And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make

Having been swamped by work, I never had time to comment on the biggest news about the 2008 Presidential candidates from the past week: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John, has cancer, and from the sound of things it's not good. She was treated for Breast cancer in 2004, and it has now returned and has spread to her bones, which is currently incurable. Treatable in some cases, perhaps, but incurable. This has led to numerous stories in the media wondering if it is right for John Edwards to continue his campaign, as if somehow this is a decision to be made by us, rather than the Edwards'. Needless to say, I am not particularly sympathetic to this point of view. I think better than anyone, Ana Marie Cox (formerly known as Wonkette) sums up the media and personal dynamics pretty well:

Over time, voters may react negatively to image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision. Specifically, such an image will emerge if we depict that choice as Jay did: as a man -- John Edwards -- torn between "his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old" and "his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House."

First of all, this framework presents what might be -- in the eyes of both John and Elizabeth -- a false choice. From all they've told us, the Edwards family sees those duties (as husband, as father, as candidate), as overlapping. Surely, one reason John Edwards is running for president because he wants to be a part of creating a better world for his family. Which brings us to the second problem: The decision to keep the campaign going was not John Edwards' alone to make. (And I find the presumption that it could be startlingly archaic.) John may find himself pulled to simply concentrate on his family, but I think Elizabeth would push back. I think she already has.

Does it seem selfish that he continues to run? Think about it this way: Your doctor gives you a year to live. Of course you decide to pursue the things in life you either put off or gave up on. You follow your dreams, as they say. You sail around the world. You read the Bible in Aramaic. You reconcile with a family member. For Elizabeth Edwards, the answer to the "what would you do if you only had a year to live" question is simple: Get my husband elected President.

Is that decision selfish, given that the couple has two small children? I can't say -- and I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't know the family can -- but I don't think it's a question with a standard answer.

Having some experience with traumatic events, I can safely say that how one deals with trauma, or loss, or death, or any other deeply serious issue has a tremendous amount to do with how one personally chooses to, or just instinctively does, react. In the aftermath of the Simon's Rock shooting, I was cracking jokes in the hospital starting from the time I was on the operating table (true story). It helped me rationalize things. Sure, there were times in the following months and years when I mourned, and times to have long philosophical conversations about it, and times to act a bit defiantly to prove I was alive...and all of those were appropriate at the time. For those who have trouble imagining me angry, they should have seen the fire I was spitting when an unnamed family member who does not read this blog, as far as I know, challenged me on my ways of dealing with my memories, thinking that he knew better than I (this may be something of a giveaway as to whom I am referring).

When my aunt developed breast cancer, and especially toward the end where the news got progressively worse, she tried to pack as much life out of her remaining time as possible. I'm sure she also spent time mourning, as did any number of family members before and after. If the Edwards choose to take the fighting path, more power to them (if they had chosen to drop out of the campaign, more power to them in that, too). Family is important, but let's try to remember that he is campaigning for the presidency of the United States.

Simply put, John Edwards has a legitimate shot to become the most powerful and influential person in the entire world, able to set an agenda that could conceivably help out millions of people (i think so, and I certainly think that he thinks so). If he and his wife agree that this is the higher goal, and that they are both capable of it, how in the name of anything good and holy can you try to argue he should drop out. This isn't just a job, or some kind of passing fad, it is the presidency of the United States, and that title used to mean something before the current administration decided to crap all over it. I can't say I envy the Edwards' the pain and grief they will likely have to face in the much too quickly approaching future, but they are entirely justified in their priorities. There is a legacy at stake here, for the candidate with the strongest social vision of any of the current candidates (Obama has him on general tone and eloquence, but Edwards wins on pure vision of how to make us a better country). They, as a couple, are in a position shared by only a handful of people the world round, and seem well aware of that potential. If they choose to prioritize the greater good with the time they have, and people want to complain about that, forgive me if I have to think it speaks vastly more poorly about the latter's morals than the former's.

Ain't it hard when you find your hero ain't nothing but a hollow man

A little while ago, in listing my favorite candidates for the Democratic nomination, I had John Edwards at #1 and Barack Obama as #2. After events of the past week, let's move them into a tie. In doing so, we'll also see why so many Congresscritters are really blowhards when you come down to it, including some you would never suspect.

Here are some quotes by war critics:
1. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN):

A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem...That will put American soldiers in the cross-hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe this makes sense.

2. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE):

"I have to say, Madam Secretary [of State Condoleezza Rice], that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam...I will resist it.”

3.Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE):

I believe the president's strategy is not a solution. I believe it's a tragic mistake, so Secretary Rice, to be very blunt, I can't in good conscience support the president's approach."

4. Sen. James Webb (D-VA):

"On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action....Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way."

Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) submitted a bill that, in his words,

says that, prior to sending any more troops -- the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people -- it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.

The bill got 6 votes from the 21-member committee, all from Democrats: Boxer, Dodd, Feingold, Kerry, Menendez, and Obama. Voting no were all 10 Republicans and 5 of the Democrats. These nay votes included:
1. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
2. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
3. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)
4. Sen. James Webb (D-VA)

Way to hold the administration accountable there, gentlemen. No wonder everyone thinks politicians are all talk and never mean a goddamn word they say. Remember, this is an issue where 2/3 of the American public is against the escalation. It's practically political suicide not to support it.

Obama, who as we just noted was one of the votes for the Dodd bill, has one of his own (you are perfectly entitled to vote against the war in many different ways). He says:

That is why I not only favor capping the number U.S. troops in Iraq, but believe it’s imperative that we begin the phased redeployment I called for two months ago, and intend to introduce legislation that does just that.

Add to that his call for universal healthcare, and my support for him is certainly on the way up, though I'd feel better if he made a specific healthcare proposal with actual numbers and shit.

Edwards may or may not have made a mistake with respect to Iran. Here's the key quote:

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said.

If this is so much bluster to keep all options open as a philosophical point, so be it. What matters isn't so much what we threaten to do long down the road, but what we do in the near future. It should be to negotiate, and then negotiate more, and then to keep negotiating. Edwards might mean to do just that, but I wish he, or some other candidate for the US's highest office, would come out and say it. How hard is it to say that negotiation is preferable to a war with several thousand more casualties. Seriously, our politicians really, REALLY need to stop swinging their genitalia at foreign nations and to start proposing to act like adults. Until then, none of them are getting dessert (read: campaign contributions).

The complete song lyrics to the ditty in the post title, BTW:

Hollow Man, by Mark Erelli

They picked another one off the vine
Scooped out the seeds in the back of his mind
Filled up his head with half-truths and lies
And put the finishing touch on the perfect disguise

They rolled out a carpet and threw a parade
Convinced everyone he had something to say
They smiled as they watched from the two-way mirror
As he told all the people what they wanted to hear

(Chorus)
Hey, have you heard the story?
It's the same old song, same old dance
Hey, he's bound for glory
He ain't nothing but a hollow man

He basked in the glow of the fortune and fame
Even threw the first pitch at the World Series game
He always maintained he had nothing to hide
No one ever suspected he was empty inside

(Chorus)
Hey, he don't know what he's doing
They set him up so high, he never had a chance
Hey, you can see right through him
He ain't nothing but a hollow man

Then came the day his cover was blown
Their little Frankenstein monster got out of control
So he looked to the ones who had saved him before
Only to find that they'd changed all the locks on the doors

The press circled in with blood in their eyes
Each one wanting a piece of his shallow disguise
And they cast him aside when from glory he fell
Now he's just another bum with a story to tell

(Chorus)
Hey, he's less than zero
The greater the height, the harder you land
Ain't it hard when you find your hero
Ain't nothing but a hollow man

Mother, should I run for president? Mother, should I trust the government?

So, it was asked in the comments who I'm supporting in the Democratic primary for the Presidency. Oddly enough, we have a split decision at home, with my #2 as her #1 at the moment, and vice versa. Noting that my opinion may very well change, and that certain candidates may either join or drop out of the race, here's how they rank at the moment, from last to first.

6. Other:: In this category, we'll include everyone not mentioned below. Suffice it to say, there are already two candidates I'm relatively thrilled about, so I'm not looking for a darkhorse, nor do I think we need one.

5. Hillary Clinton: Unlike the candidate to be found at #2 below, Hillary combines the worst of both worlds: A candidate who's not a particularly reliable progressive on some issues, primarily foreign policy (Hotline has her at 66 for foreign policy where 100 is ultra-liberal and 0 ultra-conservative), who's seen by many in the country as a loony liberal. Honestly, even though very little of it is her fault, I worry about a candidate that so many people view so negatively. Beyond this, too, some of her advisers or just those in general still associated with the Clintons have to be among the most noxious of the backstabbing inside-the-beltway democratic crowd, and I'd be happy to see their influence wane (this list includes Carville, Begala, Lanny Davis, Mike McCurry, Larry Summers, and a few others). Hillary deserves more credit than she gets, but she's the one candidate on the list likely to hurt the party with the infighting we really don't need.

3 (tie). Wesley Clark: For a bunch of reasons, I think his strengths will be less crucial now than they would have been in 2004, and his weaknesses more of a liability. Last time around, he was the military voice that could have stood up to Bush, Cheney, and their chickenhawkishness. Kerry should have been this way too, but he was tarred early as a fake and did an awful job of fighting back properly. In 2008, with the war going badly, the Republican love for national security as theater, rather than as something to plan out in a serious manner, will be coming back to bite them. Already, we're hearing an escalation of troops described as "The McCain Doctrine", and it's going to be an albatross for them. Thus, Clark's advantage as a General is less necessary, and his status as a campaigner becomes more important. Unfortunately, he was a good general but a rather poor campaigner, and I don't see what will have changed in the past few years to alleviate this.

3 (tie): Bill Richardson: Has good foreign policy chops and executive experience as governor of New Mexico, but can't really be said to have a ton of charisma. Maybe a good darkhorse Veep choice.

2. Barack Obama: My wife's top pick. I'd love to vote for him in the primary, but I can't commit to that yet. Oddly enough, race has nothing to do with it; he's not associated with the urban machine politics that tars a lot of black congressmen in some white voters' eyes (e.g., like Harold Ford). My big problem is the lack of policy in his message. He's all about tone, and he's by far the most gifted political speaker I've ever heard (better than Bill Clinton, who's damn good). He exudes charisma. He also has yet to say much beyond the need for changing the tone. If he would propose something big, he's got my vote. Calling for a redeployment out of Iraq helps a ton, but I want to hear something bold domestically as well. Presidents spend much of their time in office compromising, so I'd really prefer that he stakes out a bold set of policies as a starting point for negotiating ahead of time. If he endorses universal healthcare or something like that, he might become my number 1.

1. John Edwards: More charismatic than anyone besides Obama, he's been far and away the most substantive Democrat on the issues so far (noting that it's still early in the process). Trying to alleviate poverty is important, and I'm still a bit stunned that he seems to be the only major politician out there who noticed that New Orleans has been forgotten about by the President, a whole US city shattered and only rebuilt with piecemeal measures. Even if he ends up not winning the nomination, I think he and Obama will force each other in the right directions. Both will have to out-positive the other with the vision of an optimistic and progressive future, a message I think will have real resonance with the voters. There is a synergy to be found with their messages that would really make it difficult for Republicans to smear them, and I think this kind of optimism will win in the end against either McCain or Giuliani and their facade of strength, which in reality is a stubborn insistence on burying our military in Iraq while singing hollow platitudes to those sent off to die unnecessarily.

Wild Card: Al Gore: If he jumps in, all bets are off. He'd instantly become my favorite. I really, really doubt that he's running.