In 2004, I read a few books by and about presidential candidates. First, I read a bio and autobiography for Howard Dean, the pair later getting me around $5 on EBay. [I don't make much money that way.] Dean was my first choice -- not that I had a great feeling that he had a great chance to win or anything. My sentiment was generally that he kept on getting in trouble for saying things that were more right than not. This was underlined when a Kerry supporter was upset by his statements on taxes -- horrified really, since it was risky to suggest cutting middle class taxes on the federal level would not do much. In the end, though, it would just mean shifting taxes to the states. And, I felt good that someone who knew what he was talking about respecting economic basically agreed.
I also read Wesley Clark's second book, largely on the war, but with a final campaign related chapter on his view on various issues. I still have that one and found it respectable. As Dean's opposition to this criminal war showed, Democrats know a thing or two about "Winning Modern Wars" vis-à-vis the other side. [How about that Iraq Survey/Study Group that supposedly was to be an independent analysis, but turned out to be an ass covering affair?] It might suggest something to note that Kerry's book was not on my list, but yes, I did read a biography that suggested he has the experience for the job. And, I read and respected Four Trials by John Edwards, the man who I voted for -- after the race was decided -- when the primary came to town.
John Edwards was not only my symbolic choice. Elizabeth Edwards in her book (Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers) had a sad scene where Dean asked Edwards for a meeting around the Wisconsin Primary. Dean knew it was time to drop out, but did not have it in him to do it quite yet. But, he wanted Edwards to know that he was on his side -- he felt that Edwards was more likely to get those core voters in Ohio that would decide the election. Deep down, I think he was right. Not that Edwards would necessarily have won -- he had his own problems, even if Republicans using experience against him would have been a bit rich -- but too many voters deep down did not connect with Kerry. He was a respectable choice, but deep down I think too many thought it wasn't their year. So, let's come in a respectable second.
Edwards told Dean the reality -- Kerry would win the nomination. Now, this is really in response to his wife's book, but I find it okay to write about John too since she sends a vibe that matches with his -- optimistic and a simple desire (need) to reach out to people out large. In her case, this partially grew out of her childhood, her dad (with a dangerous job flying reconnaissance missions) was a gregarious sort and she had to travel all over while growing up. Elizabeth seems like the "heavy" of sorts of the two, actually, sounding (and looking) like the no-nonsense but loving mom that her own mother had to be all those years. Her husband has that Dick Clark ageless look, which she kids about in passing, including by references about a hairdresser who cut his hair, cut and dyed hers.
The book btw is not about political positions, but more of a personal journey. John Edwards tried that approach as well, in a fashion. His "two Americas" message is clearly policy related, but also his campaign is largely about an image -- nice and optimistic. It was one reason why Al Gore very seriously thought about his as a v.p. choice (John Kerry was in the running too) even though he only had a few years in the Senate under his belt at that time. And, along with his background -- serving for twenty years as a litigator for families who needed him -- this appealed. He had to work at his success as well, with a working family/mill town background. His wife's family surely would as well. Again, lots of Democrats who know a thing or two about the military too.
Edwards, along with Lieberman, was a gung ho supporter of the war. Dean was not, which added to his charm. But, Kerry simply did not do much better here, no matter how it was spun. Edwards was wrong, but at least (yeah, it is a bit lame "at least") was forthright about it. Kerry had his lame ass policy that one might respect, but deep down, I simply could not. In the real world, you had to realize that your way might make you feel better, but the end result was the same. Edwards later said he made a mistake. FWIW. Anyway, he is out there doing good work, and has something to offer still. Presidential candidate? I don't know ... but he would add something to someone's campaign and administration.*
Back to the book. I suggested last time I discussed it that the subtitle references her fight with breast cancer, which cruelly showed itself right before the end of the general election (such things aren't timed for our benefit, however). This is wrong really, though it is part of the matter. She has an extended chapter on her cancer fight, and starts there as well. But, the true reference is to her son Wade dying in a car accident at sixteen. John referenced this in his own book, and quoted a letter that we find in this one as well, but Elizabeth ... partially given its different purposes ... did so in a much more visceral way. Oh yeah. You read a chapter on the death, the expected horror and sadness. Mmm hmm. Next step ... two more chapters patterned after her mourning period ... someone who lost a child would recognize the pain, surely.
And, she in part ... in long passages ... talked about them -- the solace she obtained from an online grief bulletin board. She enjoyed the Net with her son beforehand, after, it helped the mourning process. This underlines the remarkable ability of such a medium to result in such personal connections. I do believe the net goal of these two chapters is to make the reader cry. I myself had to laugh -- this helps sometimes when you really want to cry -- at the whole thing. She spent part of the time talking about others who grieved with her -- this reminds me of a reference she made in an appearance that C-SPAN Book TV aired. The small benefit, benefit all the same, of their love being in the book. A mention of their child or loved one. The small things often meaning so much.
Without fanfare, she also had a powerful few pages on the dangers that lurk in such cases. In particular, how religious belief can cause much pain. Religion is such a personal and powerful force, one that shows up in many ways -- positive and negative -- in times of loss. It amazes -- though I understand it -- that some feel God has personally let them down in such times. This seems selfish to me, more so, silly. The first makes sense, since we are selfish, and must be at such times in some fashion to survive. The latter, if the word "silly" doesn't work use another, is a bit different. Deep down, do we really not think about others also in tragic situations like that? Are we the first one with a loved one who suffered or died in a cruel way? I know ... we are irrational creatures.
Anyway, she discussed how religion threatened to divide her solace, the grief bulletin board that she repeatedly went to, relied upon. Some felt one way was the way to salvation. Others found that cruel. You get the idea -- the path is belief, a certain type, which implies the alternative (which might be yours) is damnation. Others did not believe in the God proclaimed at all. She did not judge such people, but begged them not to let it divide. She needed them and could not take them not being part of their community of grief. Elizabeth spoke out of need, but also realized a basic truth. It underlines how much it pains as well as aggravates me that people divide or want to divide society in such ridiculous and cruel ways. As she recognized, there is something that unites us all.
I don't read too many autobiographies, but I enjoyed this one. Nice spirit there. Query though: why are the younger kids so blonde haired, when your others -- even in the pictures of them about the same age -- are darker haired like their parents? She even references the "straw" color hair, so it is just not a matter of the black and white photos tricking the eye. Hmm.
---
* Another thing that should merit our respect is his desire, as the ticket promised, not to concede until it was clear that the Ohio vote count was legitimate. John Kerry, probably for political reasons, wanted to do so immediately. He was in control, so ... A FU there, JK. "Foul up" at least. As with having the convention in Boston -- Boston! -- this sort of thing just is sad. It also shows a certain lack of fight that depresses me, the "respectful second" philosophy in spades.
I myself think the ticket lost in Ohio, since the margin was too great, too much having to go their way. [Also, since we made the opposite point in '00, they surely lost the national popular vote.] But, there were serious problems, and the first thing you need to do in such cases is to show special care. Special care apparently ensured Connecticut handled the last election well, even with new machines (some election rights group was on C-SPAN and made the point). If anything, it shows the voters -- with legitimate concerns -- you care. They, we, deserve such respect.