We're curious what you guys think about this whole Elizabeth Edwards pro-gay marriage thing.
See, we like Elizabeth Edwards. We understand why she and her husband continued with the campaign, we think she's smart, incredibly brave, and surprisingly real. But like it or not, when she decided to go on stumping for her husband in the face of her deadly cancer, she assumed a far more pivotal role than any other candidate spouse (maybe even more than Bill Clinton, who can be excused for having his own opinions because, well, he used to be the most powerful man in the world). Elizabeth can raise as much money as John, she's better at earning headlines, and she has incredible draw as a speaker.
John Edwards has essentially endowed his wife with a co-candidate role. Which is fine, except they're not preaching exactly the same message. Elizabeth is touting marriage equality to the gays, which is sure to draw many to her camp. But that's not what we're going to get if John is elected. I'm not suggesting that gays are too dumb to understand this, but sometimes the positive feelings that are engendered by a touching speech or an inspiring interview is all it takes to earn a vote.
It feels like the Edwards are trying to have it both ways with the gays, who are a high-income, politically active group among the Democrats. In a race between leading Dem candidates with virtually identical positions on marriage equality, there's no way that this won't give Edwards a (false) edge.
We think it's fine for Elizabeth to disagree with John Edwards. But as a co-candidate, to keep emphasizing this point (and to not adequately explain her husband's position) is essentially false advertising.
Are we being naive? Are we underestimating the gays? We're not sure. We just miss the days of Teresa Heinz Kerry. It was so much easier to decide things with the potential of having a drunken drag queen in the office.