WHERE'S ELIZABETH EDWARDS?

I don't know why I should feel disillusioned because John Edwards endorsed Obama. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the race (because of his anti-poverty campaign, largely), but I wasn't heartbroken when he did because I was already getting, via the debates, the sense that Hillary had a broader, better-thought-out agenda. And to tell the truth, the smell of sexism and the "good ole boys club" was starting to bother me. And now Edwards' end-game endorsement of Obama smacks of more of the WWTSBQ? activity than a true meeting of the minds.

Still, it's a disappointment. I thought better of him. Obama has done nothing to indicate that fighting poverty is a priority for him, and from what I can tell from his resume and his books, he’s done about zero for poor people in his life. For crying out loud, he didn’t even take care of his own constituents who were freezing in his pal Tony Rezko’s tenements!

Sure would be nice if Elizabeth would endorse Hill. She was noticeably absent from the stage during the endorsement announcement. She's a smart, pragmatic feminist that has much in common with HRC and has stated that she prefers Hillary's healthcare proposal to Obama's. John even indicated on Morning Joe last week that he and Elizabeth had voted differently, which I take to mean she voted for Hill.

JOHN EDWARDS 2.0

Good article on Salon by Walter Shapiro on the Edwards campaign.

I can't seem to generate much excitement among my Dallas Democrat friends for his campaign -- they're all about Obama.

"We're past the time for small, cautious, incremental steps. And we're past the time for rhetoric. Rhetoric is great -- it makes us all feel good -- but it doesn't change anything. The question is how we're going to bring about the big, bold transformational change that's needed in America."

Unraveling Edwards' subtext does not require a Derrida-spouting graduate student. Hillary Clinton is the obvious apostle of these "cautious, incremental steps," while Barack Obama is the undeniable master of feel-good rhetoric. What is most intriguing about the Edwards 2.0 campaign is how a once carefully calibrated, pro-war, mainstream Democrat has fashioned himself into the candidate of "big, bold transformational change."

I could go for some of that.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT

Frank Rich. Allelulia, amen.

The more Elizabeth Edwards is in the spotlight, the more everyone else in the arena will have to be judged against her. Next to her stark humanity, the slick playacting that passes for being “human” and “folksy” in a campaign is tinny. Though much has been said about how she is a model to others battling cancer, she is also a model (or should be) of personal transparency to everyone else in the presidential race.
...
Whatever Mr. Edwards’s flaws as a candidate turn out to be, he is not guilty of the most persistent charge leveled since his wife’s diagnosis. As Ms. Couric phrased it, “Even those who may be very empathetic to what you all are facing might question your ability to run the country at the same time you’re dealing with a major health crisis in your family.”

Would it be better if he instead ran the country at the same time he was clearing brush on a ranch? Polio informed rather than crippled the leadership of F.D.R.; Lincoln endured the sickness and death of a beloved 11-year-old son during the Civil War. In the wake of our congenitally insulated incumbent, who has given our troops neither proper armor nor medical care and tried to hide their coffins off camera, surely it can only be a blessing to have a president, whether Mr. Edwards or someone else, who knows intimately what it means to cope daily with the threat of mortality. It’s hard to imagine such a president smiting stem-cell research or skipping the funerals of the fallen.

Indeed, of all the reasons to applaud Elizabeth Edwards’s decision to stay in politics, the most important may be her insistence, by her very action, that we not compartmentalize the harsh reality of death and the imperatives of public policy, both at home and at war. Let the real conversation begin.

POLICY COUNTS

I know it's WAAAYYY early going in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I would hope that sometime soon we'll begin to see my two favored candidates, John Edwards and Bill Richardson begin to get a bit more traction. I'm a bit frustrated that Hillary and Obama continue to dominate in both the polls and the media. Hillary's policy positions are convoluted and Obama hardly has any yet, while both Edwards and Richardson (who actually has experience that better prepares him for the presidency than any candidate of either party in recent memory and -- gasp! -- proven success in a broad range of managerial initiatives and activities) have very clearly outlined their positions.