Is it a) legitimate b) advisable to factor into one's decision on how to vote in the presidential primaries any of the following:

Edwards

Elizabeth's long-term prognosis. Is it legitimate to have qualms about voting for John Edwards based on concerns about how he might handle the job should his wife take a turn for the worse, or worse?

Hillary

Is Hillary likely to make different, and on the whole more inappropriately hawkish decisions, because, as a woman, she feels particularly at pains to demonstrate to the public that she is "tough enough" to use military force? Her record in the Senate and on the campaign trail leaves me feeling most uncomfortable with her on foreign policy generally.

I can envision opposing arguments:

i) an anti-Hillary case: These past actions of hers are in fact indications that, were she to win election, she would take an inappropriately and ineffectively hard line on Iran, Iraq and perhaps other matters that are a concern to so many here, including me.

or

ii) a pro-Hillary case: She is saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected. In fact she probably would need to say these things to have a chance of winning a general election given the social realities of the world we live in today-- as opposed to the one we want to live in. In that latter world there simply is no issue with whether a woman is capable of handling the CIC role capably. It just doesn't occur to enough voters that this might be a concern to make any practical difference in an election outcome. Unfortunately, that does not seem to me to be where we "are" as a country today or will be by November.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that anyone might think a woman could not handle CIC because she is a woman. But I realize there are many who don't think that way and there is no advantage I can see to trying to pretend as though that is not the case.

Back to the pro-Hillary argument. Once on the job, Hillary's best sense of what she thinks would be the best way to handle these situations would not be overly militaristic, would be quite effective, in fact. And, she would feel able to act on her best sense of what the situation requires, and not worry so much about not appearing tough enough that it would influence her in other directions against her better judgment?

This is the "Hillary as the closet progressive" hope that I think many supporting her have (and many others supporting her fear.) The idea is that you vote her in and break down that barrier now and for good. The flipside is the concern, not to be dismissed lightly I don't think, that based on what she's done and said so far, there are plenty of flags that suggest it wouldn't be a good idea to break that barrier by voting her in now.

I have no idea which of these "takes", if either of them, is more likely the better one.

Obama

One among many parts of Obama's success is that his unifying rhetoric and vague, less clearly progressive views particularly on domestic policy issues, defuse concerns or fears or stereotypes of what an African American president might be like. Obama does not conjure up the hard reactions that Jesse Jackson, in an earlier time, did based on Jackson's prior record, rhetorical style and campaign rhetoric. Should he be elected, will Obama feel he has to be less progressive than his judgments about what is best would lead him to do, in order to maintain his appeal as a politician who aims to transcend race?

Another "read" could be that he casts the net wide at this stage, running more centrist/vague in his rhetoric, giving himself what he thinks is a better chance in the general election. Once elected he develops a comfort and trust level with most of the public over the first year or two so the public sees he is no one to fear and that he is well able to handle the job. Once that happens, he starts to lay the groundwork for moving in a more progressive direction, using perhaps different "frames" or ways of articulating and selling an agenda that is more clearly progressive than what he has been talking about so far.

At that point he can and will, perhaps and for example, start talking about why we need a balance to the power of huge corporations and how working people need to have a voice on big decisions that affect them, and that the way we have done that in the past has been to make it much more possible than it is now for working people to find a voice through unions.

What could that sort of rhetoric look like, in broad form?

Maybe something like this: that perhaps unions aren't the best, and are not the only, structure we need at this point in our history, but that we need to open up and level off the playing field so people who want to form unions have a chance instead of facing a stacked deck against them. And we need to be open to other ways in which working people can get their voices heard.

Something like that way into the grow-and-strengthen-the-middle-class set of issues about which Edwards has been more specific, maybe too specific, I don't know. Edwards has not so far found the right 'voice' to bring more of the public along to see things this way. Maybe Obama would be the person to do that, I don't know.

Some say Obama is taking lots and lots of corporate money and worry about that. He is. And that bothers me, raises questions, at least.

As the saying goes, "if you can't take their money, drink their liquor, and vote against them, you shouldn't be in politics." We may have the chance to see.

Fellow denizen Tom Wright, in a post I am unable to locate, wrote (paraphrasing, I hope accurately) recently that we vote based on our gut, our intuition, and find "reasons" to justify our vote only later. I find myself all through this campaign season having to rely much more on gut, and less on what Obama and Hillary are actually saying, than I would like to.

Edwards I am just not sure is going to find a voice capable of bringing along enough voters, soon enough, to get himself in a position where he has a chance to win the nomination.

He is about out of time, if in fact the clock hasn't already run out for all practical purposes. I believe that his message and vision, with some of the hard edges sanded off and a sunnier delivery, is dead on, the one I am most comfortable with among the three of them as a possible signal of intent about what he might try to do. He may not be able at this point to overcome, soon enough, negative perceptions some have developed about him as a messenger and as someone who may not be the one to bring along enough of the American public to get much good stuff done. And because of the kind of campaign he is running he is at an enormous disadvantage in getting his message out.