I voted Edwards.
Last December,
I still placed him in the category of people that I would, were I allowed to vote, vote for only "dutifully", whereas I said I'd vote "happily" for Obama or Richardson. But since then Ive read a bunch of stuff that made me ever more enthusiastic about him.
I still dont think he is strong personally, as a politician (and I still resent the way he messed up in the Veep debate in '04), but I really like his politics, and I like the priorities he's made in them.
He's chosen a central plank, fighting poverty in America, and he's stuck to it through two years of campaigning even though and when it's hardly a point-scoring profile. While all Democrats talk nice about unions, Edwards has been out on the picket line a bunch of times.
Obama has the vision thing, but to be honest, his vision thing is starting to make me impatient. He has lofty words about transcending partisanship - Edwards was out fighting for the unions. I dont want vision - I want someone whose heart is with the bread and butter issues that determine your average- and lower-income American's day-to-day.
But of course, today's announcement has put me right back in the camp of doubters again.
His wife is incurably sick. Everybody's sympathising with them now, and so am I. Mrs Edwards is apparently a wonderful woman. But is it nice, or even
smart, to run for the Presidency if your wife is, sooner or later, going to die? Even if she wants you to run, tells you to run - what when she'll be worse? What when she dies? Uncomfortable questions, but.. She could be fine for years still - but she could also suddenly get wose. Does he really want to be being President when that happens? Do we want him to be?
So now I'm hurled back into neutral mode again. Yet still I voted for Edwards, because it would in any case be good for the Democrats if they keep having him as the third person in the race. To avoid Obama vs Hillary to become a one-dimensional slugfest. To keep them both honest. And above all, to keep pushing for more populist, progressive politics. To keep steering discussion back to poverty, employment, costs of living, health care, whenever discussion becomes too much focused on
le politique pour le politique, or gets sidetracked in the liberal, suburban kind of post-materialist blue state issues.