Jay Carney of Time Magazine:

Instead, Edwards said nothing would change; his campaign would continue and Elizabeth would be by his side on the road. Elizabeth spoke about the importance of her husband’s campaign, how the country needs him to be president. Both said there was never a debate yesterday, as they were receiving the news about her condition, about whether he should drop out of the race. John said that when the two of them were alone, Elizabeth was concerned about everyone but herself—her children, her husband and her country, in that order, but not herself.

He clearly meant it to be inspiring, but there is also something discomfiting about that statement. Even more discomfiting was Edwards’ claim that by soldiering on while his wife has incurable cancer, he would be proving that he could deal with the pressures of being president. I wonder how voters will react to that sentiment.

Edwards is staying in the race, so the effect of today’s announcement on the Democratic contest will be limited. But there will be an effect. Despite his and his wife’s optimism, political professionals, donors, activists and regular voters will all have to wonder going forward whether or not Edwards will be able to stay in the race all the way to the end. It is certainly true that with effective treatment, Elizabeth Edwards could live many years. But it is also true that even the best treatment isn’t always effective, and that bone cancer is particularly lethal. Edwards’ supporters, and surely many average Americans, have to be wondering at what point the candidate will decide that his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old, trump his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House.

He continues to the conclusion that if Edwards drops out, it will benefit Gore because both are (1) white, (2) male and (3) populists.

Carney is wrong. He overlooks a few key points in his analysis. For one thing, a majority of the country has moved beyond old limitations and biases. In head to head matchups, current polling has white male candidates in second or third.

With Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan as prior examples, Elizabeth Edwards will not be the first First Lady with cancer or an incurable disease. She will be the first to actively campaign while undergoing treatment, and while the public raises questions about whether she and John are right or wrong to campaign at all.

If the country’s ready to elect a woman or a non-Caucasian, are we equally open to consideration of a First Lady with a terminal illness?

I don’t believe we are, based on a cross sample of responses I’ve seen in emails to media reports today. But Elizabeth’s got that Betty Ford quality of using this as a teachable moment. The country may not be ready in March of 2007, but by January and November of 2008, there’s every likelihood that our biases against disabilities will follow those other biases into the past.

Much will depend on a full prognosis of the breadth of the cancer that afflicts her. I’ve known people still working more than 15 years after metastisized breast cancer spread to blood and bone. If Elizabeth’s has spread to her lungs, however, it could prove fatal much faster. That could certainly drive Edwards out of the race. But it also could produce another result entirely.

After all, the Edwards are as strong a team as FDR and Eleanor or Woodrow and Edith Wilson. It’s not just John’s ambition that propels them forward. Both believe they can serve the country with John’s election. So it’s anyone’s guess what they’ll choose if Elizabeth undergoes a rapid decline.

Personally, I admire her courage. I admire and respect the visible affection the Edwards display towards each other 30 years into their successful marriage. Elizabeth’s illness poses an X factor the country will likely have to contend with. And maybe we’ll all grow wiser and more tolerant as a society because of her.

Certainly, it will cause more women to pursue regular health checkups and will save many lives in the process. That is, in itself, a great service to society. And it may also elevate the election above the trivial and stupid, where Breck girl and faggot taunts can no longer thrive.

The choices belong to Elizabeth and John. Whatever they decide will be right. Who else has the right to determine how best to live out a life than the person living it? That Elizabeth chooses to live her live fully is the course of a champion. I join her and all her loved ones in hoping she gets to reign as a champ for many years ahead.

And may we all grow more enlightened and considerate from her example.

Update: Speaking of elevating the discourse, consider the eloquence and grace provided by Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s blog.

Andrew Sullivan, too.