Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
EDWARDS "HIDING BEHIND HIS WIFE." Writing about Elizabeth Edwards' appearance at the BlogHer conference, Addie confesses that although she was turned off during the YouTube/CNN debate when John Edwards opposed gay marriage but said his wife supported it, she became an Elizabeth acolyte (and there are many) when she saw the prospective first lady in person.
I've also written about Elizabeth's inspired public appearances. Most people who meet Elizabeth feel overwhelming respect for such an intelligent, witty, well-spoken woman who refuses to let cancer take over her life. But let's be honest. Elizabeth isn't running for president, John is. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made it to the Planned Parenthood conference. John didn't -- he sent Elizabeth.
Is this a successful campaign strategy for John? Yes, because his wife is likable and eloquent. She helps the Edwards campaign neutralize the threat of another, equally compelling candidate spouse. But I can't help thinking that there's something a bit disingenuous about the idea that we elect a couple to the White House instead of an individual. First, it shows how invested our political system is in heterosexual marriage as the ultimate qualifier. We're all a little bit skeptical of unmarried politicians, aren't we? And furthermore, while spouses certainly can have enormous influence over one another, as voters, we ultimately have to be comfortable with the views of the candidate him or herself, the person who will be representing America as president. That's why Elizabeth's support for marriage equality doesn't undo John's quibbling.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (15)
This points to an important thing about Edwards that many liberal pundits who are so enamored by Edwards (particularly some at the Prospect) forget: he is not at all a very strong personality and lacks a strong presence. Just go back and look at his debate with Cheney (not the world's greatest mind, we would agree). His wife covers up for him a lot. Elizabeth Edwards' story is really tragic, and she is a very brave and compelling figure. But she isn't being elected president, and the real question is whether John Edwards would or would not make the best leader possible.
Posted by: I Got a Crush on Obama | July 31, 2007 12:06 PM
Your comment might be more persuasive if your handle wasn't "I got a crush on Obama".
Posted by: Doubting Thomas | July 31, 2007 12:10 PM
Your comment might be more persuasive if your handle wasn't "I got a crush on Obama".
I agree. I would go even further by adding that Michelle Obama should leave the campaign trail straightway since she's not being elected president either.
Dana, this is wrong:
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made it to the Planned Parenthood conference. John didn't -- he sent Elizabeth.
Elizabeth went because John was on his Poverty Tour. He was unavailable and she went in his stead. And since you reference the BlogHer conference, I believe that only Elizabeth Edwards and someone from Hillary Clinton's campaign attended.
Posted by: Corinne | July 31, 2007 12:32 PM
Hello? Where have you been over the last, say, several decades? I'm pleased to be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of modern politics, where spouses campaign on behalf of their spouses.
Posted by: mary | July 31, 2007 12:48 PM
We're all a little bit skeptical of unmarried politicians, aren't we?
Alec Baldwin's character in The Departed remarks: "Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. ... A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think, 'At least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.'"
Pretty much all of that observation is true of contemporary politics. I think it's not entirely unjustified (excepting of course the homophobic remark I omitted from the quotation).
Posted by: alkali | July 31, 2007 12:52 PM
On this very blog it was pointed out that the PP conference happened in DC, down the street from Obama and Clinton, while Edwards was on his poverty tour in the South.
It is rather disappointing to see this unfair characterization once again rear its head on this page. Stop it, there are enough other things (many addressed in this post) to critique without tossing around allegations that are misleading.
Posted by: abject funk | July 31, 2007 12:58 PM
I'm pretty sure that what John's trying to do with all this "journey" talk and with Elizabeth's public comments is set up a conversion narrative, so that when he's safely in office, he can transition to full-fledged support for gay marriage.
Just go back and look at his debate with Cheney
You mean the debate that Edwards won 41-28 among undecided voters?
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 31, 2007 1:00 PM
This:
We're all a little bit skeptical of unmarried politicians, aren't we?
is silly. First off speak for yourself- you may be, but your phobias are not necessarily everyone elses. Do you have any evidence to support this?
2ndly How does sending Elizabeth to any conference support this proposition?
3rd, whose to say, that those of us who support gay marriage (admittedly a minority) when not be ok with the other half of that marriage performing the same function as Elizabeth.
Finally, We went through the 2 for 1 in 1992. I don't have a problem with it. I suspect (but admit I don't have evidence for it) that most people don't.
The President's spouse will exert an influence over the President, its silly to think otherwise. Further, the President/Candidate is unlikely to send his/her spouse to a conference, or a blue ribbon commision or anything else, if s/he were not confident that the spouse's position mirrored theirs. Most people understand this.
Posted by: molly bloom | July 31, 2007 1:18 PM
You mean the debate that Edwards won 41-28 among undecided voters?
Neil, do you mean the debate that Cheney won 43-37 among likely voters?
Posted by: i got a crush on obama | July 31, 2007 1:57 PM
"We're all a little bit skeptical of unmarried politicians, aren't we?"
About as skeptical as we are of unmarried employees. Who do you think does most of the work around here?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 3:11 PM
We're all a little bit skeptical of unmarried politicians, aren't we?
No.
Posted by: joejoejoe | July 31, 2007 4:36 PM
I was for John Edwards until the YouTube debate. I thought his answer regarding same-sex marriage was too equivocal, and it pleased not those for same-sex marriage nor those opposed. I'm going to go all Baptist on my Baptist brother, Revelations 3:15-16: "I know all about you: how you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were one or the other, but since you are neither, but only lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Tough words, but we're electing (hopefully) a leader, and we need someone with moral courage. I ain't saying he's not a nice guy, but nice ain't enough.
Cheers.
Posted by: Houston | July 31, 2007 5:07 PM
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
Posted by: ghd straighteners | October 27, 2009 10:48 PM
Fastest shipping I have ever had,
href="http://www.mytobling.com/">uggs on
sale
does not make you wait, ThanksPosted by: erwetwr | November 2, 2009 8:03 AM
I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.
Posted by: ed hardy | November 7, 2009 8:39 PM