<p>While the focus of the Iowa vote last night has been on the two winners and to a lesser extent one of the losers (Hillary), I think John Edwards was also a pretty big loser last night. He has been focusing on Iowa and hoping to use that as his springboard for the rest of the primaries. His convincing defeat by Obama plus his lack of funds to forge a serious comeback in a short time period may be a problem for him. </p>
<p>So, for Edwards supporters, should he falter again and drop out while the race is still open to the more heavily funded Clinton and Obama, which way do you go for your second choice? My guess is that much of the Edwards support is, to some extent, anti-Hillary and that Obama would be the primary beneficiary of Edwards dropping out. </p>
<p>Although I don’t think Edwards can be totally discounted yet. He could do better than Clinton in NH as well as Iowa. The Clinton loss in Iowa may have actually helped Edwards in NH. The Clinton fans may now see her as a non-winner. They may not want to vote for Obama, so they may vote for Edwards instead of Clinton. </p>
<p>It is possible (maybe not probable) that Edwards could get a boost in NH that could propel him forward…</p>
<p>I think Edward’s biggest weakness is issues with his family.
Otherwise, I like him very much. If it weren’t for the family issues, he would be my first choice. Hence, first choice is Obama.</p>
<p>When you say he is short of money, that surprises me, as I thought he was a very wealthy man from his legal practice.
How much money does a candidate need to be well funded?</p>
<p>I think New Hampshire will determine a lot. Paying 3 tuitions analyzes the NH race on another thread from a very interesting perspective.</p>
<p>If you are talking about his wife’s medical condition, I don’t see that as an issue. She is very adamant that her husband should run for President.</p>
<p>In fact, she is a wonderful spokesperson for his campaign.</p>
<p>It is one thing to be adamant, and I agree she is wonderful, too. I like her more than him.</p>
<p>But, they have stated her cancer is incurable, she can become very ill and die. I have to wonder how he would handle that and his presidential duties. Don’t other people?</p>
<p>I think my H would vote for Clinton, and I would probably vote for Obama. Our primary isn’t until May, so we have a lot of time to think about it.</p>
<p>I have thought about it, but past presidents have withstood great personal tragedies while in office and remained dedicated to the job. Lincoln comes to mind; I can’t even imagine how you keep going after the death of your child. And of course, any of the candidates with healthy young spouses could face a shocking diagnosis at any time. At least, if Edwards faces single parenthood in office, it won’t be a shock he hasn’t prepared for, because the family appears to be at peace with the odds.</p>
<p>I’m with Obama regardless, but I wouldn’t let this stop me from supporting Edwards.</p>
<p>There are many people living with “incurable” cancer, and some of them will live for a very, very long time. And, a serious illness can strike anyone at any time, so, I wouldn’t let a health matter stop me from supporting a candidate.</p>
<p>LTS, I agree - there are many examples. The death of their son also concerns me. How many horrible tragedies can somebody bounce back from and remain sane?</p>
<p>FF - I disagree about the “convincing defeat” part, but to answer your question: “Any other Democrat.” If pushed, I’d say that I think that Obama is less “Republican-ish” than Clinton, and if I felt he could carry out the Edwards policies I’d be OK with him.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t let an illness of a candidate’s family member stop me from voting for that candidate unless it was clear to me that it was severely affecting their ability to perform the job.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the biggest obstacle Edwards will have to overcome won’t be family issues, but the attacks he will get concerning his actions as a trial lawyer. Very easy to attack someone who made huge amounts of money in this field (just consider his estate house, which is the second biggest in NC, ad has become a liabilty to his image as one concerned for the working man). The arguement had already started that greedy lawyers (their words, not mine) like him, suing any and every health professional for ludicrous amounts of money, are a major contributor to the rising cost of health care in this country.</p>
<p>Violinists I don’t know. I think it depends on the makeup of the individual. For some people, what doesn’t finish them off truly makes them stronger. Others will simply get worn down. I don’t have a strong sense of where Edwards falls between those two extremes. </p>
<p>If you think about it, you can probably find challenges in the lives of all of the candidates. How each person is impacted by - and works through and overcomes - their individual challenges is going to be a hard thing to accurately measure.</p>
<p>My concern about Edwards’s family issues isn’t whether he will stay committed to the job, but rather whether his children will receive the parental attention they need if tragedy strikes their mother while he is President. My concern is more with the children than with the candidate.</p>
<p>^^ But isn’t that being a bit discriminatory, or at a minimum, presumptuous? Now, I’m NOT a fan of Edwards - don’t like him, won’t vote for him, unless he’s the least evil of a couple of unfortunate choices on the ballot. BUT I think it’s wrong to make assumptions about how he will parent his children in the event of a health issue or death of his spouse, etc., UNLESS, we’re also going to equally evaluate, say, how Obama might do if one of his children is sticken with a serious illness, or, for that matter, how any of the other candidates might do if a health issue or tragedy should happen to any of them.</p>
<p>Yes, its discriminatory, but why shouldn’t it be? Voting for one candidate over another for any reason is discriminatory. This isn’t a job interview or a college applicant. Its the most important job in the world, and I personally don’t want to feel responsible for the negligent parenting of Edwards’s children if their mother doesn’t make it through the next 5 years. Maybe I am putting the childrens’s best interests over the interests of this country, but I am okay with that since I like Obama better anyway.</p>
<p>Since the potential loss of a spouse exists for any candidate then maybe one shouldn’t vote for any candidate with young children.</p>
<p>A related question - is it fair to the children for a person with young children to even run for President? It certainly has a serious impact on the kid’s life. I also wonder how attentive a President or even a President’s spouse would typically be towards their kids while in office with their heavy schedules. I would assume that most who find themselves in this situation receive a lot of help from the staff in this regard.</p>
<p>I had recently switched my first choice from Obama to Edwards; I can go back to Obama with little loss, though I think Edwards has been more clear on health and fairness issues in general.</p>
<p>I think it’s incredibly presumptuous to not support someone because it would be injurious, in one’s opinion, to his family. Any president will have an effect on thousands, possibly millions, of families, each of which deserves the same respect.</p>
<p>Who we put into office can affect, and end, many, many lives, as I think we have ample evidence in recent years.</p>