A Terrific Woman

I was lucky to hear about an Elizabeth Edwards house meeting at the last minute. It was pouring with rain, but that did not stop me or any of the other 60-70 people who turned up on a Saturday afternoon to hear her speak.

She spoke very briefly and opened the floor for questions. One first question was how would Edwards handle Iran. She gave a beautiful answer which went into a great amount of detail and into great depth on the issue. Of course she talked about diplomacy, but she went into details on what the issue was and how it should be addressed. She pointed out that Iran spends around $3b on conventional weapons, whereas the US was arming the countries surrounding Iran with conventional weapons to a tune of $20b. "If you were Iran what would you do?", she asked. "Rachet up your nuclear program to defend yourself!". Agreed that as my friend says even ordinary sentences sound great after right-wing "we are the good guys, they are bad" rhetoric, but still the point "put yourself in their shoes" really resonated with me.

There was a question on existing college loans which she truthfully acknowedged as difficult. Then she went on to make an interesting point. She pointed out that so many consumer goods have approval levels that they have to pass before they can be sold to a consumer. A lamp for instance has to be tested by an inspector that it is safe for use in a home. Cars have to be tested for safety. But financial documents that go with loans that very rapidly become burdensome (loans for college from unscrupulous loan outfits that essentially fool a student and lay the burden of a bad loan on the student) are not tested in any form. Why not have inspection for these like inspection for other consumer goods? Shouldn't a financial document that a student will sign be approved under some guideline that ensures "safety"and fairness? She also alluded to the inherent problems with leaving things like college loans to the market, and said the government should play a role so that the college students are not exploited.

Usually the candidate's spouse is used in a campaign to show a candidate's "softer" side. But she campaigns as an equal and knows a great amount about the various issues. The baby in the house was making gurgling noises when she was speaking, and when the parents tried to quiet the baby she said she loves that noise and didn't mind that at all as background. This could be just a scripted thing, but somehow it did not feel like it, and she also talked very fondly of her own children. She portrays a personality that is both the "softer" side _and_ has a mind that is as knowledgeable as any man's. She brings out the feeling that one can be a woman (with all the connotations that brings) and be completely intellectually compatible with men. That one need not be like a man in everything to succeed in a man's world.

All the women in the room (and it was 90% women) really seemed to like her. Much to my suprise I ran into my music teacher there, who has not been visiting other candidates yet, but came to see her. Fighting cancer and campaigning so vigorously for her husband she comes across as a very strong woman. When she finished she asked for people to volunteer for the campaign, and asked potential volunteers to sign cards. The cards have options, "I will volunteer", or "I will host a house party", and she said "you don't have to say I will spend the first of my life making John Edwards president", but "you can check one of the other boxes". She knows that her time is going to be defined by cancer and is devoting that time to making her husband president.

She is a terrific woman.