What about Elizabeth Edwards for HHS...?

[sohndrsmith]

I know she is dealing with cancer, but I don't know the status of her illness or if that would prevent her from being at the helm of such a post. The creation and utilization of a reformed health care system is, in essence, an up-front, singular goal (which, arguably, will likely go through long term tweaks and revisions over time, for sure), and were she well enough, she could certainly spearhead making the first part happen... (I know that's a big if, but I would hope she's well enough that it would be a possibility).

She could have "vice" HHS posts - if necessary given her situation, but health care, from what I can see has been a life long (or close to it) commitment of hers and I think she has the chutzpah, determination, assertiveness and intellect (as well as having a long term marriage with a Senator, VP and P candidate) to be most effective with getting something done.

She, sadly, probably has a more intimate understanding with the understanding of urgency... and in no way do I mean to sound exploitive of her condition, but I think this intimate connection with what she's facing (and I don't know if that does include limited time, but I'm absolutely sure it has been dealt with more than once throughout her illness and treatment... and I think that perspective would be an asset in this case - and could even be a silver lining of sorts in what is truly a tragic situation. I hope I said that with as much respectful candor as I meant to).

She's not completely in the dark as to how the Senate and Washington works, though that knowledge is second hand and doesn't compare to that particular asset that Daschle had - which was significant in the grand scheme of things.

I would love nothing more to see one of the few people (Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy being the others) in recent history so resolutely and singularly focused on health care to have a legacy of what could very well be historic proportions... fitting for such dedication to the issue.

Out of the three of them, two have cancer... and i would love to see Edwards lead the march and Kennedy be an integral part of the team in some way if his health didn't make that unfeasible.

I don't really know, in detail, the specifics of Edwards' plans on the organization of health care, but I did get the sense that when JE was in the race, what she said on the matter was extremely well received. That she would have to revise her ideas (anyone would - no one is gets a blank check on such things) is just an artifact of the process. What matters to me is how much it matters to her and how invested and knowledgeable she is on it's problems and potential solutions.

My vote is for Edwards... even if she could only hold the office for the initial process. I think she is someone who can get things done.

All that aside, I hope she is doing well...

[melm00se]

1. having

""vice" HHS posts" in the world of the politics of power could undermine her authority especially if those vice's are there in case of a change in her illness status.

[sohndrsmith]

7. depends on the people involved and the organization of the department...

... you're right - such a thing could be undermining at best, or disastrous. I have absolute confidence, though, that - especially with the right people involved - it could be a positive. What's wrong with having a team representing a cabinet post?

In regards to her illness, (assuming she were healthy enough to consider - much less want - to undertake such a thing) I think it would reflect something good, not bad. It would be acknowledging reality, but it would also affirm that people with very serious illnesses should not be just put on hold and are as valuable as those who are perfectly healthy or not facing a life-threatening illness. I think it would send the right message that people who may be facing limited time doesn't mean they shouldn't contribute or discarded simply because they have fewer days.

I think that alone would be a message the entire health care industry - if not society - would do well to absorb. Pre-existing conditions, age, etc. shouldn't disqualify people from being considered just as capable of contributing to society and the greater good (or disqualified from being treated properly - vis a vis health insurance) - if they are, in fact capable to do so. People do get too sick and are limited by their diseases, but that doesn't mean that they are inferior to those who are healthy, but I think there is an undercurrent in our society of that or something like it.

And those who may have serious, life-shortening illnesses that don't impair them in relation to their abilities when they didn't have the illness - I think that should be honored, not rejected simply because they're term in office is possibly, or likely, limited.

We have laws that protect those who have disabilities from being denied work or positions because of that - if they are qualified for the job, and it is also a requirement to make reasonable accommodations so that they can do their job without added hindrance.

Why would someone who may be perfectly capable to hold a position even though they're prognosis gives them 2 years left... be any different? I don't think it should be.
Of course, it depends on the individual and their desire to participate.

Now, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I think McCain's age and health were detrimental, primarily because the built-in successor he chose was not only inadequate but dangerously reckless should his health deteriorate during his term. The Vice President's primary job is to step in should something happen to the President (and that includes death - which is how most VPs step up to P, I believe... unnatural as most of them were, they were no more or less fatal than a terminal illness).

I have a heart defect that is likely to shorten my lifespan, so it's likely going to be a fatal illness (which I could fix if I had health care that would treat it... if it hasn't progressed beyond being treatable, that is). It could take 15 - 20 years off my expected life span - it could also decide to freak out and alter my fate next week - even next month.

Life is a terminal condition. I don't think we should negate or disqualify someone simply because we are aware that they have fewer days than we do (or think we do).

[LostinVA]

2. I wish she would run for Congress -- I raelly admire and respect her

I know it's not practical -- nor healthy -- because of her cancer.

[sohndrsmith]

9. Why not? Unless her illness prevents her from being able to do the

tasks of the job. Is it impractical simply because she might need to have treatments with some frequency - including more absences because of it? Is there a reason she shouldn't be able to cast her vote on any piece of legislation or sponsor a bill or chair a committee because of that? I don't think so... not unless her condition were too painful or too debilitating that it affected her ability to reason or think.

Face it, senators and congresspeople have ZERO physical requirements (except needing to be over 30 - senators, anyway). Steven Hawking certainly has a heck of a lot more on the ball than the majority of those holding legislative office.

We don't disqualify them for having absences for vacationing or other things that are pleasure based and done by choice. Why would we balk if someone in office had absences that kept them alive and able to continue to serve?

I realize all that changes depending on the stage of disease - that's a given. But just because someone has been given an estimate of a couple of years to live doesn't mean they couldn't contribute greatly (more than other long-term chair warmers who seem to enjoy their irrelevance and cozy luck of doing little more than warming their chair - or even others who've spent decades in the Senate and been quite busy being destructive, wasteful - even criminal. Are we better served by them than someone with integrity and the drive to do right by the country, not-self interest or criminal greed, just because they can hang out for 15 - 20 - 30 years?

That doesn't make sense to me, personally. And I'm not saying you're wrong - you may have meant the same thing I did regarding practicality, so please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you! : )

I'm just questioning the whole issue of health or conditions being disqualifying, all else being equal... when we have created laws protecting against that very thing with the ADA.

I think it's an interesting discussion (and I definitely think she would be such an asset to the process of health care reform. I'd like to see her realize her dream of seeing, even enacting real change for the better).

[LostinVA]

10. I'm thinking mainly of the stress

Which is very bad even for the immune system in people with non-compromised immune systems.

[sohndrsmith]

13. Agreed. I wouldn't want her to compromise her health under any

circumstances. I meant my interest in her holding the post ONLY depending on her being in remission or otherwise being able to do so without it posing a risk, but I'm not sure I really clarified that.

I hope she is doing okay... and I would love to see her realize something that she has been so dedicated and devoted to... she just deserves that. And IF she were healthy enough, even diagnosed with a serious illness, it's not impossible to have many healthy years... I'd love to see her be there and involved in making what is so important actually happen.

But not at the cost of weakening her health - I thought that was sort of a given, but I goofed. : )

Good intentions don't automatically indicate good communication skills... : ). If they did, I'd be a much better writer. And I would have annoyed far fewer people over the years...

[Cleita]

3. I don't think Obama agrees with her on health care plans.

I thought of her too and then it occurred to me that she had been on his campaign team advising him on health care matters.

[dflprincess]

4. Obama wants us to have access to health INSURANCE

Elizabeth thinks we should have access to health CARE.

[Cleita]

6. I agree and this is where we have to try to shift Obama's focus from the

one to the other.

[WI_DEM]

5. better job for her would be health care czar rather than have to take responsibility for running the

entire HHS department.

[WinkyDink]

8. SHE IS NOT WELL.

[sohndrsmith]

11. Is she really doing badly now? That's a shame... damn. Maybe because

she's about to write (or launch) a book, I thought things were in a more manageable state than you indicate they really are. Damn it all. That makes me mad (and sad).

I still think the argument in general is one worth having. I just wish she were the one to prove it out.

being NOT WELL (as in, having a disease) is not interchangeable with being incapable. AIDS is no longer a unilateral (and speedy) death sentence... which it pretty much used to be (I know, I've seen it ravage a parent). Every day that goes by, though, there are more and more people living fully productive lives for more years than I ever thought possible when I was going through the process and caring for someone with this evil disease). Technically, if someone has AIDS you could accurately say they are "not well", but you can't automatically say they are "not able" or can't be contributing, productive members of society.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid your meaning was not so frivolous, and that she is sicker than I realized. Man, I hate that... I assumed her condition was what I saw when she was campaigning with her husband. I'm afraid that was a mistaken assumption.

Her health has really deteriorated? I didn't know. That's just devastating. Damn.

[sohndrsmith]

12. I was going to add a disclaimer saying that I would self-delete this

if people think it is insensitive = but I've gone past the time limit for being able to edit my post.

Still, I'd like to know if people consider this being insensitive (apparently she is sicker than I realized), and if there is some way to delete the post I'll ask the mods to do so.

: (

[Phx_Dem]

14. Why? What has she ever done in the public sector?

What are her qualifications? I think Elizabeth is wonderful woman, but I don't get why she would be suggested for this position. Having cancer is not a job qualification.

God bless her though.

[kingpin8399]

15. NO, there are more qualified people....you guys always just pick the most well known people

[ShortnFiery]

16. She is known for saying words to the effect that our Country is not ready for a Black President.

I don't think that would work out so well ... plus there's her husband's scandal. :shrug:

[Thothmes]

17. Other then being the wronged wife of an ex presidential candidate

and having cancer, what in her resume may qualify her for that cabinet post.