While this NY Times Article paints conflicting pictures of Edwards' decision to continue his campaign. I think the following quote pretty much sums up what really is behind the couple's decision.
Donna Jaramillo, a receptionist for an insurance agency in Denver, said that for her the question raised by the Edwardses’ campaign decision was quite simple: What do you do for those you love?
"If it were me, and my husband was running for president, I’d tell him do it," Ms. Jaramillo said. "And if it was him who was sick, I think my husband would say the same thing to me — if this is your dream, go for it and we’ll take my illness each day as it goes."
"It’s what you do," she said.
That's it in a nutshell. It should be obvious to anyone who has even remotely observed this couple over the last 4 years or so, that Elizabeth Edwards would have no part in being the reason for ending John's campaign and probably insisted it go on. Mainly because of her love and deep devotion to John and wanting to see him fulfill his dream. But partly because I suspect, as a couple, they share a vision of what this country can be with the right leadership.
Now for the politics. First, I'll be honest, I'm not an Edwards' supporter (yet). I can best be described as an Edwards' "leaner", who like many out there, are waiting to see what Al is going to do before we commit.
That said let me make a little pitch for Mr. Edwards from a progressive perspective (i.e., why he might deserve our support). Let's look at the Dem. match ups shall we.
First there's Ms. Clinton. Edwards' position on Iraq and social issues are far closer to us progressives than Clinton's. Couple that with the fact that he has admitted he is human, by admitting his Iraq vote mistake, and Ms. Clinton apparently either refuses to admit she is human or still favors the Iraq invasion.
Second, there is Mr. Obama. This is a tough comparison for us because it is somewhat of a toss up. Frankly there is very little difference between Edwards and Obama on the issues, and both would probably make excellent progressive candidates. The only thing that still worrys me about Obama is summed up in one word, "Electability". We progressives in some respects would prefer a black President, because it would signify a giant leap forward for this country in terms of racial maturity. However, we still need to stop and consider if a country that has voted conservatively up until 2006, is ready to make this leap? We have to wonder how many closet biggots are still out there, who in polls will say the politically correct thing, but vote the opposite in the privacy of the polling place. You also have to consider how the underground Repub organizations will mobilize their secret slime campaign to suppress the black vote. While I like Obama, and will certainly work for him whole heartedly if he is the nomenee, I worry about that one word,"Electability".
Lastly, there's Richardson, Biden, Dodd and the rest of the pack, leaving Gore out because he is not a candidate (yet). Beside the fact that Edwards is as good or better than the rest of the confirmed field from a progressive perspective, he probably has a better chance of winning than the rest of the lot, consistently leading them in the polls.
Now just for fun, let's compare Edwards to some of the Repub. candidtes, on that all important issue from the right, "family values and morals". John and Elizabeth have been a faithful loving couple who have raised a wholesome family and who have been true and faithful to one another through a son's tragic death and Elizabeth's boughts with cancer, circumstances that break up marraiges across the US everyday. Compare this to Rudy's situation of several divorces and the public ridiculing of his one wife he engaged in, to the point that even his own children hate him. Then there's Nute, who fools around on and divorces his wife while she lay dieing on a hospital bed. It would be interesting to see how the moral right would vote given these match ups? I would suppose that many would hold their noses and vote for someone like Rudy over Edwards being the hippocritical basturds many of them are. But I still think it would be fun to place them in this moral dilemma.
Finally, think back for a moment to before 2004 when Rove characterized Edwards as the candidate the Repubs were the most afraid of. Now skip forward to H. Clinton who is the candidate many Repubs. want us to run in '08'. Simply, we should consider running the candidate that the Repubs. are the most afraid of, not the one they want to face.
Comments are closed on this story.