On a call previewing tonight’s LGBT forum, an Edwards adviser just said that he’s not worried about the fact that Edwards is not for gay marriage because, if elected, “we will have a first lady in Elizabeth Edwards who will be our lobbyist.”
I don’t think this was in the talking points.
UPDATE: I’ll take it as a given that the characterization of EE as a “lobbyist” for gay rights — specifically gay marriage — was intended by adviser (Who I think was Eric Stern, it was difficult to keep the voices straight) to be something of a joke. She’s not going to register or anything. But the comment highlights both the perception that Elizabeth is far, far to the left of her husband and that she
wields an unhealthy amount of influence over him* actively tries to influence his political positions. It echoes Clinton’s “two for one” gibe, but also implies that Elizabeth will have the chance to change her husband’s mind on an issue that he claims to stand firm on. The question voters could raise, especially those who would allow civil unions but draw a line at gay marriage: will he listen to me or to his wife?
*Fixed some sloppy writing/thinking. I think it’s more precise — and more what I meant — now.