After watching some fantastic basketball Sunday, March 25, I pleased the television gods by staying tuned in to watch “60 minutes.” The headlining story was a recent one: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and current presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina has cancer. Again.

Her previous bout with cancer seemed to have ended successfully, but, as the couple revealed that week, it has metastasized in a more lethal and less curable form.

Ignoring for the moment that cancer is perhaps the most indiscriminate killer in our society (sufficiently so that even the wife of a viable presidential candidate has a slim chance of surviving more than a couple years), the Edwardses’ announcement has generated much press over the acceptability of their decision to continue their pursuit of the White House.

While ultimately their decision is personal, it reveals how much of an asset John Edwards might be as either president or vice president.

The most obvious fact the interview revealed is that, unlike our current president, Mr. Edwards is human. He clearly loves his wife and is obviously suffering a great deal. Yet, the two decided that their goals and ambition to better the country supersede their private issues. Is this not the principle quality America needs in its leader?

After six-plus years of cronyism, false justifications, lying, corruption, pork spending and, oh wait, misleading the country into a quagmire of a war, the Edwardses’ commitment to actually bettering the average American life refreshed me.

The two fielded questions from Katie Couric not with the tragic heartbreak expected of a young(ish) family recently informed of an impending loss, but with solemn responsibility. They wanted to move beyond the “wife-of-presidential-candidate-is-sick” issue and discuss real political dilemmas like health care.

Unlike many of his comrades in both parties, Mr. Edwards explicitly details some of the policies he will advocate if elected.

Since Elizabeth’s revelation, their health care plan has received a disproportionate amount of coverage – albeit for the wrong reasons. Surprisingly, almost all of the coverage is positive.

The Edwards campaign does not shy away from advocating a tax increase on the top income bracket to pay for universal health care.

Incidentally, this past week data revealed that the income disparity in the U.S. is larger than it has been since the roaring 20s, and we all know how that ended – the Great Depression.

Other common debates regarding the Edwardses’ announcement have focused on Mr. Edwards’ commitment to his wife. Some argue that in continuing to campaign he will be neglecting his family. Anyone who saw the “60 Minutes” interview and still believes John Edwards would willfully neglect his wife, or that they did not jointly decide to continue the campaign, is nothing short of a conservative partisan hack. Their decision reflects a degree of courage that the average American almost certainly lacks because it places the well-being of others, and in this case, the entire nation, ahead of self-interest. Mr. Edwards justified their decision by saying they could not pass up the chance to serve “a country I love, both of us love, as much as we love our lives.”

In a country recently pockmarked with self-interest, materialism and greed, the Edwardses’ willingness to rise above family illness for the common good manifests a stunning philosophy.

Were the election held today I cannot say I would vote for Mr. Edwards, but I dare say the moral and value standards he and his wife have set should serve as a beacon for all other candidates, Republican and Democratic.

While coming under unfortunate circumstances, the Edwards campaign’s newfound vigor needs to split open the public political discourse. If the United States wants to continue to dominate the global landscape in the twenty-first century, we need more leaders with the integrity and dedication that Mr. Edwards has shown over the last few weeks.