Elizabeth Edwards does not enjoy bowling

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take the 2008 presidential campaign seriously. Before the Iowa caucus, the candidates were coming to town every week, we could ask questions and listen to their stump speeches in person. There was more to the televised debates than clarifying every statement taken out of context and played over and over. The level of discourse has lowered dramatically since candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson dropped out. Apparently, this changing dynamic has captured the attention of Elizabeth Edwards.

In a New York Times Op-Ed yesterday, the wife of former candidate John Edwards scolded the media for covering the trivial details about the campaign process and cutting out the real issues and serious candidates. It is understandable why Elizabeth Edwards would hold a grudge against mainstream media. Surprisingly, the op-ed is not in defense of her husband or the fact that his $400 haircut received more coverage than his platform; this piece defends Biden and Dodd more than her husband.

The title of her contribution is "Bowling 1, Health Care 0" because voters are more likely to know a candidate's bowling score than details of their health care plan. She states the timing for her topic is due to the up-coming Democratic primary in her home state of North Carolina. I still find it a bit odd to be bringing up candidates who dropped out several months ago. What can we do now but be nostalgic for the times when issues were actually covered? Is she urging NC voters to write-in Chris Dodd on the ballot?

No, she makes her point by urging everyone to demand a "vibrant, vigorous press... Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie 'Network' but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can - as voters - do ours."

I agree that the press is falling short in this election cycle, and I am grateful that she focused on other candidates rather than simply defending her husband. That said, I'm also disappointed in Mrs. Edwards. She focuses on the good old days early in the campaign when the candidates spoke out about issues, but she is very careful to stay away from any suggestion of who might get the all-important endorsement from John Edwards. Aren't we past a point when we can affect change by reminiscing about how great the second-tier candidates were, and speaking calmly to demand a more responsible media?

Elizabeth Edwards has always impressed me, but she disappointed me a bit on this one. She was known for being outspoken during her husband's campaign, and I think she's highlighting an important problem. I'm just saddened because I would much rather hear her advocate the Howard Beale approach.