I don't think the character and sincerity of either Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Edwards are under question in these comments. I think what is at issue is the advertisement's effort to translate ordinary deeds--at least for trial lawyers, surgeons, fire fighters, etc.--into extraordinary heroism, demonstrating Mr. Edwards' "perseverance" and how this somehow prepares him for the presidency, or any other public office for that matter. I think this is insulting, and others who have encountered any equivalent difficulties in life, or whose career choice may somehow be construed as providing a public service, should as well.

How many pleading victims were turned down, only to be told their case may not have merit, or is unwinnable? Would not the altruistic, non-self-serving choice be to tackle the case, irrespective of the likelihood of victory, if only to serve as an advocate for the victim? And, what's more, the argument that perseverance through challenging, emotionally strenuous, professional duties is somehow noble and praiseworthy, and should be touted, is offensive, particularly for those who have endured with humility and measured silence.

Who on earth are you comparing him to? Bush? the never succeeded at anything president?

No one except Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would find anything useful in that column.

Yeah, I heard Rush rant last night about "chick-lit" and how Elizabeth is running this campaign. The guy's got some serious misogenistic attitudes!

"I'm a swing voter, in a swing state."

My friend, you are much more than that.

You are a rude and hateful person. If you felt the need to reply at all, it would have been much more honest of you to simply say "I don't like John Edwards. I disagree with his political ideology, and I would never vote for him."

You are correct in your assertion that many people do not agree with your point of view. If your goal is to change the minds of these people, then a rational argument supporting your own views would be much more effective than your hateful ranting.

I must respectfully disagree with Crunchy. Electability is crucial. We are blessed with a spectacular field of candidates this election cycle, any of whom I could enthusiastically support. (Okay, I'm not so sure about Gravel. Although he was a hero in the 70's. Oh well.) All things being equal ... or, rather equal enough that a lot of us could back any of 'em ... why not choose the traditional Democratic winner -- the white Southern male?

OK, yeah, you're right. Democrats don't vote with their heads, we vote with our hearts. But hey, if Elizabeth and I can fall in love with this guy, why not the rest of you? ;)

I can't believe I'm about to post such a silly comment.

I haven't read all these responses to Elizabeth Edward's defense of her husband (not sure why she needed to defend him; I thought Dickerson's analysis of the ad made alot of sense).

Maybe cutting out the line: "John Edwards has looked the worst in the face and not blinked" (or whatever it was) might be in order.

To me, the ad conveys in a sublte but real way that his wife's illness is a drawback for Edward's chances in the election. That actually might be so (considering how judgemental - and fearful of illness - people can be) - but why have an ad that implies Edwards, himself, feels this way?

And now, to sound completely stupid: John Edwards has my vote because:

1. He's extremely cute (Clinton was also cute. Bushies 1 & 2 look -and act - like War Mongrels)

2. His wife has guts and I admire her both for fighting her illness with grace and strength and because she looks *real*

I know this is alot of emphasis on looks, but at least I'm honest about it. I just hope Edwards is worth my vote. I've will vote Democratic (can't stand the Republicans and I won't vote for some third party sure to lose because, well because people like me won't vote for them).

Election Madness. What's not to like? Eeeesh....

I will concede that my responses to Edwards was snarky, mean-spirited, and skeptical of Edwards character, but I still think it's a good idea. And, you asked, "what would it take", and I enjoyed the fact I had a ready-made answer.

But, since I love to argue....

"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."

Even if the doctors Edwards sued deserved it, Edwards presumably had to sue because there's a shortage of GOOD doctors, yes?

"that what is required here is not advocacy, but personal sacrifice."

YES! Sacrifice! And not all that much. This would be a drop in the bucket.

"a cause of your choice"

A cause I will gain nothing from personally, save the satisfaction that I got a politician to listen. And is that not the point of elections? Getting the politicians to listen to the people?

Elizabeth Edwards is to me the most inspiring admirable figure in the American political arena today. To be faced with what she is going through and still be as dedicated as she is to making this a better country would be, in any rational world where the lunatic GOP'S media minions don't define everything, the truest patriotism.

Again, only in the political arena whose terms of discourse are dictated by a party that demands total fealty to its cult of personality world view, and swiftly assasinates the character of those that deviate, would a syphilitic sybarite like Ann Coulter be given a platform to say what she says.

But the GOP's attacks on John Edwards are revealing. He is the candidate they, and their patrons in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, most fear. Elizabeth Edwards is right, the media should examine the professional, pre-political lives of John and her. Because the fact is, the work of what the Right dismisses as "trial lawyers" in this country is the only effective check on the depredations that profit-driven businesses wreak on Americans in manifold ways everyday. And only someone with the savvy and experience of beating them in the justice system can stand up to these forces, which now literally run every aspect of what used to be the public sphere.

No. If the Edwards' campaiign wants to get facts out about John Edwards, they should quit playing games. Why put out an ambiguous statement in an ad and then act offended because people ask about it or when those questions receive multiple takes on what it means? That is disingenuous.

Johnnyb is right.

The title of this column, by the way, is rather unfortunate. Since John Edwards, of all the candidates, looks the BEST. In the face.

Ahem.

St. Melvin Belli, ora pro nobis? Somehow, I don't think so.

Horus has it right about Drs. I have worked in the medical field (Respiratory Therapist) for 35 years. You can bet that the practicing Drs KNOW who the bad Drs are, and for the most part do NOTHING. If Drs want lower insurance premiums then let them clean up their OWN field so that patients get the BEST care.

As for John Edwards doing a job and getting paid for it, WOW , isn't that the American way? Give me a break cons.

As for my vote , Mr Edwards has it.

Elizabeth has a point. John Edwards' personal trials or tragedies were not things that he chose-- they chose him.

But, as a star trial attorney acknowledged as one of the best in the country, Edwards could have chosen to represent very wealthy corporate clients-- as indeed Hillary did at the Rose firm in Arkansas, representing some of the very companies that riccaric is doubtless referring to, such as WalMart.

Instead, Edwards was exclusively a plaintiff's lawyer-- representing those who were the victims of corporate negligence, or worse.

Hillary may be a fighter, but Edwards fights on the right side. I'll take his representation over hers, any time.

Many people fail to look at the humanity of, well, humans. We error and yet are capable of noble deeds. Jefferson kept slaves while fathering children from slaves. Ms. Edwards has every right, as gaurnteed to freedom of speech as we all have the right to freedom of speech through retort. After all, it is simply a perception of what we think which is in its own way is distorted by our connection to nature and nurture. Do we deny Al Gore Jr. accolades for his dissemination of the global warming issue while he lives in a mansion? I think not. If a top oil executive started his own multi-billion dollar push for hybrid or fuel cell technology would we rather snipe at the billions he/she made from oil profits?

When we consider the average mental age accomplishment on this planet is the 8th grade is it a wonder that we made it as far as we have as a civilization? We all have pain and suffering, no better or worse than anyone else's- just different.

I applaud Ms. Edward's defense of her husband and I mourn the attacks of other's against it. I have one last thing, a quote from Einstein.."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

"But the GOP's attacks on John Edwards are revealing. He is the candidate they, and their patrons in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, most fear. Elizabeth Edwards is right, the media should examine the professional, pre-political lives of John and her. Because the fact is, the work of what the Right dismisses as "trial lawyers" in this country is the only effective check on the depredations that profit-driven businesses wreak on Americans in manifold ways everyday. And only someone with the savvy and experience of beating them in the justice system can stand up to these forces, which now literally run every aspect of what used to be the public sphere."

I for one am not a person who makes the logic jump that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

A great deal of misery, pain, and suffering has been produced by and alleviated by the criminal and civil legal system. Taking a stand and fighting the good fight is admirable, indeed, but I am hesitant to believe that Mr. Edwards has the salt to really and truly fight for the American people -- that means turning against his own professional peers to quash the bloated and often distrusted legal system that put him in office.

That's simply asking too much of one person. To me, it's not a judgment against Mr. Edwards as an individual with morals and ethics and idealism, but does prompt me to question his judgment. Biting the hand that feeds rarely pays dividends in the long run. I believe there are a plethora of examples that can be cited in politics, though none more controversial (perhaps) than the doomed platform of Bobby Kennedy.

To me, it has less to do with Right vs. Left than Reality vs. Idealism. In reality, Mr. Edwards is likely a good man; in the realm of idealism, he's a hero who has looked the worst in the face. I'm just not convinced.