Sometimes political campaigns are counter initiative. What you’re sure makes sense turns out not to make sense at all.

John and Elizabeth Edwards are part of one campaign, but both seem headed in different directions.

John Edwards wants his campaign to be about getting out of Iraq and if he can make that the dominant issue in the election he wins. It’s a longstanding and viable strategy. Pick your issue. Run on it.

Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, seems to be continually reacting. For instance, everyone accepts the ‘women’s vote’ is a key to Hillary’s success. So, Elizabeth reacts. After the You-Tube Democratic debate, she tried mightily to convince a skeptical interviewer that John, not Hillary, is the better advocate of women’s’ rights. It may seem logical to counter Hillary’s strength. But its not. It’s possible to see Hillary losing a campaign to John about the war. But women’s rights? Even if it were true John is a stronger advocate for women, convincing voters of that will be tougher than convincing Democrats President Bush hasn’t made mistakes in Iraq. If Mrs. Edwards somehow turns the Democratic Primary into a referendum on who’s the best women’s advocate it’s hard to see Hillary losing. Mrs. Edwards didn’t mean to, but, inadvertently, she helped Hillary.

She made a similar mistake yesterday. If Hillary’s the Democratic candidate, she told Time Magazine, Republicans will vote in droves because of Hillary “hatred”.

But consider her logic: Mrs. Edwards is telling Democrats to vote against Hillary because Republicans dislike her. Or, to look at it another way, consider it as a campaign slogan: Vote for John Edwards – The Democrat Republicans Like Best. How likely is it to appeal to Democrats?

Elizabeth Edwards has attacked Hillary twice. But, in all likelihood, in the end she helped Hillary both times.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.