As an attorney, Mr. Edwards only played a bit part in a very small blip on the intellectual, political, and social consciousness of this nation.

With all civility, I vehemently disagree that the fate of his clients was in his hands. It belittles the system in which he is a participant and, most of all, a servant. To tout his achievements at the expense of others -- right down to the paralegals and the low-wage Americans who discard shredded confidential paperwork for a living -- is not the attitude that endears you nor your husband to anyone outside of the victimization culture.

Besides, as an attorney, it was his job and duty to emerge victorious in a high-profile, hard, and personally trying cases. The ad (which I admit I've not seen) and the book (which I'll never read -- Cash by Cash is next on my list and I believe it can offer my life much more) remind me of a bit from one of Chris Rock's stand up routines:

"I'm a good guy -- I take care of my kids, I've never been to prison...Well no kidding! That's what you're supposed to do!"

He's an average man, especially considering the unsung heroes without published books or a 30% cut of "a family's life". Please excuse my cynicism, but I'm not alone in being vaguely hostile to the message and image being presented to me. The heroism angle doesn't work for a secular candidate unless there's real, tangible proof in the public consciousness. He won't win over socially responsible Democratic voters the way GWB won over religious-minded blocs at a time.

Appealing to the low half of the bell curve, in modern politics, apparently only works under the guise of religion. By being a patently secular candidate, there's nothing I find particularly engaging about him, his life, or his potential to lead the nation as my President. Instead, I'm hostile toward the campaign because it reeks of exaggeration.

My view is that whatever lessons were learned the last go 'round have either been forgotten, ignored, or simply beyond the campaign to grasp. I applaud your candor and effort in this forum, though I believe many persons just as wise and just as tested as Mr. Edwards, Esq, will make themselves known in response -- which to a certain extent gives validity to Dickerson's impression of the ad...John Edwards...The Ambiguously Heroic Hero?

I think what Elizabeth Edwards is trying to convey is the basic principle that a person's character is set forth in his actions, not necessarily in his words. For John Edwards to have acted courageously and compassionately in the face of difficulty is an indication of character and integrity, as well as personal strength. Ms. Edwards should not be pummeled by critics for her explanation, in fact, she has shed a light on her husband that I was looking for. By knowing about John Edwards, we can get an idea of what kinds of decisions he will make should he be elected, how he may react in a crisis and what will influence his opinions as well. In these dangerous times, the more we know about our candidates, the better off we will be when we go to the polls and cast our votes. The American people were hoodwinked in 2000 and again in 2004 by a cutesy-folksy, fast-talking good ol' boy who never answered any hard questions or faced any adversity. People were swayed by his glib responses and even worse, his cheesy background was covered up and his lack of character was never made an issue. Ironic when you remember how Daddy Bush yelped "character, character," in his 1993 campaign against Bill Clinton. The shrub has all the character of a snake oil salesman. It's time to hold our candidates to very, very high standards; in fact, it's long overdue.

While I do admire John and Elizabeth Edwards for persevering through what is undoubtedly a difficult time in their lives: campaigning is grueling enough, and there's the issue of her resurgent breast cancer to boot. To me, if the Edwards crew can stick it out through this, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he will have the strength to lead the country in a time of crisis. And that is definitely a plus.

Where I fault the Edwards campaign (and Elizabeth too) is in the way they choose to portray John's "strength." Everyone knows that ad is about how he struggled through his son's death and his wife's resurgent breast cancer. If, as Mrs. Edwards claims, this "toughness" is in the context of his career as a trial attorney, then it absolutely should have been mentioned directly (not tangentially in "the way he fights for others" that's talked about in the spot).

As it stands now, the Edwards campaign tries to have it both ways - pretending it's about his career as a trial attorney while winking at us and letting us infer that it's really about his wife's breast cancer and his son. It's a fine line to dance on, and Edwards dances around it masterfully.

As a political dance, the ad is brilliant. As an honest portrayal of John Edwards' inner strength, I find it wreaks of politics too much. For sure, Edwards is trying to deflect charges of "profiteering off of his son's death" which the right will undoubtedly lob at him, but to my mind, by veiling his personal issues the way he has, he makes himself much more open to these types of charges.

Much more refreshing would be to engage the electorate in a frank, honest discussion about his past personal AND professional hardships. They SHOULD talk about the death of their son, and Elizabeth's breast cancer. It would humanize John - and show him that he's got more in common with the $20 haircut crowd than they would think. It would make him a real person. It would allow us to see two Johns - the one that has suffered immensely through the loss of a child and the one that sympathizes genuinely with those who have suffered immensely themselves. THAT is the John that the Edwards campaign should highlight.

Love Jake

Seems your compassion for working Americans stops at the party, er, property line.

As the moderator of this forum, I can't emphasize enough how impressed I am that you not only wrote into the Fray, but have taken the time to respond to some of your critics here. To see a prominent public figure such as yourself honestly engage the egalitarian conversation taking place here, underscores what makes me proud about this job.

That said, I would like to hear your response to the readers who view a certain double-speak in this ad. You offer a plausible interpretation of the advertisement, and I don't doubt your personal sincerity. If the ad was unclear, you've certainly clarified.

But you and your husband are at the center of the great paradox of American politics - projecting your human voices through a dismayingly cynical campaign machine. The ad seems clearly designed to play upon people's sympathy for the personal hardships you've both endured - as a viewer, I found myself torn in two directions by your evident sincerity and the packaging's transparent cynicism.

The reaction demonstrated here shows how jaded and cynical much of the American electorate has become. Is this a function of the press? Of campaign PR? Of the personalities in office today?

There's a powerful longing among many Americans to cease with the pandering and the double-speak. You're making a noble effort in this forum to cut through both, and I respect that. How do you reconcile the chasm between John Edwards, the person and John Edwards, the product? How do you think the American voter should?

"Oh, Madai, what will it take to convince you that John Edwards cares about poverty?"

I already answered the question. Here's my words:

"John Edwards would make a more believeable champion of the poor if he gave some of the money he made suing doctors to scholarships for some med students."

Heck, if he puts just ONE student from a background of poverty through med school with his own money, I'll not only vote for him, I'll volenteer for his campaign.

Mrs. Edwards is right to point to the plight of many families in the United States, and I suppose her explanations holds some water. But who has read Edwards' book? I mean seriously.

For better or worse, when we see Mrs. Edwards on the screen, the American people see a sick and admirable women. She is definitely an exceptional person, as I suspect her husband is. But, it's hard to stomach a campaign that doesn't speak frankly with the voters, especially when they're trying to tackle such important and vexing issues.

I admire Mrs. Edwards, and 300 dollar haircuts and hedge funds aside, I like Mr. Edwards. But they've got to understand that we're not stupid. I think Dickerson is right, sorry.

Ms. Edwards,

I consider it a privilege addressing you on this forum. I appreciate the time and effort you expended addressing it. I don't concur with Mr. Dickerson's assessment of the exploitation of your cancer, nor do I see your husband as any more "noble" than another good man might be in his place.

Though I presently feel compelled to support a different Democratic candidate, I would certainly support your husband if he does attain the nomination. I am quite aware that in voting for him, you would be an influential part of his candidacy, so I can only hope for the best in your present struggle to survive.

Elizabeth,

Sounds like John Dickerson was short on material one day and decided to pick the most convenient target - your husband. No one except Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would find anything useful in that column.

It's awful to see and watch people take cheap shots at you and your husband, As an American, I'm proud to see the two of you in the presidential race again. Best of luck.

"Heck, if he puts just ONE student from a background of poverty through med school with his own money, I'll not only vote for him, I'll volenteer for his campaign."

I'm not sure where to go with this next. On one hand, you seem to betray that your problem with Edwards is not that he's insufficiently committed to helping the poor, but that he's antagonistic toward doctors.

But I think the more telling part is the "with his own money" part. It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong because parsing the meaning of the words of somebody I've never met is a tricky proposition at best, that what is required here is not advocacy, but personal sacrifice. It needs to be the money that he earned "suing doctors" that is philanthropically given to a cause of your choice.

Now, I haven't the slightest idea how much of that (apparently) ill-gotten loot the Edwardses have given to charity over the years, but my guess (maybe Mrs. Edwards could let me know if I'm right) is that they give way more than what it would take to send one person through medical school.

Or, is it merely that this construction suggests that in order to be an advocate for the poor, he must do so by atoning for the sin of doctor-suing?

Well blow me over! And welcome to the Fray and what a welcome surprise. While I live in NEbraska, I have followed John's career since he emerged as a Senate candidate. I could see then that he was a rising star. Behind every rising star is another rising star and indeed you fill that role with dignity, honor, class, energy and intellect.

With all of this praise you might conclude that I must be a supporter of John Edwards. Well, I am a supporter -- but it is still too early to commit. Hence, I am also a supporter of Clinton, Obama and Richardson. I view that as good news because the Democratic field is filled with so many outstanding candidates, unlike the Republican party where none-of-the-above is a clear winner.

Keep up the outstanding work. Too bad Republican obstruction prevents the country from doing what is right in Iraq. And keep in touch with the Fray -- a hangout of ordinary people.

Suing doctors is just automatically "bad," no matter what the doctor has done to his patients? Malpractice isn't justifiable reason for a lawsuit, for instance?

Let bad doctors fear lawsuits, I say. High malpractice costs are more a function of insurance company greed and bad investments than they are of the occasional, often justifiable lawsuit.

FWIW

Tend to your own worthless President, Veep, and the rest of his 'compassionate' Republican warmonger associates, and don't worry so much about lack of 'compassion' from Edwards.

The nation doesn't need Bush's kind of 'compassion...'

Mrs. Edwards,

Let me begin this reply to your post by saying that I couldn't be happier that your husband has decided to enter this race. I couldn't be more sympathetic to his cause, and I certainly couldn't be more enviable of his choice of mate (anyone who is willing to stick her finger in Ann Coulter's eye is a winner in my book).

During the first Edwards campaign, I held out hope that he would lead the Blue ticket and represent a better vision for America. Sadly, I was dissapointed, and tried hard to accept Mr. Kerry as the alternative. During your husband's 2004 campaign I was impressed by his vision, his optimism and the genuine nature with which he approached every issue. I felt that all of those qualities were eclipsed during the general election in order to play to a broader audience.

This time around, I can't shake the feeling that his campaign is moving in that direction again. That he is trying to find the number two spot again, instead of the spotlight that his issues deserve.

That feeling was only highlighted by the article that I read the other day in which John proclaimed himself to be "the most electable candidate, " that most "Republicans prefer him over the other Democrats."

Electability is a nice bonus (and would be nice in the co-pilot seat), but that's not what this election is about. This election cycle needs to highlight the fact that We the People have given the conservative methods all of the attention and effort that they deserve over the last 12 years --- and they have failed.

We need to highlight the bold, progressive issues that John Edwards stands for and to show America that now is the right time to act on them. We need to reintroduce a culture of accountability (Iraq apology accepted [and appreciated] Mr. Edwards) that extends beyond the individuals in office --- and lands squarely in the lap (and wallet) of the American public.

I'm sick of seeing strong Liberal souls forced to hide behind a shield of faux conservatism for the sake of electability. It's time for our party to celebrate our roots, not those of a failed and morally bankrupt right-wing. If we lose again, that's OK, but it's time for us to be heard and counted. I strongly believe that if our views are voiced --- given the air that they deserve--- they will prevail.

We're all going to be looking at the intestine girl in the face more than we want to throughout this campaign, 'cause she's going to be in a lot more ads. It will take no more courage or personal sacrifice for us to do so than it did John Edwards.

There are lots of reasons one might vote for Edwards (personally I care more that a president can tell the difference between Sunnis and Shi'a). His personal courage in representing badly maimed people and making a gazillion dollars is not one of them.