Alitos and Roberts to the Supreme Court. We cannot have four more years of a Justice Department that ignores civil rights and actively tries to undermine minority voting. We just can't.

The fact that John Edwards could be pulled off the campaign trail at any time -- next week, next month, October 2008 -- is a serious concern for the Democratic Party. It could cost us an otherwise winnable election. Sorry if Edwards fans don't like the truth.

So I can only say that I think people will look at a candidate and look at the whole candidate and all their circumstances and all their traits and abilities before making a decision.  Some will factor in Mrs. Edwards cancer.  Some will not.

Of those that factor it in, some will factor it in negatively, and some will factor it in positively (as a show of charactor as it relates to staying in the race, etc.) to their view of John Edwards candidacy and ability to be President.

The people who do factor it in, either positively, or negatively, have a right to discuss the political aspects of it on a political blog.  Again, I didn't see the comments, so I don't know if they crossed aline or not.  But your posts suggests an aggression on your part and an attempt to shout people down who would discuss the political ramifications of the Edwards family, and Mrs. Edwards cancer, as it relates to John's candidacy.

I would love nothing better than to see Elizabeth Edwards live a very long, very happy life.

Howver, the reality is that only half of Stage IV breast cancer patients live three years and only one fifth live five years. It is incurable.

Since we have as many as half dozen very strong potential nominees, I think we have to consider the reality of one of the nominees being forced into a restricted campaign schedule and/or limited in the attention that could be devoted to issues like getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our crumbling foreign policy, or passing universal health care during the first term in the White House.

Could a health crisis affect any of our candidates? Sure. But, none of them go into the race with similar odds.

In 2004, we nominated a candidate who had within the past 12 months overcome cancer himself. These people weren't making these arguments then (I hope).

I propose that every time Clinton supporters make this dispicable argument, everyone who is offended donate $5 bucks to Edwards. Since he'll get matching, its a 10-dollar donation. That should either turn their loathsome attacks into a benefit for Edwards or lead whoever is encouraging them to do this to recover a bit of their dignity.

to everyone who wants hwc and andrew to stop- I say let them continue. It's better to know who you are talking to and what they represent rather than bury your heads in the sand about who they are. this is the nature of clintonian politics. look for more of it in the coming years.

I stopped reading the comments.

We are all Democrats, well at least I'd like to think so. You Hillary people's attack on Elizabeth Edwards does not pass the Do You Stink Test. It isn't anywhere near as big an issue as her courage.

It's a sad day for MyDD when we've got trolls like this posting on the front page.

We should just be glad we're not running a candidate with polio or something.  What a disaster that would be!

At the risk of spamming this thread, I feel I need to again point out that these nasty comments about Mrs. Edwards aren't coming from Hillary Clinton herself, from "Clintonian politics" or from "you Hillary people". They came from exactly two people, and you've had several Clinton supporters agreeing with this diary, just as I do.  

Let's keep our eye on the ball.  The attacks on Mrs. Edwards were wrong, and we all know it.  Period. Don't blame all Clinton supporters for this.

.... like a big political football. We can only make a prayer for Elizabeth Edwards, and that is all. She is obviously a very brave person. With something like this, you have to go one day at a time. That's all any of us have anyway. We get just one day at a time.

I personally don't find the EE cancer argument very compelling or interesting.  There are many reasons most Democrats don't support Edwards, and EEs cancer is nowhere near those many other issues.  If anything, that story helped humanize Edwards some (although the immediate fundraising letter was over the top, I thought.)   Of course, on the other hand, there should be no argument from Edwards supporters (as I have seen made several times) that a particular harsh and dismissive comment from EE should not lead to a strong reaction from Clinton (or Obama) supporters because she has cancer.  I think the whole cancer issue should not be part of the discussion, period.    

I agree with you that the comments made by a few of the Hillary supporters are outrageous. And that one of them is a frontpager here is troubling. But it seems that this site has shifted in it's policies of what and what is not acceptable. Apparently frontpagers and Hillary supporters have lots of pull and leeway here. Much of the comments coming from them are contrary to civil discourse and actual candidate support. I have to distance myself from these people because I just don't believe that this is all about Hillary at all costs, especially when that cost is the heart of our Democratic party. With many, support for Hillary is blind. They don't care that she supports and agrees with Lieberman on Iran and they don't mind using the lowest form of public discourse attacking John and Elizabeth Edwards, or Barack Obama for that matter. And conversely, when anyone brings up anything bad about Hillary Clinton they are pounced upon and reviled with hateful and disgusting or demeaning language that never seems to get a look from the Administrators of this site.

I took a break posting because the level of discourse became so low that I found it hard to support the same candidate as many on here. And then Hillary voted for Lieberman and said she wouldn't end the war by 2013 and that just through me down. Couple that with the newest polls that Hillary is leading in a large way and I really think that our party is in big trouble. Dissent and disagreement are the hallmark of a democracy. That we are able to do so civilly and with common respect is also a hallmark of that democracy. But the way the Hillary supporters here would have it dissent is a republican talking point or we are just idiots or haven't read the Constitution or don't understand our own government. They take away from the civility and respect our party should embrace and I distinguish and separate myself from them publicly.

And I support the candidate that will REALLY end this war.

Excellent diary, Rob.  It was a thoughtful comment.

I'm going to let Elizabeth respond to the self-righteous commenters who have taken it upon themselves to wring their hands and wonder what if Edwards has to take a week or a month off from campaigning in October 2008?  

"You don't get to judge me because you think you know exactly what you would do if you had my disease. I want to be really clear: you don't know. And if the sun always shines on you-- and I pray it does-- you will never know."

And I believe the same goes for John Edwards.  You don't get to judge him because you think you know what he would do.

If you are HRC supporter, you often have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  It isn't enough to support HRC, you must really prove your love by trashing all other candidates.

it sucks .