Last night, some friends and I went to hear Elizabeth Edwards speak at my local bookstore here in Jacksonville, Florida. She's currently on tour to promote the paperback release of her memoir, "Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers." Of course, the book is only half the story. Each stop on the tour also generates publicity for her husband's bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. Judging from the large crowd that turned out on a windswept, rainy Tuesday night, the well-timed book tour is a boon for both business as well as politics.

"Saving Graces" deals, in part, with the premature death of John and Elizabeth's son, Wade, and its message is one of optimism in the face of tragedy. Mrs. Edwards is a wonderful public speaker. She is more than comfortable behind the microphone, exhibits a quick sense of humor, and forges a strong connection with her audience.

While the night was largely devoted to the subject of grieving the loss of a family member, it was also filled with political anecdotes. We learned, for instance, that it was Elizabeth who, back in 2004, convinced John to ditch an early concession speech, and that, if it was up to her, there would have been a re-count in Ohio. Not giving up is more than just a leitmotif for Mrs. Edwards, it is at the heart of who she is. She answered questions about her own health by noting that while her cancer is in her bones, no symptoms are present-a good sign.

And how does she read the signs from the campaign? After all, a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows her husband falling behind Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I asked how optimistic she was feeling about winning the Hawkeye State. Of course, I knew the answer already.

"Very optimistic," she said.

According to his wife Elizabeth anyway, and she should know!

The Web can be liberating. "It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads.

"In some ways, it's the way we have to go," Edwards says. "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it's nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all."

Of all the candidates and their spouses, Elizabeth is probably the one who "gets" the internet. She contributes to DailyKos, she pushed to hire the bloggers. Hiring bloggers was probably a good move. Hiring those bloggers specifically was bad. And then here she is speaking at BlogHer (ugh! hate the name), a conference for blogging women.

So this is not a shock. But unfortunately, her husband is a white man. That only gets you so far in the Democratic party. But she can take some consolation that the lefty blogging world is very, very white themselves.

Maybe they feel that they need to go left to win, but John Edwards and Barack Obama are making huge unforced errors that may score them a few points, but ultimately would doom them in a potential general election.

...Obama spoke about his intentions to expand people's access to health insurance, which would include universal coverage for "reproductive-health services." An Obama spokesman clarified that this did indeed include abortion.

...Elizabeth Edwards, speaking for her husband, presidential candidate John Edwards, said that he proposed a "true universal health-care plan," the Tribune Reports. Specifically referring to abortion, she stated that this plan would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination."

Universal health care all by itself is a tough sell to the American people, but universal health care that funds a procedure that half of all Americans view as murder is something else altogether. Either they haven't thought it through or they are not at all serious about passing universal health care. It's a tough sell and you're going to need every vote. By including abortion you've just aligned yourself against all the libertarians, plus the pro-lifers, plus the business interests. Congratulations, you've just killed any possibility of passage.

Oh and that's not all.

John Edwards is not gaining any support of men by having his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, constantly fighting his battles. First it was his ongoing battle against Ann Coulter, now she's fighting his fight against Hillary Clinton:

Elizabeth Edwards is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique yesterday of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In an interview with Salon.com, Mrs. Edwards said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women's issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman.

Besides the fact that she may be right -- John Edwards does seem to have unusual insight into women's issues -- the fact that she is increasingly fighting the nastier fights for her husband can do nothing but hurt Edwards. It will bring up the same issues as were raised when Hillary was on the campaign trail with Bill in 1992 -- who exactly are we electing, Bill or Hillary Clinton? Unfortunately, we ended up with both but that's a topic for another day.

Where do we draw the limit in criticizing someone? Should we listen to people who make personal attacks on their opponents? How hard can it be to stick to the issues?

These questions are relevant in light of Elizabeth Edwards' courageous confrontation with Ann Coulter, with Chris Matthews playing the role of mediator. It is heartening that Mrs. Edwards took the time to call in. If others follow this strategy, perhaps we really will have a more civil and issue-centric discourse in this country.

Coulter thrives on insulting her opponents, whether disparaging the SAT scores of New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger or using the F-word to describe John Edwards. Part of what enables her to do this is that many of those who feel revulsion toward her will not have anything to do with her, which is understandable. "Ann and I don't hang out with the same people," Elizabeth Edwards noted on Matthews' show.

I wonder if what keeps Coulter's wicked words flowing is her confidence that her targets will rarely, if ever, confront her on what she says, and she can bask instead on adulation from fans.

Elizabeth Edwards has joined Bill Clinton as a spouse of a candidate who can effectively advocate for their partner.

Some spouses take a background role, others (Bill Clinton) love the limelight; still others take public stances when it seems necessary, as appears to be the case with Elizabeth Edwards confronting Ann Coulter.

John Edwards is lucky to have a spouse who, despite the difficulty of battling cancer, is willing to defend him in a public forum, against such a foe, and in such a measured manner.

Voters like such steadfastness; even though Hillary Clinton slammed Tammy Wynette while standing up for her husband during his 1992 presidential campaign, I think American voters liked seeing the future first lady defend Bill Clinton against early allegations. I think voters will have a similarly high regard for Elizabeth Edwards' recent courage.

Without commenting on whether Ann Coulter crossed the line, (I suspect she did, but am ignorant on the details of what she said exactly) I have to note that the discussion yesterday about Elizabeth Edwards and Coulter is reminiscent of what happened back in March when Ann said that calling John Edwards a "faggot" would land her in a re-education camp.

The Edwards campaign milked that for all its worth and Jonah Goldberg wonders if this is a repeat of that situation:

...She may not have talked to her husband, but the suggestion that this wasn't greenlighted or calculated by the campaign is laughable. Campaign spouses don't freelance like this. More to the point, John Edwards is imploding. And his last really good moment in the press was when Coulter called him a "faggot." It was dumb and distasteful, but it was also money in the bank for Edwards, who used it to further endear himself to the netroots base and to raise money on it. Elizabeth Edwards is - smartly - trying to change the subject back to Edwards as a victim of those mean rightwingers. It strikes me as a little desperate.

It certainly could be that Ann Coulter is the best thing that has happened to the Edwards campaign both then and now. I certainly agree with Jonah that the Edwards campaign is insulting our intelligence when they deny any ulterior planning. My suspicion is that they are feeding off each other. It's pretty distasteful from either side.

Ann Coulter appeared on Chris Matthews' show today, offering her usual shtick of personal attacks, name-calling and zippy one-liners. All pretty predictable stuff, until, that is, Elizabeth Edwards called in and directly confronted Ms. Coulter about disparaging "personal attacks" Ann made about her husband, John Edwards, as well as their deceased son.

Of course, Ms. Coulter played Mrs. Edwards' request for civility as an attempt at censorship. You see, Ann simply cannot conceive of political debate without resorting to her trademark tools of attack. After all, what would become of Coulter if she couldn't wield sensational ad hominem arguments? Answer: She'd be out of a job.

This time it's White House press secretary Tony Snow who had a previous bout with colon cancer. It's back and this time it's take a more serious turn. The good news is that this cancer is very treatable. The Edwardses were among the first to express support:

Throughout the day, lawmakers and members of the public sent good wishes to the White House.

Among them was Sen. John Edwards, a presidential candidate whose wife, Elizabeth, learned last week that her breast cancer had returned in an incurable but treatable form. Snow had publicly lauded her that day for dealing with her cancer without fear. At the time of those comments, Snow knew he was about to undergo more surgery of his own, although he did not know what the tests would show.

``Tony has been an incredible example for people living with cancer and cancer survivors,'' John Edwards said Tuesday.

I had the good fortune to hear Tony Snow at a fundraiser in Cincinnati last fall. He is an incredibly good speaker with an excellent feel for the audience and just the right touch of humility and class. So it makes sense that he's also an Ohioan, having graduated from a suburban Cincinnati high school. Tony has been an excellent spokesperson for the White House, one of the best choices Bush has made. Well wishes for Tony and his family and hoping he pulls through again.

The news that Elizabeth Edwards had a recurrence of breast cancer brought back memories for me. At 55 years old she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The diagnosis came in November 2004 just as her husband, John, was learning that he would not be Vice President. As you all know, she has been told that the cancer has returned.

Now the debate begins. Should John Edwards give up his quest to be the Democratic nominee for President or should he stay at home with Elizabeth and deal with the cancer?

In 1969, at the young age of 54, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a mastectomy. Nine months later, the doctor gave her the bad news. The cancer had come back and she wouldn't live much longer. What did she do? She continued going to work every day. She took the street car into Boston. When she had trouble walking, I drove her into her office. When her walking really got bad, I was able to drive her into the office building garage and drop her off in front of the elevator. You see, she loved her job. She loved the people with whom she worked. She loved life and wasn't about to sit home and wait for death to pick her up. She died April 1970 at the young age of 55. She lived life to the end and believed that life was worth living.

I hope that Elizabeth Edwards is more fortunate than my mother was but I respect and understand her decision.

It is interesting to me that some candidates and voters alike still claim that private life should not matter in the election.

We have Newt Gingrich "confessing" the extramarital affair he had while he pursued Clinton's impeachment to James Dobson. He asked for forgiveness, only to come out this week and say that a candidate's personal life shouldn't be an issue in an election. Well, why did he tell the public in the first place? Then we have Rudy, who asked for privacy with his children who are by their choice not on the campaign trail with him.

On the flip side we have John Edwards, who explains in detail how doctors found the recurrence of cancer in his wife -- reassuring the public that the campaign goes on in full force despite those circumstances.

In all these examples you can tell the personal life of politicians matters as much to them as it matters to most of us. For me, the personal lives of politicians matter if I suspect a hint of hypocrisy (like in Gingrich's case) or if the life style of the politician doesn't match what their party wants to accomplish.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am no fan of John Edwards' political stands.

That said, I wish only the best for him and his wife Elizabeth as she fights a recurrence of cancer. Politics should end at the waters edge and when it comes to personal issues. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in recent years.

People on both sides of the political spectrum have questioned Edwards decision to continue running for president while his wife undergoes treatment. As far as I'm concerned, that's a decision for them to make as a family, together and in private. She may have told him that he should continue for all we know.

I hope for the best for Mrs. Edwards as she battles this disease. Although it incurable, it sounds as though it may be controllable. Whether you are a Dem or Republican, we can all pull for Elizabeth Edwards because we all know soemone who has sufered and the toll it takes on their families.

Let's stop and think about this for a second. You go to see a doctor with your wife, the news is grim, the cancer has returned and is now in a state that is basically treatable but incurable. For the rest of her life, your wife now has cancer. What do you do, gather the family around? Pray? Talk? Cry?

If you're a politician, the first thing you have to do is hold a press conference because, unfortunately, your wife's condition has implications for the campaign. On what you are able to do and how much you are able to do. So, instead of figuring things out privately, John Edwards has to air it all out publicly. This strikes me as a huge sacrifice and the fact that it's the life he chose doesn't lessen that one iota.

Kathleen has posted about the announcement and details. Thoughts and prayers are with the Edwards, as there are some things that transcend politics. The family has decided to keep on campaigning. That's not really a surprise. They are a mission-oriented family, and we've seen that both John and Elizabeth Edwards really believe in what they are doing, so their response is natural and true. But if they had decided to drop out, that would have been totally understandable as well. Campaigns are grueling and this one will be non-stop for the next 18 months and change.

There were two right decisions here, and John Edwards made one of them.

In the face of terrible news, John and Elizabeth Edwards have come to a decision: they will not let cancer stop them from going on with their lives. And that includes John Edwards' bid for the White House.


Elizabeth Edwards' cancer recurrence is now in the bone and described as "incurable" but "treatable." "I don't look sickly, I don't feel sickly," she said, but explained that she would undergo "a less debilitating kind of chemotherapy ... for the rest of my life." For now, Elizabeth plans to resume her life on the campaign trail beside her husband. For his part John said his wife will come first: "Any time, any place I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there -- period."

The news is fresh and it must be an incredibly difficult time for the couple and their three surviving children. And they already know too much about surviving personal tragedy. So I'm certainly not about to judge what is the best way for them to cope with this latest hardship. But their decision to continue the campaign will, unavoidably, shift the way John Edwards is viewed -- for some the better and others the worse. And inevitably, this sad health issue will impact the landscape of the 2008 campaign.

I do applaud Elizabeth Edwards' bravery and the candor shown by them both in speaking so openly about a personal health care issue that touches far too many people in this country. More attention can be one of the only good by-products.

John Edwards has scheduled what is being termed as a major campaign announcement at 12:00pm this afternoon. Preliminary indications lean towards an update on the health of his wife, who has battled breast cancer during the past few years. As campaign sources inform us that Mrs. Edwards just had a major follow-up appointment regarding her cancer treatment, this sounds ominous. If cancer has returned so quickly, that means treatment is going to have to be aggressive.

In turn, that could mean that John Edwards would put his campaign on hold, or even something more permanent, which would certainly be understandable and commendable. Cancer is a vicious, almost criminal and evil illness. It touched me. And as anyone who has experienced successful treatment knows, it could come back at any time. When it does, it does so with a vengeance. All of us hope for the best for the Edwards.

And that leads me to the second part of this post. My blogging friend and columnist Cathy Seipp lost her battle with cancer yesterday. Although she never smoked, or had any other unhealthy habits, she was struck with inoperable Stage 4A adenocarcinoma of the lung five years ago.