Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Elizabeth Edwards lays into Clinton and Obama in the most recent issue of The Progressive:

Edwards: There's no way to do this that doesn't sound negative about the other candidates... The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them. What is it they really believe in that makes them get up in the morning and want to do this? I should think the President has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves.

On the war vote and funding:
...the other candidates? Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we've got two issues, one is the information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, "I'm not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan." You've got to do that for the men and women who are there: You've got to have a plan. And he didn't vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding.

So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he's asking these people to stand up for now.

Now Hillary, I don't know what Hillary's objection is. She, even in the New Hampshire debate, said, "I made a mistake." People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buries a line like that--I give her credit for saying that--but when she buries that line. . . . We're electing the leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader. They are very important leaders in the Senate. And we got thirteen votes on this last bill? Could they have influenced a few more votes? Probably not enough, but they should have been out there trying. They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders. The point isn't, "I got here first or I got here last." The point is, in this moment, are you a leader?

On the rhetoric of hope:
Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it's like a Hollywood set: It's all facade and there's no guts behind it. You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it. They've moved from "hope is on the way" to "the audacity of hope." I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.
Edwards has been escalating her tough talk toward the other candidates, but this is at another level. I don't see anything in here that's unfair or out of context, though I'm not sure it does much for Edwards campaign-- it seems more intended to undermine the other candidates credibility. It's sure to spur on a lot of comments that will attack her for saying it in an interview... but not here, haha.

The other news on Edwards is that he's pulled nearly all his staff out of Nevada. They say its to focus on Iowa/NH/SC more, but it's also going to save them money. The only way Edwards would win NV is if he's got Iowa already won, so it sorta reminds me of Kerry pulling out of everywhere in order to focus on Iowa in 2003, but Edwards is up against much better organizations than Kerry was in 2003-4. Has Nevada become less relevant? There's 5 months to go before we know.

Yesterday, Elizabeth Edwards posted a diary on DailyKos, in which she posted over 30 comments.

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards (all tags)

Comments

209 Comments

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Kerry was called "Lazarus" after the Iowa victory, because he had long been pronounced dead.  I remember in 2003 when he was shedding staff and giving himself a loan, when he was in the single-digits in every state, was in 5th place in Iowa polling and then BAM it happened.

My only wonder is whether Edwards will use his considerable wealth in the 4th Quarter to bridge the gap between him and Clinton-Obama.

by Vox Populi 2007-08-16 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

That's a good question; or would he wait until January?

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-08-16 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I've thought about it a lot.

I think January makes strategic sense, because that wouldn't have to be on the finance reports until March 15, meaning the other campaigns won't know he just got a $10-20 Million injection which would allow him to have some game in later states.

At the same time, the news for the Q4 fundraising would be Edwards was trying to "buy" the election at a very critical point.  He'll have enough resources to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire with or without his cash, but still, it's a tough road ahead for him.

by Vox Populi 2007-08-16 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Not if Iowa is Jan 5. I think he'll do it much earlier (if he's going to do it.) I'd say at the close of Q3.

What I expect he'll do is some sort of match-challenge to his supporters, along the lines

"I can't do this all by myself; I need your help. And I'm every bit as committed as you are, so I'll show it by pitching in my own money.

The DC pundits say this race is over and its been won by the big donors and the candidates running on DC money. Bun I've seen how committed ordinary people are to fundamental change, and I want to match that commitment.

Together, how much courage do we have?"

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 07:47AM | 0 recs
haha, wow

i love your cynicism

desmoulins = joe trippi?

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-16 12:57PM | 0 recs
Technical Point

Any candidate that contributes big personal money in a Federal race has to disclose it pretty much immediately, and it triggers higher contribution limits for everyone else in the race.

by privatewl 2007-08-16 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Technical Point

I don't think thats right for a presidential race. Certainly in 04 when Kerry lent his campaign $6m, he didn't disclose it until his quarterly report and it didn't trigger higher contrib limits for other candidates. I don't believe anything in the law has changed since then.

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Technical Point

It's only for Congressional races.  Mitt Romney has given himself more than $10 Million and didn't have to disclose until the end of the quarter.

by Vox Populi 2007-08-16 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I like to pull out this comment, dust it off you might say.

I'm not arguing Dean is inevitable. He isn't. There are still far too many factors that could come to play. I do think Clark is the only viable opposition to Dean. Gephardt can theoretically make a game of it. No one else really has a shot.
-- kos

by Robert P 2007-08-16 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I liked her better before she took on the attack dog role for Edwards.  If she were particularly good at it, that's be one thing - but these arguments are pretty bad.  Her husband voted  voted for the AUMF - the Edwards camp doesn't have the moral high ground to spin this into their favor.

Weak stuff.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

For once I find myself agreeing with you, Adam.  :-)

by georgep 2007-08-16 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Let's mark it on the calendar George! : )

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Give me a break you two.   What sexist claptrap this exchange is.

Of course you liked her better when she sweet and not confronting people with her intelligence.

Yet George you support a woman, Hillary, that was just as in your face, if not more, during the 92 elections.  

You guys are throwbacks.  Hillary can be a strong woman with her own opinions, but Elizabeth can't.

OMG, we have another time warp appearing.  The stupid struggles never end.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:16AM | 0 recs
This is not her intelligence speaking

I think it's her disappointment at the way the campaign is going.  Her intelligence would shut up about it.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

co sponsored the AUMF

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-16 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Her larger critique of vision is on the mark. Competence and hope aren't visions. The first is a pre requisite for the job, and the later is what you need to accomplish the vision.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

It really isn't bruh.

Look - you can argue that you like Edwards' vision best.  I won't argue that because it is subjective.  But she is trying to sell the notion that the media caricature of Obama's vision is all that exists.  This is demonstrably not true.  If it fits into their strategic plan to sell that meme, I suppose they can try.  but it insults the intelligence of anyone actually paying attention.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

in a nutshell- read this

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/15/2032 58/151#commenttop

it's not a carricature- its the impact of what he says.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I think BTD is wrong.  The politics of contrast is useful, but it isn't the province of the person at the top of the ticket.  The fact that we are discussing the comments of Elizabeth Edwards and not John makes my point for me.

A President callig for unity is a good thing.  They send proxies out to draw contrast.

But beyond all of this - Obama's vision goes far beyond the issues of "hope" or "unity."  We just spent a few weeks arguing his foreign policy vision, and he has spoken at length about a myriad of domestic issues.

Again...want to argue that Edwards has the better vision - fine.  Make your case.  But arguing that Obama doesn't have one at all just reinforces everythg bad about our current political debate - and in that sense, it reflects badly on the Edwards folks.    

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 07:51AM | 0 recs
When Obama becomes President

then he can call for unity. First he needs to win and have Democrats win.

You folks are putting the cart before the horse.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: When Obama becomes President

That's your opinion.  I think you are wrong.

Bush won by assuring folks he was a "uniter, not a divider."  I think swing voters respond to that message.  

There is still plenty of room for contrast to be drawn.  You are creating a false either/or that simply doesn't exist.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 08:24AM | 0 recs
First

Bush lost.

Second, Bush's being a "uniter" was not his campaing theme as much as folks want to pretend it was.

"Restoring honor and integrity to the WH," "Gore is a liar" and "likeable guy have a beer with" were his major themes.

The first two were CLEARLY divisive.

The last was a curse of our politics.

Now tell me about Reagan.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: First

Bush won enough to force the issue - even with incumbency on Gore's side.

"restoring honor and integrity" are not all that different from what Obama's saying.

"Gore is a liar" was largely carried out by proxies.

Obama's plenty likable too.

Don't have to talk about Reagan.  I'm still waiting for you to answer the central point I am making...drawing contrast is generally the province of people in the campaignb other than the candidate.  Again - why is this diary about Elizabeth Edwards and not John?

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 09:12AM | 0 recs
Of course it is largely a proxy thing

But the candidate's rhetoric can not be there is NO contrast.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is largely a proxy thing

When has Obama ever stated that????

All he has ever argued is that we do not have to be ruled by the old debates of the past.  Democrats don't have to reject every market-based idea that might actually have merit, nor do Republicans have to reject every hint of social responsibility.  

These ideas are not incompatible with drawing real and substantive contrast.

There is a valid debate to be had on this subject.  I don't think we've even scratched at it.  If you are interested, I'd like to invite you to paricipate in a mini-debate with me (say about three or four back and forth arguments via e-mail - prefreable over a few days to alolow for research if needed) that we can diary here and wherever else you choose upon completion.

Win or lose, I think it would be useful.  

I'm at (you'll love this) endtheculturewar@yahoo.com.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 09:30AM | 0 recs
When?

You gotta be kidding me.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: When?

Any time.

Not kidding.  I think leaving this argument where it seems to stand does a disservice to all.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: When?

I would invite you to do a google search - Big Tent Democrat Obama TalkLeft.

I find your comment not a serious one frankly.

Let's leave it here if you really believe Obama has not said there is no contrast.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: When?

I've read pretty much all of your work on the subject.  Both here and at Dkos.

Not sure where you inuit a lack of seriousness from me.  I think I've stayed on point with you.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 10:22AM | 0 recs
Elizabeth - judge and jury

"I don't know what it is that drives them"

So because Elizabeth does not know what drives someone that means they don't have a vision?

I did not know that she could look into people's soul. Must be nice.

by JoeCoaster 2007-08-16 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth - judge and jury

You playing parse the phrase because it annoys you what she said. I get that. It's not very interesting. You know she means. Respond to her critique about vision.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth - judge and jury

Exactly, she is expressing the questions a lot of us have.  She isn't being so polite about it.  She is using her intelligence and lawyer's skills to get at the core of the issues.

People don't like it because it make them squirm.  They have not articulated clearly what their philosophy is and she is exposing it.  Not nice.

This is a political campaign in the 21st century.  Bush set us back in many ways, including having a perfect Stepford wife.  

Sorry that doesn't cut it any more.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:20AM | 0 recs
Debating hint for you

"Stepford wife" is a straw man.

I really like Elizabeth Edwards, as do most of us.  But this is a political fuckup.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

But when she asks, "The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them," it applies even more strongly to John Edwards.  His "People's Platform" from 1998 bears no resemblance to the candidate he was in early 2003, and certainly not by 2004, and even less so now.  

How do we know what's at his core, and what's opportunism?

by Adam B 2007-08-16 08:32AM | 0 recs
Adam B - you are for

Obama - that is it. Pure and simple. You said you knew Prof Obama. Has that clouded you to even trying to look at John Edwards?

Have you ever met him?  Have you talked to him directly?  Are you so asorbed with the fact that you know Barack Obama that you can only believe him to be a real person.

I find your constant trying to make John Edwards out to almost be a stick toy figure - irratating for someone who has enough intelligence to pass a bar examine.

What personal contact with him have you had that should make you feel the need to be his sole judge and jury, and then expect everyones to believe you.

You tell other and TOMP on many times to discuss the issues yet you and most of the Obama supporters don't follow your own lament!

by dk2 2007-08-16 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B - you are for

Yes, I've met John Edwards and talked to him directly, most recently at a fundraiser for Lois Murphy in Center City Philadelphia about a year ago.

I don't "feel the need to be his sole judge and jury," but I acknowledge skepticism as to his ideological shift over the years.  I'm not alone.

I like where he is right now; the question is, why is he there, and where would he be in a general election?  Whether Edwards would continue to champion these issues in such a context is certainly a legitimate question.

by Adam B 2007-08-16 10:14AM | 0 recs
A year ago!

Was the conversation about politics and issues or the usual Fund raiser "hi how are"?

Did you approach the evening with a sincere look at the candidate or did you go to size him up to help Obama?

by dk2 2007-08-16 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A year ago!

This was well before anyone believed that Obama would be running, and the day after Edwards gave his tremendous speech on poverty at the National Press Club.   I came to support Lois Murphy and to see Edwards in person, since I supported him in 2004.  (I can understand why someone who doesn't believe in the audacity of hope would be cynical about this.)

The conversation was about homelessness policy, actually.  There were, at most, 30 people at the event.

by Adam B 2007-08-16 12:19PM | 0 recs
I agree with what she said

If anyone is interested or wondering.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with what she said

I'm glad you agree with what she says, BTD.  However she can't say that truth and be sweet and nice.

She is a lawyer and very intelligent.  You are good at looking a history of campaigns.  Go back to the 92 primaries and general campaign.  Hillary was prominent.  The Repubs hated that.  But I will tell you that many women appreciated who Hillary was.  

I feel we are sinking back to the 50's on roles for women, even though Hillary is running for president.  Remember that even Pakistan has had a woman leader and that doesn't mean that they see equality for women.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:23AM | 0 recs
Bullshit.

It isn't about putting women back in their Fifties role.  It's about good politics.  This isn't good politics.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:29AM | 0 recs
YES IT IS, I am a women and I lived through

the 50's, women could work as bookkeeppers while all the men were the managers, women didn't need to be managers they weren't the support of the family.

If you don't think many are attacking Elizabeth Edwards for being outspoken and having the guts to speak when she understands an issue even if it is the theatrics of a campaign, then you just don't get it.

If you don't believe that the "Betty Crocker, Joan Cleaver" mind set for the little women in the kitchen exist, then you haven't been out much in the world or you must have a magic pair of rose colored glasses.

Womens issues are still light years behind equality.

by dk2 2007-08-16 09:36AM | 0 recs
Do you think I am attacking her for these reasons?

Because I'm not.  I have always liked EE, think she's a great person and tremendous asset to JE.

I think that these words come from her heart, and are honest.  But I don't think that they are intended to help their campaign.  And that's the problem, because at this point EVERY public statement they make should help the campaign.  Because if they don't win the campaign, their cause is lost as well.  And that cause trumps the freedom of expression, IMHO.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I agree with you, although I still count myself as an Elizabeth fan.

Look, people made a choice whether to be for or against the war.  It's a matter of record.  They need to deal with the consequences of their position, and not try to spin it into a positive when it's not.

by Steve M 2007-08-16 07:21AM | 0 recs
Why don't they all just get along?

Because they're running against each other. They should draw sharp distinctions ... and even draw blood. This is healthy.

Of course, I'm also developing a severe crush on Mrs. Edwards, so I'm hardly unbiased.

Elizabeth, if you're reading this, there's one thing you should know: I'm totally bald. Imagine life with a man whose hair isn't an issue! I'm offering you paradise ...

by BingoL 2007-08-16 07:27AM | 0 recs
Here's what I like about this

She's asked a question and she doesn't give a polite answer. That's important to me. Her husband is running for President. She's got to have strong feelings about the other candidates. So rather than sugar coat it to appear politically correct she goes on the attack in defense of her husband. Who wouldn't?

The question regarding the 'attack dog' comment is the difference between not parsing words and spinning. I don't fell she's spinning.  Sure it can appear that she is. But I agree with much of what she says, especially about Edward's message comming out of both Obama and Hillary's mouth. Coopting your opponent's message is an effective strategy, and we saw that in Iowa in 2004 where everyone started to sound somewhat like Dean by January.

Edwards has a strong message. It's only natural for the others to try to coopt parts of it. But I feel he also has the policy position and plans that back up his message far better than the others. This is where I agree with what she is saying and don't see it as being an attack dog.

by michael in chicago 2007-08-16 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and

What she said was intellectually dishonest.

You cannot equivicate voting for funding with voting for authorization.  Once the war was authorized and our troops committed, withholding funding from them is morally troubling.

If the Edwrds camp wants to draw contrast, I suggest they stick to their positive agenda where they are on much firmer ground.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and

"You cannot equivicate voting for funding with voting for authorization.  Once the war was authorized and our troops committed, withholding funding from them is morally troubling."

The moral logic here runs into a hedgerow though, once Obama and Clinton voted against the funding.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-08-16 09:28AM | 0 recs
And lest we not forget that Obama said that he

does not really know how he would have voted if he had been in the congress at the time. Also, that he didn't have the same information that the others had.

So, there is doubt, but most chose to ignore Obama's own word, with an nice spin.

by dk2 2007-08-16 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: And lest we not forget that Obama said that he

He said that to cover for Kerry/Edwards.

I strongly doubt he really thought he'd have ever voted for it.  Too bad Edwards' vote put him in the position of having to say things like that out of party loyalty.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 10:20AM | 0 recs
Well how convenient for him

to have Kerry and Edwards to pull out of the hat!

I don't see any more credence in that, than all those statement that people may blast John Edwards for as far as sincerity.

by dk2 2007-08-16 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Well how convenient for him

Pull out of what hat?

Do you know the context in which he made the statement you are invoking?

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and

Not really.  

Obama made that vote as a statement.  He remained vocally against a defunding strategy - even stating so immediately after the vote.  I think it is fair to say that political calculation played a role. He determined that it would not pass, so he felt free to make that statement (thus avoiding ticking off the base).

Not his proudest moment in my estimation, but I know why he did it.  The entire defunding debate is about posturing on all sides - as everybody involved knows that the troops simply will not come home until a Democratic President is elected.  What we saw was political theater - a bunch of politicians wanting to look like they tried.  I won't hold him up for judgement on that front when almost every single member of congress has been duplicitous on the issue.  Obama's been a lot more honest than the majority.

But even on its substance, you cannot draw hard lines here.  Even Feingold has voted for funding.  Once troops were committed we had to send money.  If a serious defunding attempt was going to be attempted it needed to be done strategically.  Edwards' suggestion that voting for funding at all is somehow on par with her husband's vote is the height of absurdity.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-16 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and

Obama himself said that if you vote for supplemental funding you are being steamrolled by Bush.  Obama in 2003 on the $87 B  Then what happened?

You can understand Obama's political calculation, and changes of position, but you tend to be extreme in your criticism of Edwards.  In my view Edwards has been "a lot more honest than the majority."

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Elizabeth Edwards is a straight talker - but we're accustomed to Washington-approved mumbo jumbo lingo and vagueness - followed by the praise and affirmation of corporate media talking heads.

by annefrank 2007-08-16 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I like John Edwards, but prefer Obama now that he is taking off the gloves--just to make my position clear up front.

This commentary by Elizabeth Edwards is counterproductive to their campaign, because it's not a political message--it's a bunch of personal ramblings that smack of sour grapes.

Everybody knows that the Edwards campaign is not going well now.  They just had to move resources from Nevada to Iowa, their poll numbers are going south, and they are becoming peripheralized in the media coverage as the race increasingly is portrayed as Clinton vs. Obama.  These words are not issue-oriented attacks on their opponents, they're vague statements of suspicion of intent--which can just as easily be leveled at John Edwards given his history.

Elizabeth may be speaking from the heart, but the heart is not a reliable barometer in a political campaign.  Elizabeth is a loving wife who is indulging in message indiscipline.  She better just hope that these comments don't fall into the news cycle, or they're likely to get the wrong kind of attention.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:29AM | 0 recs
Is "message discipline" what it is

about?

So we trade R consultants for D consultants.  I am quite gald she is speaking out.

As for your take on the Edwards campaign, I will enjoy it when actual voters get to vote.  Iowa will be the beginning.  

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
I'm glad you're glad...

but do you think these comments are going to sway Obama/Hillary supporters to your side?

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:32AM | 0 recs
Not the ones in this thread

but don't think thats who she is aiming for

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Not only that Adams

But Edwards was a co-sponsor of the War authorization Bill. Nothing Edwards ever says about the War can be crediblle. Nothing. How can you sponsor a Bill when you havent read the most important piece of intelligence regarding the Bill you're sponsoring? And not just any bill, but a motherfucking War Bill?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-08-16 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

08 will be about change. Not just getting rid of a guy named Bush; but real progressive change on the order of Progressive era, the New Deal, and the Great Society. A lot of new Democratic freshmen get it. Edwards gets it. I'm not convinced Clinton or Obama gets it yet. Any new President will need to deliever some bold new reforms (like health care) in his/her first term if they hope to see a progressive Democratic majority solidfied.  I really hope we don't see the opportunity dissolve into the political soap opera of the mid-90's.  

by alexmhogan 2007-08-16 07:11AM | 0 recs
EE

I wouldn't be worried too much about Edwards for the time being. His campaign seems to be marginalized by the media. Unless he shows some life in polls, those attacks won't be very effective.

Anyway, I echo her 'hollier than thou' sentiment.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: EE

She says that the reason JE is behind in fundraising is because he can't become a woman or black.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can make their spouses have metastatic cancer, so they can spout vituperative attacks for their campaigns, so let's just call it even shall we EE?

by DTB in TN 2007-08-16 07:37AM | 0 recs
You are an obscene

jackass.  Your zeal for another candidate has caused you to lose all semblance of humantity.

I did not troll rate you because I want to the world to see your hate and stupidity.

No one wants to die.  You disgust me.

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: EE

What a despicable, heartless comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.

by NCDemAmy 2007-08-16 08:49AM | 0 recs
DTB in TN You have the lifetime honor of

my FIRST EVER TROLL RATE!

Your comment is beyond belief, I couldn't possible find enough adjectives to describe it.

LORD HELP ME!

by dk2 2007-08-16 09:43AM | 0 recs
The thing that people ignore

when they post this kind of stuff.  Is she right?

They never attempt to prove her right or wrong, just simply sight it as "look at what she said."

Well, look at what she said here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/15/ 174139/771

by jsamuel 2007-08-16 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

smart strategy on John's part.. have his wife get out there and attack the opposition.  She acts as a shield because of her terminal breast cancer,  Hillary & Obama can't really return fire without making themselves look meanspirited.

by soros 2007-08-16 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama
Obama and Hillary know Elizabeth is correct.
Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote - then voted to fund the war when he could. And yet - bases his campaign on his opposition to the war. Get it?
Edwards voted AGAINST every Iraq War funding bill - while Obama has voted FOR every war funding bill - until the last one which occurred AFTER he announced for prez.
by annefrank 2007-08-16 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

This is such garbage.  She is not hiding behind her cancer.  And it has not stopped the attacks.  In fact it creates opportunities for misdirection such as yours in your comment.

Is she right or wrong on the merits of her argument.  that is what should be the point.  Not whether is is a good political wife.

I am sooooo tired of this.  I have heard it all my life.  Every time we move forward, we then take steps back.  Ugh.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

She is right.  I have said similar things in comments on blogs.

It really matters who we elect.  It is not American Idol, but what kind of nation we (and our children) will live in.

I applaud Elizabeth Edwards for telling the truth.  It's refreshing.

by TomP 2007-08-16 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards
It is very refreshing.
So many times I've listened to politicians and candidates dialog on TV - and come away thinking - what did they say?  what IS their position?
I always know with John Edwards. No equivocating, no platitudes, no gimmicky lingo - just a straight talker.
And Elizabeth is the same.
by annefrank 2007-08-16 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

You know EE says she doesn't know what drives the other candidates, but maybe she's confusing them with JE, who hasn't met a position on an issue he couldn't take.

Let's see: Obama forgoes clerking for a Supreme Court justice and the hundreds of thousands of dollars extra cash that would entail to work at a small civil rights law firm in Chicago.  He writes a book in and after law school and, shortly thereafter, runs for state senate.  Runs and loses an election for Congress, then runs and wins an election for U.S. Senate.  Along the way, works for the poor community's recognition in the halls of power.

Now, Edwards doesn't do 'community' work after college or law school but begins a high profile tort practice where he garners millions in contingency fees and proceeds to live the good life, until  his son dies in a freak accident. He then recognizes real suffering in others because he suffers now.  He thens runs for U.S. Senate, winning the first time out.

Between the two, who are the American people to believe cares more about other people?  The person who recognizes other people may need help to realize their goals and chooses to help them putting a far more lucrative world to the side; or the person, who took the filthy lucre and noticed it wasn't really filling only after a horrible loss?  I think the answer is obvious but maybe not; I haven't heard Elizabeth Edwards on this aspect yet.

by DTB in TN 2007-08-16 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Being a plaintiffs' lawyer, particularly in blue-collar communities, is in fact about helping people.  Real people with real injuries.

Of course it's an extremely lucrative line of work - for those successful enough to reach the top - but a smart lawyer can make an awesome living representing Exxon and Pfizer, too.

I do have a lot of respect for Obama's story and I don't disagree with anything you said about him.

by Steve M 2007-08-16 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Nothing you say is necessarily wrong, but there's certainly more to the story than Plaintiffs' lawyers are helping people. They often bring ridiculous lawsuits knowing that they will settle due to their "nuissance value." Also, they (understandably) do everything in their power to bring suits in venues where juries invariably force deep-pocket defendants to pay large verdicts regardless of the merits (I will mention Hampton County, SC as an example with which I'm familiar). This kind of practive unfairly hurts innocent defendants--whether individuals or businesses--financially, emotionally, and reputationally. Moreover, it raises insurance premiums and other market costs for non-litigants.

I have no idea the extent to which Edwards exploited the system, and I don't mean to imply that Plaintiffs shouldn't have strong representation. I just get a little tired of hearing plaintiffs' attorneys characterized as champions of justice and the little man. As someone who has practiced civil defense litigation for a number of years, I have to say that many plaintiffs' lawyers are just jerks who won't hesitate to sue a perfectly innocent defendant by bringing an obviously meritless case. But, also, many of my best friends represent plaintiffs. It takes all kinds.

by DPW 2007-08-16 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

do you know much about this area of practice? just curious because reading your post it indicates to me that you dont

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I do product liability defense and medical malpractice defense primarily. I believe that Edwards was involved with similar litigation. I also do more run-of-the-mill stuff, like slip-and-fall and auto accident cases.

I'd love for you to tell me how what I've said is wrong. I'm happy to get into specific examples to substantiate what I've said. But, I frankly don't think anyone can seriously say that plaintiffs' attorneys don't sometimes work the system in ways that are detrimental to innocent people--litigants and non-litigants.

by DPW 2007-08-16 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

when you start describing what he does as manipuating the system- compared to who or what?

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I didn't say Edwards exploited or manipulated the system. I have no idea. Although I'd be surprised if he never did anything bad, I have reason to think he was regularly manipulative or unfair. I voted for Edwards in the 2003 primaries, so I clearly like the guy. My remarks were more general about the profession.

by DPW 2007-08-16 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

That should say "I have NO reason to think . . ."

by DPW 2007-08-16 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

bringing up creates an implication.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Also, I just want to reiterate that I'm not saying all plaintiff's attorneys are bad, or even that most of them are. Many of them are great to work with and highly professional and ethical. I am objecting to the view that plaintiffs' attorneys are good, defense attorneys are bad, especially if they represent corporations, insurance companies, etc.

by DPW 2007-08-16 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama
I watched a documentary last night that included war protests during the Vietnam War - millions of young people and college students taking it to the streets!!!  willing to be arrested and injured by police determined to shut them down. Some were even KILLED!!
But where are the war protestors of young people today??  What are they focused on?  Will Obama be participating in the protest on Sept. 15 in Washington DC?
by annefrank 2007-08-16 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Why no young people out in the streets protesting the Iraq War?

One word: Draft

by Sam I Am 2007-08-16 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama
I'd hazard to suggest, that for those who care about poverty, health care and reform in government, Edwards and Obama having similar messages and language that strengthen these issues is a good thing. Infighting and cheap attacks between the two candidates emphasizing these issues reduces the impact of such policies in the race. That's a bad thing.
by Casuist 2007-08-16 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama
It's the hypocrisy! that Elizabeth Edwards outlines. Perhaps hypocrisy has become so accepted in our society that we expect it of our leaders?
Hillary can talk about women's rights - but she's not exposing the vast poverty among women to a TV audience. She's just talking - and the public is trained to focus on "hope" - not accountability.
by annefrank 2007-08-16 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama
"hypocrisy" In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keeping using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I did not make a comment on Hillary, but where are you claiming she has not held to a publicly stated ethos? On the subjects I raised being the issues of health care, poverty and government reform- it would be absurd to accuse Obama of hypocrisy, just as it is absurd to suggest that he is late in the game. His legislative record in Illinois and in the Senate is consistent with those ideals... and Max and psericks laid out the other aspects of his background quite admirably yesterday. Edwards and Obama have slightly different approaches towards addressing the same issues of vital importance in domestic policy. If we want these issues to be a factor in the election, and if we want the eventual winner to pay attention to those issues, then- "Who said it first?" is a stupid question. "Who has done something about it?" is a good question. "What will each candidate do about it whether or not they are the victor?" is a better question. "What MUST the future president do about it?" - Best question.
by Casuist 2007-08-16 10:25AM | 0 recs
Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on hypocrites
Talking the talk vs. walking the walk.
The SEIU union has asked all candidates to walk a day in the shoes of a union worker - many making minimum wage.
Edwards was the first to accept the invitation in April, while Obama and Hillary were raising corporate moolah, then Richardson in June, then Dodd in July - then FINALLY Obama and Hillary in August.
It's all about priorities.
by annefrank 2007-08-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on hypocrites
You are manufacturing prioritization over a question of scheduling. Edwards accepted in January, Clinton accepted in February, Obama had accepted by May. Moreover, when the union had announced Edwards' acceptance of the "walk a day" event in January, the president had openly stated his expectation that all would participate. This was never a question. All of them had conducted a one-on-one interview with SEIU members by May 2nd, all three of them had met with SEIU leaders in January and all three of them participated in the SEIU-sponsored health care forum in March. link

Don't you think you should wait for the union to make an endorsement before assigning bragging rights?

Moreover, it's clear you are somewhat missing the point. There are a variety of progressive issues that demand attention. I applaud Edwards for his strong union advocacy. I applaud Edwards and Obama for having released their detailed health care plans. I applaud SEIU for encouraging in-depth understanding of the candidates' persons and policies. I applaud Obama's ethics reform. I applaud both candidates regarding lobbyist monies. IF you artificially attribute an issue, say union support, to a single candidate, and that candidate does not enjoy electoral success, you have hurt that issue. It is a good thing for Edwards and Obama to be emphasizing health care, and they should be building up the issue as an important test of the candidate, in order to better ensure that our eventual nominee does the right thing. Denigrating Obama on progressive issues because you support Edwards will HARM those issues. If you care about progressive policies, attacking Obama for having similar language and emphases is fundamentally the wrong tactic.
by Casuist 2007-08-16 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

"The point is, in this moment, are you a leader?"

I have much respect for Ms. Edwards, but she is only able to make this type of comment because John Edwards is no longer in the senate, and does not need to worry about actually accomplishing something. A leader can not lead without followers; if obama and/or Hill-dawg had tried to "rally the votes" and then failed, while they may have been 'standing for principal' they also would have done significant damager to their respective campaigns by coming up short. I think this type of comment ignores the political reality that exists in these types of legislative scenerios.

And I'm also really getting sick of the three front runners bitching; I think i need a vacation.

by bjschmid 2007-08-16 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Yeah, I'm annoyed by this too.  Look at the wingnut zombie we have in the Senate in place of John Edwards.  It's really, really easy to sit on the sidelines and say that Congress should do this or Congress should do that; I don't remember any leadership of this sort when he was actually in the Senate.  Compare, say, Russ Feingold, who is constantly pushing the envelope, urging his colleagues to take unpopular positions, but sticking his own neck out in so doing.

by Steve M 2007-08-16 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

Feingold is a rare breed. He was my first choice for President.

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I suggest the slogan "Annoy the Terrorists, Elect a Jew."

by Steve M 2007-08-16 08:18AM | 0 recs
WWOD??

>>>>if obama and/or Hill-dawg had tried to "rally the votes" and then failed, while they may have been 'standing for principal' they also would have done significant damager to their respective campaigns by coming up short.

Bingo! and that's the point. How have Obama and Hillary used their senate voices? It appears their presidential ambitions are more important than ending the war.
Are Obama supporters encouraged to hold anti-war rallies in their communities - or help set up his local campaign offices?  Will SENATOR Obama be leading the mega war protest Sept. 15?

by annefrank 2007-08-16 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads

Whatever ther merits of her critique, I strongly question the appropriateness or intelligence of Elizabeth Edwards leading the critiques of other candidates.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads

I don't understand your comment.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads

I think it is inappropriate for a Candidate's spouse to be the person in a campaign levelling attacks on the other candidates.

I think it is unintelligent and bad politics for the Edwards campaign to allow this to continue. It is  offputting, diminishing of Edwards and likely to backfire.

How's that?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:49AM | 0 recs
I think you are completely

wrong.  I think Elizabeth Edwards has the right to speak out.  

It may be offputting to some men, but I think many women like hearing from a strong woman.

by TomP 2007-08-16 07:52AM | 0 recs
Why inject gender in this?

It is not because she is a woman that I have this opinion.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why inject gender in this?

Whatever reason it is fro your opinion, I disagree.  I accept that it has nothing to do with gender.

I find nothing wrong with the spouse of a candidate (male or female) answering questions or speaking out.

Bill Clinton can and does.  I understand you may object to him doing so also (I have not read all your posts on Open Left, so I don't know).  I think it is fine for spouses to speak out.  

As for political usefullness, who knows?  Maybe it useful or maybe it is not.

It is clear to me that Elizabeth Edwards is a key part of John Edwards' campaign and he is fine with it.  

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why inject gender in this?

I have never written about this.

It is not the speaking out that bothers me. It is the critiques of other candidates. I think it is inappropriate for any spouse to attack other candidates. I think it is not smart politcally either.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:16AM | 0 recs
I'm okay with speaking

out in this manner.  I have said and thought the same things about Clinton and Obama. Nothing she said was "below the belt."  I understand your point.  You think spouses should refrain from direct criticism of opposing candidates. But I se enothing "innapropriate" about it.  Whether is is politcially useful is a separate question.

I think appropriateness is context related here.  If John Edwards, the candidate, is fine with it, then it is appropriate.  That pretty much is my standard.  What she says may or may not be appropriate, depending on the content, but I do not think she is disqualified from criticizing other candidates because she is married to John Edwards.    

Relationships among couples have changed and candidates' spouses are much different now.  It is hard to tell where lines will be drawn in the future.  

We just disagree.  I'm fine if Michelle Obama wants to weigh in.  Same with Bill Clinton or Senator Dodd's spouse.  

As for your second point, I just do not know -- it may be useful politically, it may not be, or it may be irrelevant.  Time will tell.

We follow this much more closely that average folks.  Unless the other campaigns make a big deal out of it, I doubt this will be a big story and reach outside the netroots or readers of the Progressive.  

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I think you are completely

Tom, in a diary I wrote you said race and gender were absolutely no factor in how you chose a candidate (the diary was about Edwards being overlooked because he was a white male). You said, and I quote, "I vote on issues...many people are voting demographics.  I think that is unfortunate."

So race and, more specific to this post, gender have no say at all in how YOU see a candidate. But here you accuse someone of seeing only gender and not having sincere beef with Ms. Edwards' comments? Do you really find yourself that much more enlightened than anyone else here? That you can ignore the race or gender of a candidate, but if anyone else criticizes a woman it's because they're sexist? Or are you just a hypocrite?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-16 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I think you are completely

Tom...can I get a response?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-17 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads

I disagree. Most of what you say is your interpretation, and we have no way of knowing its impact until one tries it. No one knew you could raise money by charging for admission to speeches until Obama smartly did it. In other words, the jury is out on what you are saying.

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:56AM | 0 recs
Not my interpretation

Rather my opinion.

And of course we do not know for sure.

I am offering a view, not the gospel.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:59AM | 0 recs
What a ridiculous statement

if a campaign manager or press spokesman can make a statement related to another candidate, why can't a spouse? How ridiculous.

Spouses have always played a role in campaigns, some more, some less. Some are outspoken, some less than others. But to say spouses should be quiet on why their husband or wife is a better candidate than others or why other candidates don't measure up in certain areas, what possible rationale could you have?  Everyone else in a campaign can make the case for the candidate, excepts spouses? It makes no sense.

If a candidate's spouse can help the candidate, why the hell not. A campaign that doesn't use the abilities of a candidate's spouse to the fullest extent seems like a pretty clueless campaign. I think Elizabeth, Bill and Michele are all helping their candidates in tremendous ways and that should be able to include speaking out and making their case. Like everything else, let the voters decide on whether the case is made.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What a ridiculous statement

The reasonS why are obvious.

Spouses and families are generally off limits to attack. As a result, they should not inject themselves in a negative fashion into a campaign.

Spouses are limited in what they do on this front, in ways a campaign staffer are not, because their roles are different.

I am also saying this use of EE will NOT help Edwards, it will hurt him. Therefore, it is NOT smart to allow this. It is politically stupid.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:20AM | 0 recs
Backlash, Backfire, Backbone

As a woman who's been blogging politics until my hands fall off these past five years, let me state clearly that I believe Elizabeth Edwards has every right to speak.

If you think it's offputting, maybe it's because she's hitting on some realities that crash the gates of politics-as-usual.

Isn't that what we have been trying to do on the blogs for years now?

Whether it's backfire or backlash, she's got backbone.

I admire it.

by iddybud 2007-08-16 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Backlash, Backfire, Backbone

Is it impossible to have my actual critques addressed? You write:

If you think it's offputting, maybe it's because she's hitting on some realities that crash the gates of politics-as-usual. Isn't that what we have been trying to do on the blogs for years now?

Indeed it is. Moreoever, if you read my FP post on WHY I support Chris Dodd, you will see EE's views echoed in my post, indeed in all my posts on the subject.

The issue is WHO said this for me. I have explained why I think it is inappropriate and not smart politics for EE to be doing this.

I may be wrong in my views but surely you must understand that it is NOT because EE is "hitting some realities" since I do not think anyone has as long and extensive a track record on "those realities" than I do.

Truith be told, EE is a Johnny come lately on this compared to me.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:42AM | 0 recs
Did I read this

correctly?

Did BTD actually just say this:

I do not think anyone has as long and extensive a track record on "those realities" than I do.

So did you just call yourself an unparalleled leader and visionary? Please clarify, because I've already started laughing.

by david mizner 2007-08-16 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Did I read this

No I did not David. Are you having trouble reading?  In case you are having trouble with the concept, Elizabeth said this:

. . . We're electing the leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader. They are very important leaders in the Senate. And we got thirteen votes on this last bill? Could they have influenced a few more votes? Probably not enough, but they should have been out there trying. They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders. The point isn't, "I got here first or I got here last." The point is, in this moment, are you a leader?

You'lle xcuse me David for claiming I have been arguing this point for over a year. I apologize to you and Edwards supporters around the globe for agreeing with EE.

What is quite clear now is that Edwards supporters are coming close to surpassing Obama supporters as the most mindless idiots when it comes to critiques of their candidate around.

And you are one of the driving forces in this phenomenon.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:23AM | 0 recs
Deep breath, BTD

Enough with the generalizations and talk of phenomenons. I actually--sort of--agree with you on this point, at least to the extent that I'm not sure EE's crticism of other candidates will be politically helpful. I'm glad she's taking them on, although I wish her criticisms were more targeted and sharper. In any case, I think it's refreshing to see a candidate spouse doing her own thing, unscipted and unfiltered.

But your claiming that you were some kind of lone voice in the wilderness on Iraq is laughable. You said nothing that hundreds of thousands of us weren't saying at the same time. And your recent praise of Obama's hawkish grandstanding on Pakistan shows that you have a ways to go before you internalize the lessons of Iraq.

by david mizner 2007-08-16 09:59AM | 0 recs
Reading comprehension issue

You write:

But your claiming that you were some kind of lone voice in the wilderness on Iraq is laughable.

Since I did not say that, you have no point.

You really are dishonest son of a bitch aren't you?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 10:07AM | 0 recs
Keep running

if you want, but I'm gonna catch you:

You said:

I do not think anyone has as long and extensive a track record on "those realities" than I do.

The "realities" refer to Iddy's comment:

If you think it's offputting, maybe it's because she's hitting on some realities that crash the gates of politics-as-usual

So, putting 2 and 2 together, you're saying that no one has "as long and extensive a track record on some realities that crash the gates of politics-as-usual" as you do.

Now, you can

a) stop digging and say, yeah, I overstated things.

b) stand by your absurd boast.

Pick A, Pick A...

by david mizner 2007-08-16 10:58AM | 0 recs
What do you think

is meant by the Crash The Gate?

I referenced EE's comments for my understanding of it.

You seem to have pulled it out of your ass for your understanding of it.

You are a dishonest and stupid son of a bitch when it comes to discussing Edwards.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 12:35PM | 0 recs
Heh

You are a dishonest and stupid son of a bitch

by david mizner 2007-08-16 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Heh

when it comes to discussing Edwards.

Why did you chop that off?

Dishonest of you.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 02:31PM | 0 recs
I never claimed that

You really go nuts when it comes to Edwards.

You do not read what is being responded to, you do not understand what is being said and you flat out lie.

You are really one of the worst.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Backlash, Backfire, Backbone

Now that statement about your track record is a bit over the top.  I have no doubt you have spoken out many issues for a long time, but it sounds a bit like tooting your own horn.    

But as to the substance of your comment, I understand that you don't think she should be saying these things.  I am glad she is: they need to be said.  We differ.

I think we never will agree on that, so we probably should agree to disagree.  

It sounds as if we do have some agreement on the critiques of Clinton and Obama articulated by Elizabeth Edwards.  Leaving aside Elizabeth for the moment, would you agree with the content if John Edwards had said it?

by TomP 2007-08-16 09:19AM | 0 recs
Why is it over the top?

On this issue?

Now Hillary, I don't know what Hillary's objection is. She, even in the New Hampshire debate, said, "I made a mistake." People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buries a line like that--I give her credit for saying that--but when she buries that line. . . . We're electing the leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader. They are very important leaders in the Senate. And we got thirteen votes on this last bill? Could they have influenced a few more votes? Probably not enough, but they should have been out there trying. They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders. The point isn't, "I got here first or I got here last." The point is, in this moment, are you a leader?

Those are Elizabeth's words. Those have been my words all year.

WTF is wrong with you Edwards supporters? You are all losing your marbles.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:24AM | 0 recs
And OF COURSE

I would agree with it if John Edwards ahd said it.

How could I not? I have fucking been saying it all fucking year!

Frankly, I can't stand any of you candidate partisans right now.

A disgusting display by Edwards supporters in this thread. Equalling Obama supporters now.

congrats.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:26AM | 0 recs
I disagree with

you here.  I am glad she is speaking out.

Remember Hillary Clinton in 1992 saying she was not just going to bake cookies.

Bill speaks out now.

by TomP 2007-08-16 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with

Bill has criticized no other candidates.

That is my point.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with

I think you are making a false distinction.  So its okay that they talk on issues and are used in a campaign so long as its of a certain type? I dont know if many voters make such distinctions

by bruh21 2007-08-16 07:57AM | 0 recs
What is false about that distinction?

A spouse is a different type of surrogate.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What is false about that distinction?

we shall see

by bruh21 2007-08-16 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: What is false about that distinction?

Indeed.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: What is false about that distinction?

"A spouse is a different kind of surrogate" according to whose rules? Your's? Old school politics?

I have to question why you seem to feel so uncomfortable and threatened by Elizabeth Edward's  outspokeness, courage and honesty.

I hope she keeps speaking out! She is raising the level of honesty and openess in the dialogue which is badly needed.

by NCDemAmy 2007-08-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
I have to question

what you think you are questioning.

How about trying to understand my critique and addressing it.

It is always the same with candidate partisans.

No thinking going on.

I may be wrong, but you would not know as you seem oblivious to my actual argument.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I have to question

I did address your comment. I asked you according to whose rules and rather than respond with a reasonable answer, you resorted to a personal attack: No thinking involved.

by NCDemAmy 2007-08-16 08:52AM | 0 recs
Ask a reasonable question

and you will get a reasonable answer.

Funny how you omit this part of your comment:

I have to question why you seem to feel so uncomfortable and threatened by Elizabeth Edward's  outspokeness, courage and honesty.

The implication is clear and it was MORE THAN REASONABLE of me to resent it. Stop pretending you did not insult me.

This is how most candidate partisans seem to behave now. I will call it out every time.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:58AM | 0 recs
I do not buy the

distinction.  In for a nickel, in for a dollar.  

I also am uncertain if it is true.  Furthermore, I think Bill would do so if he thought it were useful.

We differ.  No big deal.

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not buy the

If it were useful, most pols would sell their grandmothers.

Does not make it right.

But it also is NOT useful.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:21AM | 0 recs
Of course he has

you seem to have one standard for Elizabeth and another for Bill.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course he has

No he has not. Please link to where Bill Clinton attacked other candidates in this primary.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course he has not

For a true parallel we would have to go back to the 92 campaign.

Bill is a former president.  He has additional baggage or conditions to consider.  Some of them are his own issues in his presidency.

However Hillary was pilloried in the primaries and in the campaign, yet many women liked her and Bill.  did.  

Strength is not about being nice and being a "good political wife".  Do we want another Laura Bush.  No thank you.

Each spouse is unique.  I don't think they have to be like others.  They just need to be authentic.  You may not like it.  Others may not like it.  However it may require a re-education again.  It may work and it may not.

Nonetheless to have prominent bloggers argue from a sexist perspective is discouraging for me.

I value your opinions, BTD, but I really disagree with you on this.  And am disappointed that you cannot see her role more positively.

Her observations make for some spirited political dialogue that I think is needed.  People don't want to deal with the substance so now her role as a political wife is being questioned.  

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:30AM | 0 recs
Hillary never attacked the other dem candidates

in 92.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:39AM | 0 recs
So THAT'S why I am doing this!

I could have sworn that I LIKED dealing with "the substance", whatever that is.  I'm glad you clarified my own thoughts for me.

Sorry, also, that you are disappointed that we cannot see her role more positively.  And of course this is because I am sexist.

Damn, I'm such an idiot, I don't know why I even bother thinking at all.  From now on I'll ask you to do it for me instead.  

 

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course he has

Bill hasnt attacked in such blunt terms, but he was whining about why the media was giving Obama a free pass.

by Pravin 2007-08-16 09:53AM | 0 recs
Um

Missed the attack on Obama part there.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

I like Elizabeth Edwards and all , but she's quickly becoming irrelevant by constantly attacking the other candidates like she's the one running for president.

I would have no problem with John saying all the stuff she's saying but the fact that she's the one on the front line doing John's dirty work, is troubling.

I've never seen a spouse attack other candidates as often as Elizabeth and i don't think this makes John looks good...Sound like they've designated her as the number one attack dog to make sure John stays clean.

I've also noticed that the Edwards camps have been constantly attacking Obama and Hillary during the past month and maybe they're starting to see movement away from them in Iowa.

If you take a look at the RCP average , you will notice that Hillary and Obama are trending up a bit while Edwards is clearly trending down.

by JaeHood 2007-08-16 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Well, to be fair, she's no Liz Cheney. :)

by Steve M 2007-08-16 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Sure, JH, thats why its front-page news, because EE is "quickly becoming irrelevant."

Its distressing to me to see committed young people become so cynical that they think they understand whats happening in the country by reading polls. "trending up...trending down..." Talk to your neigbhors, your co-workers, people in line in your nbhd grocery store -- people who aren't online, who don't watch MTP, who think an RCP average is a baseball statistic. Ask them why they think Hillary Clinton is running for president, and see if their answer is very different from what Elizabeth Edwards said -- "I don't know why she's running, really, other than personal ambition." I'm not saying thats why HRC is in the race but its certainly what almost everyone I know who isn't on her payroll thinks.

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 07:54AM | 0 recs
This is old news...

... by blog standards.

I've always liked Elizabeth Edwards, but seeing her engage in empty political spin is very disappointing.

Um... Elizabeth?

Ever hear of a place called Hope?

by Vermonter 2007-08-16 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

I find Elizabeth's honesty and openess very refreshing. She's no stepford wife.

Moreover, Elizabeth is a great friend to and advocate for progressives and the netroots. No other presidential candidate's wife has been a blogger. Ever. This is history in the making.

by NCDemAmy 2007-08-16 07:50AM | 0 recs
But she's being a lousy politician's wife

A campaign wife is a valuable asset, and up to now Elizabeth Edwards has been one of the best ever.  However, it has been her sunny and lovable personality, combined with her intelligence, that has made her so.

These statements aren't sunny and loveable--they're whiny and bitter.  It may be honest, but it won't win votes.  

The campaign is everything now, and this is a sign that the wheels are coming off of the Edwards campaign.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: But she's being a lousy politician's wife

"sunny and loveable"

Oh, come now, that just sounds sexist, that a candidate's wife should only be "sunny and loveable."

News flash for ya guy: When a woman says something that is not just "sunny and loveable" is doesn't make her "whiny and bitter." That is one of the oldest most sexist sterettypes on the book.

Please wake up to modern times.

by NCDemAmy 2007-08-16 08:44AM | 0 recs
I didn't say she should just be ANYTHING!!!

I said that was part of Elizabeth Edwards strength as a candidate's wife.  And these comments would sound just as bitter and whiny to me if a man said them.

I really resent your carelesss mischaracterization of my comments as sexist.  I'm SO "sexist" that I would prefer that Elizabeth was the candidate rather than John.  

I'm just saying that being a candidate's spouse requires sacrificing one's self-expression and freedom, just as being a politician does, because winning the campaign has to be EVERYTHING--because other people's lives and wellbeing are dependent upon your electoral success.  And these comments are counterproductive.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:57AM | 0 recs
It is all of a piece

All candidate partisans' first impulse appears to be to insult.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:00AM | 0 recs
I didn't understand your post.

Can you be more specific?

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:03AM | 0 recs
Seems like he's saying

that when someone disagrees with him, they are insulting him.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 11:37AM | 0 recs
When I am accused of being sexist

I consider it an insult.

It seems you are incapable of actually disagreeing without insulting someone.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 12:36PM | 0 recs
I thought your answer was ridciculous

and still do. Did I insult you? No, not at all. If you are going to fall apart and cry "insult" and "ad hominem attack" at the drop of a hat when someone disagrees with what you post, maybe you shouldnt post

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought your answer was ridciculous

I did not say you insulted me.

The comment I responded to in this subthread did.

You have been quite disingenuous, if not dishonest, in this thread.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought your answer was ridciculous

I disagree. I was very honest in what I wrote. And I did not call names, or insult, or do ad hominem attacks. But I did disagree with what you wrote and do think there is are a number of double standards at play here.

Disingeniuos? no. Did I disagree? Yes, very forcefully. I reject completely what it seemed to me you were saying. You started off talking strategy which I have no problem with, but seemed to take it too far - what I got out of your posts is that because she is a spouse she should shut up. Whoever I supported, to me that sentiment is bs and a reflection of a very narrow cultural role our society has created for spouses.

If thats a wrong inference, I'm sorry. But I wasn't the only one. Did I ever call you sexist? No. You said I did and it pissed you off, but you seem to get pissed off pretty easy. And instead of responding to what I was saying you went off on "insults" and "ad hominem" and and "fabrications" and blind Edwards followers. And then call David a son of a bitch and a bastard. Thats out of line regardless of how much you disagree with him.

You seem to take disagreement way too personal. I've seen it when I've agreed with what you wrote, which is probably most of the time, and seen it now when I don't. Two or three back and forths and out comes the name-calling. Maybe lighten up a bit?

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:15PM | 0 recs
I can see where you are coming from

from a strategy point of view. Not sure how productive her comments are either. I'd probably prefer the candidate to be saying them as well if the spouse is.

But its one thing to talk about whether certain specific comments are strategically a good idea or not, and another thing to say she or any spouse shouldnt' be making contrasts at all. To me that goes too far and thats the problem some Edwards people see with some of the posts here (not yours I don't think). The assumption that because she's a spouse she shouldn't have a vocal public role in the campaign, that seems pretty hard to defend.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: But she's being a lousy politician's wife

She should be a "good wifey"?

This is not 1950.

We need more women bloggers.

Where is Amanda Marcotte when I need her?  

We need 100 more Amandas and Digby's.  

by TomP 2007-08-16 08:50AM | 0 recs
Would AM and Digby be good candidates?

Because that's what Elizabeth Edwards is--a candidate, in a manner of speaking.

Read my post again.  I said she has been one of the best ever, being just what she has always been.  Now, however, she is not.  That's all I meant.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:00AM | 0 recs
But she's being a lousy politician's wife

A campaign wife is a valuable asset, and up to now Elizabeth Edwards has been one of the best ever.  However, it has been her sunny and lovable personality, combined with her intelligence, that has made her so.

These statements aren't sunny and loveable--they're whiny and bitter.  It may be honest, but it won't win votes.  

The campaign is everything now, and this is a sign that the wheels are coming off of the Edwards campaign.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: But she's being a lousy politician's wife

Did the wheels come off the Clinton campaign when Hillary spoke up and defended Bill?   I think he won.

Women all over the country were excited about a new day for women.

It does create discomfort when a strong woman expresses her opinion.  

And further if she is not fitting the stereotype then there are the complaints.  

Instead of dealing with the substance of what she says we focus on the role of the spouse.

The Bush years with Laura in the Whitehouse have set us back in women's issues.

When the Bill Clinton presidency ended we saw the possibility of Hillary running for president in her own right.  

Now we just want sweet and loveable?

Sorry guys, women including spouses have strong opinions with substance of their own.  Deal with it.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 08:57AM | 0 recs
This is an absurd characterization

It is NOT because she is a woman, it is because she is a spouse.

We would be critiquing this is Bill Clinton had done it.

What s so hard to understand about that?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: This is an absurd characterization

My point is that Hillary did it in 92.  

Because she was strong in expressing her opinion as a spouse, she was considered to be a viable presidential candidate by 2000.  

She would not be a candidate now if she had been a "smart political wife".

I'm not saying that Elizabeth will be running for president in 8 years, but she has the right to be the kind of wife she is, not one that is dreamt up by political consultants.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:40AM | 0 recs
Hillary did NOT do it in 92

In fact, one of the more famous moments in 92 was when Clinton played man of honor and defended Hillary against attacks by Jerry Brown.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary did NOT do it in 92

Sometimes you are too cryptic for me.  I don't get the point.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary did NOT do it in 92

Which part?

Certainly not the subject title.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary did NOT do it in 92
I may be missing the obvious, but I don't understand what Bill's defense of her against Jerry Brown has to do with what I saying.  
Also when I said Hilldary did it, I meant she spoke up and defended Bill in 92.  In particular after the Gennifer Flowers incident.  
But my memory seems to be incomplete, because I don't remember the details of the Jerry Brown incident.  
And thus I am unclear about your change in the title.  So I couldn't follow the logic in your argument.
by pioneer111 2007-08-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary did NOT do it in 92

Hillary did not attack other candidates. She defended Bill.

Ironically, Bill defended HER from attacks by Jerry Brown.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary did NOT do it in 92

Thanks, I get your point now.  

My point still is that 1992, 2004, and 2007 are different years with different histories and experiences for spouses.  I am not saying that what Elizabeth is doing is the wisest campaign strategy.  In fact it is an unknown campaign strategy.  Hillary broke ground for more than defending Bill.  She spoke up for what she believed in.  What the common wisdom of the day was that a good political wife will stand behind her man.  Laura Bush is the previous incarnation of the appropriate political wife.  I don't much appreciate her other than she is who she is.

Elizabeth was the sunny loveable candidate of 2004.  Three years later, the country is different and Elizabeth is different.  She has chosen to speak out.  John has chosen to go along with it or encourages it.  I am not sure that it is a campaign strategy as much as a lifestyle choice.  I know I have winced at some of her comments, but as I explore them, they strike me as thoughts worth looking at.  I don't always agree, but most of the time I do.  

It does sound sharper and more harsh coming from her.  I understand that.  At one point a little while ago I probably would have agreed with you.  Then I saw a post on Dkos that had this headline and to which I responded:

        Lay low Elizabeth

I realized I was thinking the same thing.  But now I see it differently

People often don't say what they are thinking because it has to be politically correct.  Elizabeth does speak her mind.  And she has had to be defended to consider the context.  That made me tired until I started to rethink the whole thing.

I am glad Michelle Obama is speaking up too.  Spouses have opinions.  Candidates have opinions.  Supporters have opinions.  Remember when they tried to shut Hillary up in 92?  

Sometimes we phrase our thoughts well, sometimes not.  However we are accountable for them.  Also those who take statements out of context need to be corrected and be accountable.  

We need to learn how to have a dialog of ideas without going to the gotcha.

Some of this dustup may change, I hope, how people listen to the political dialogue.

John Edwards has changed the Democratic agenda for the presidential candidates.

Elizabeth may change the context of political dialog if the pushback is sufficient.  This will help all the candidates and their spouses to be real people and it will invite others to have a real conversation.

I understand your point about attacking other Democratic candidates, but I don't know how that is avoidable if you are to challenge their ideas and presentation and be honest in your opinion.  I think we as a nation get into parsing sound bites instead of real dialogue.  I'm not saying I always agree with every word Elizabeth or John say.  I certainly don't agree with every word that Obama and Clinton say.  I haven't as yet read much of what Michelle has to say.  However I think it is important that we can have political conversations that may actually change minds.  

The msm has trained us to look for gotchas.  Some are deserved but many are not.  

As I said at one point I wanted Elizabeth to back off a bit too.  I'm not so sure any more.  The conversation has to change and get real.  The least real conversation imho is with Clinton.  I just don't know what she believes except I won't be invisible.  Not enough for me.

If we express opinions it will get heated.  But I would rather have that than the politically correct Laura Bush.  So I welcome Michelle speaking up too, and I may criticize her as others have Elizabeth.  I would rather look at the substance of what she said in stead of the fact that she spoke up.  And when people take soundbites out of context we have to learn to put them back into context so that our dialogue is real.

This is a long answer but it is the best I can do.  

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 06:54PM | 0 recs
It's not about some sexist expectation

Being "sunny and loveable" (at least to some) was probably Ronald Reagan's greatest political asset--possibly the only thing that he and Elizabeth Edwards have in common.

These words are not good for the Edwards campaign.  That's my main point.  

by paul minot 2007-08-16 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not about some sexist expectation

In re-reading your posts I think to some extent I would agree with you.  People did like the sunny and loveable Elizabeth.  That was who she was in 2004.  I don't think she planned it.  

However I think 2004 and 2007 is a different campaign and a different Elizabeth.  We all change and the country changes.  I think things have gotten worse and there is a greater need for as John would put it "bold change".  I think Elizabeth is reflecting some of the frustration she and John have in that people (including the msm) are not discussing issues but are focused on irrelevant details.  I think in her circumstances she has decided that she is willing to risk just telling the truth.  It may or may not win the nomination, but it won't be because she is not authentic.  And John seems to be fine in letting her be that way.  

Partly I am defending her right to be who she is.     I think too much scripting loses in the end.  I am okay with her sharper voice.  I recognize others are not.  That discussion is different than saying that a spouse cannot speak up.  

I also would support a spouse who does not want to speak up.

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
deflecting the question

The actual question she was asked ..

Q: John Edwards has since apologized for that vote. Did it seem like there was just too much political pressure at that time?

Elizabeth was deflecting and uncomfortable question with criticisms of the other candidates. You can't blame her really. There is not good answer to why John voted the way he did.  

by JoeCoaster 2007-08-16 08:02AM | 0 recs
The only honest answer...

... (and this applies to Clinton, as well)...

... is that he was afraid to be on the wrong side of a possibly successful military action.

I think he's actually been pretty honest that it was entirely because of political calculation.

My question for Edwards and his supporters is...

If he was willing to make such a grave mistake for political expedience in the recent past, why should we trust that he's not speaking the language of the progressive left for political expedience as well?

by Vermonter 2007-08-16 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The only honest answer...

All politicians make political calculation in their votes.  Clinton and Obama did in May and when they voted for other supplementals.  The majority of Democrats were against the supplemental yet the senate voted for it.  Clinton and Obama and Dodd were not in step with most of their colleagues.  They didn't argue for or against it until later.  Obama also did with the Coal to Liquid Bill.  

What I appreciated about Edwards stand in 2002 was that he was very conflicted about it.  Even Shrum admits that.  Edwards went to great lengths to consult with people on it.  I think he lost his own authentic voice during that conflct with his inner voices.  I can relate to that because I have done that in my own life.  

I frankly don't get particularly excited about his apology and the lack of apology from Clinton.  I understand that he needed to do that, but I think it is a wash politically.  I get more excited that he has learned to trust himself and is speaking up.  In his speaking up he is saying what I want to hear.  I hear the passion in his voice and in his speeches.  

Edwards past shows him to be a fighter for his beliefs and to be successful with it.  There is not much in his past that seems to be that politically calculating.  So in my view I trust that he will follow through in what he says he will do.  Do I think he can do everything he says?  No I don't, but I think he will take the battle to the Republicans and win more than anyone else.  

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: deflecting the question

Well, there was a lot of political pressure.  It would be okay to tell the truth and say that.  Talk how it was a growing experience.  Talk about how the vote was a mistake, and seeing the consequences, he now understands more than ever the importance of following your conscience, and so forth.  Elizabeth is an effective advocate and I'm sure she could convey this message very well.

Bill Clinton, since leaving office, freely copped to the negative effects of political pressure.  He's expressed regrets about how political pressure kept him from doing more to go after bin Laden.  He apologized to the people of Rwanda for not doing more and acting sooner to help them - again, because of political pressure.  I'm glad he owned up to these things.  It makes him seem like a better person.

by Steve M 2007-08-16 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: deflecting the question

There's no good answer to John Edwards's war vote? how about ignorance? or political convenience?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-08-16 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: deflecting the question

by "good answer" I meant a truthful one that would reflect kindly on Edwards.

by JoeCoaster 2007-08-16 10:01AM | 0 recs
Wow - you would almost think

there was actually an election coming up! Oh my god, campaigns are actually trying to convince people that their candidates are the best and other candidates aren't quite up to snuff.

What blasphemy!

Its kind of funny that in the longstanding political realm of "oppo research" and "not for attribution", when someone actually is honest enough to say outloud why y is better than x, they get blasted for it as "breaking the rules"

What a fucked up political behind closed doors bullshit machine we all get sucked into.

Its a campaign people. If Wolfson and Axlerod can get on Hardball and shoot fastballs at each other's candidates, whats up with the double standard with Elizabeth?

Seems like everyone we get a strong female spouse, we always get the same old bullshit coming up (though usually from the right wing...). Same bs on Hillary when Bill ran, same bs on Teresa when Kerry ran, and here we go again. And when Bill Clinton gets tough, for some reason, thats okay.

I know its hard to move out of the cultural box we enclose ourselves in sometimes, but we really need to move beyond this kind of narrow thinking.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:29AM | 0 recs
Oops typo

"everyone" should read "every time" n/t

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - you would almost think

Wish I could give this comment a 30 rather than just a 3.  I would suggest that Jerome add it as an update to the original essay.

Ties in well to Atrios' question this morning about why journalists think open political disagreement is a bad thing.

sPh

by sphealey 2007-08-16 08:37AM | 0 recs
Thank you

I just really don't get the thinking that we are supposed to have an election but we - at least some people - aren't supposed to talk about the choices we have and make their case and let voters make their judgments.

If journalists are going to make a stink about what Elizebeth or other spouses say, they should have the courage to shut down or call out all the "not for attribution" bs that goes on constantly.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:45AM | 0 recs
Red herring

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:47AM | 0 recs
Not in the slightest n/t

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 08:58AM | 0 recs
Complete red herring

It is not about the mixing it up it is about WHO is doing the mixing it up.

And before you go play the sexist card, it does not matter what gender the spouse is.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:03AM | 0 recs
Its a red herring of your making

you seem to have no reason at all why spouses should be treated differently than any other person involved in the campaign other than "tradition"

Well guess what? that tradition is based on sexism. If anyone is making a red herring here, its you.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Its a red herring of your making

Bullshit.

I've explained why.

I will not to you,. You are completely irrational.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:40AM | 0 recs
Actrually

I already did to you.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:55AM | 0 recs
Hmm which post was that?

the bullshit one or the complete fabrication one? I guess all the substance in your replies just plain overwhelmed me.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 02:32PM | 0 recs
It must

cuz you ignored it and decided to fabricate bullshit. This was my response to you:

Re: What a ridiculous statement (3.00 / 2)

The reasonS why are obvious.

Spouses and families are generally off limits to attack. As a result, they should not inject themselves in a negative fashion into a campaign.

Spouses are limited in what they do on this front, in ways a campaign staffer are not, because their roles are different.

I am also saying this use of EE will NOT help Edwards, it will hurt him. Therefore, it is NOT smart to allow this. It is politically stupid.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu

But you decided to make shit up instead. Pathetic.  

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 04:51PM | 0 recs
Teresa Heinz Kerry...

was the worst wife of a presidential candidate I have ever seen.  

Can you imagine how many women's votes she might have gotten for her husband if she had only played the campaign game a little, bent a little to please Middle America, rather than having her "fuck you if you don't like it" attitude?

Look, I personally don't mind her attitude at all, being a punk at heart myself--but then I would never run for office just for that reason.  I resent it, however, when my candidates don't come into the election with a good team.  And the only good Teresa did John's candidacy was bankrolling it.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Teresa Heinz Kerry...

Well as a woman I loved Theresa Kerry.  Different perspectives.  

However I think we need to grow up and deal with strong spouses.

We also need to focus on the substance not on the role of a good political wife.

This sooo takes me back to the 50's.  Influence of Laura Bush?????

by pioneer111 2007-08-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
BS comment

In this thread Edwards supporters have shown themselves equal to Obama supporters in their inability to address an argument against their candidate without resorting to ad homs and red herrings.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 08:46AM | 0 recs
Besides this isn't about whether she has the right

It's about whether it does John's sinking candidacy any good.

It doesn't, IMHO--and it could do serious damage.  Just wait and see.

by paul minot 2007-08-16 08:48AM | 0 recs
The attack on Elizabeth by some

for speaking her mind is imo a symptom of a bigger problem the democrats have - the reluctance of many to be more open and even confrontational about the differences we have not only with other, but even more so with Republicans.

Its like we just don't remember whats its like to stand up and draw sharp lines for what we believe in, whether others think we are right or wrong. I applaud Elizabeth for doing that. I don't know whether in the end it will help or hurt John's campaign, but she's got a voice and she's honest about using it and she's a full partner in her marriage and in the campaign. That's something the male majority will obviously continue having a problem with and be "concerned" about. Personally can't see anything wrong with that and fully content to let voters make their own judgments.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 09:12AM | 0 recs
More red herring bullshit

Your comment is a complete fabrication.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 09:41AM | 0 recs
What did Edwards do in the senate?

As some here might know, I am anti Hillary and desperate for anyone to beat her in the primary. I made John my temporary first choice because of the more direct nature of his campaign in recent years.

But I wonder if Elizabeth has taken on too much here. I admire her candor and bluntness usually. But here, she is going to open her husband to the same kind of second guessing. What did Edwards do to convince other senators of the causes he believed in? I don't think he made any special efforts when he was in the senate at leading other senators for a cause.

by Pravin 2007-08-16 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards Unloads on Clinton and Obama

The question I have is whether Elizabeth Edwards is becoming a distraction.  Does her outspokeness/critiques (regardless of the accuracy of the critiques) transfer into support for John Edwards.  Does she sway voters who so far have not been swayed by John Edwards message.  IMO, it seems like most of the MSM attention(where I think most of the voting populous gets their information) on the Edwards campaign seem to have come about because of a comment or event around Elizabeth Edwards.  The ones that come to mind are of course the cancer announcement (I sincerely wish her well), the Hardball moment with Ann Coulter, the comment about Hillary not being strong on women's issues-right about the time her husband was wrapping up his poverty tour, her comment about John Edwards not being able to be Black or a woman, and now these statements.  At the end of the day it's all about getting your candidate elected, and does Elizabeth Edwards coming out swinging against Obama and Hillary transfer into votes for John Edwards?  Will voters say, "I really like Elizabeth Edwards so I am going to vote for John",or   will they say,"Why does Elizabeth Edwards seem to be the one on the news all the time?" in a negative way.  I appreciate that Bill, Michelle, and Elizabeth are strong and intelligent advocates for their spouses, but are they effective advocates.

by Kingstongirl 2007-08-16 10:46AM | 0 recs
EE

Elizabeth Edwards has more sense in her little finger then most I have been reading on this thread.

That explains why most of you, bad mouth her, want to put a lid on her, can't stand the fact that she is so intelligent and cares enough about this country - which is about you and me, then she does sitting in the kitchen baking apple pie and knitting slippers.

Get a grip people, Elizabeth has the right, has the intelligence and the where with all to tell it squarely like it is - in plain to understand unmitigated English.

Millions of people will never reach her level of competence and achievements! She is a hero to many, she leads the fight for many, and she is the figure head for all women to aspire to.

Those who can not be truthful about her, nor objective about her position and opinion on issues, are just plane old not worth the time of day.

See, I don't care what you say about her, I know what she means.

I don't care where you are in your life, but she does. She cares and she is taking advantage of every opportunity there is to get the message out for America.  You, that want to write here and on other blogs negatively about her can carry on, but one thing is for sure, Elizabeth Edwards is doing more to try and make America a better place for all of us than, any or all of those put together that are bad mouthing her.

Carry on Elizabeth - You deserve better than this, but I thank you for working to help me and millions of other Americans.

by dk2 2007-08-16 12:12PM | 0 recs
Hypocrisy

Okay, Edwards folks...I'll agree that criticisms of these comments by Elizabeth are a little sexist if you'll agree that some criticisms of Obama are a little racist. Some of y'all have been the most righteously outraged when anyone has suggested the hint of racism against Obama...but now you're the quickest to answer the charge of "These are some stupid comments" with "Sexist! This isn't 1950, you know!" You can't have it both ways, people...

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-16 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hypocrisy

And by "righteously outraged" at "the hint of racism against Obama" I mean that a few of you are quick on the defensive..."That's not racist!" "How dare you play the race card?" Sorry if that was unclear.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-16 12:17PM | 0 recs
This Machine Kill

I don't do this or that make ups.  Sorry, when you catch me at something you don't like, then maybe we can talk about the this for that one.

by dk2 2007-08-16 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: This Machine Kill

I didn't say "dk2 is a hypocrite", you'll notice. I know some people here HATE it when I talk about common themes based on my observations...they want links, or names, or references. Which are all well and good of course, but can't explain common trends running throughout the blogosphere, that I notice. Unfortunately, most of what I write about are these themes or trends, so I'm used to this argument of "give specific examples!" I guess I'm just counting on people to think about my observations and remember examples from their own experience on this site.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-16 09:25PM | 0 recs
I think if you going to say this

"some" seeming to refer to Edwards supporters, you are really going to have to be more specific.

Not even really sure what this means:
"Some of y'all have been the most righteously outraged when anyone has suggested the hint of racism against Obama."

are you saying that Edwards supporters have been outraged when someone makes a racist attack against Obama? If so, I agree. Or are you saying Edwards supporters have been behind these attacks, which seems to be what you are saying with the title.

If so, maybe back that up and name some names because thats a pretty broad brush and pretty unfair.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I think if you going to say this

Again, sorry if I was unclear, I put up a clarifying comment. I mean Edwards supporters are often the first ones to take offense at the suggestion that a criticism of Obama could be construed as racist.

I'm hesitant to "name names" as you put it, for starters that phrase has some serious negative connotations. It's more a general observation anyway. Though I will say there is one poster, a very vocal Edwards guy, whom I confronted earlier in the thread and have yet to hear back from.

I'm not saying Edwards supporters are behind racist, or quasi-racist, attacks, not at all. I'm saying Edwards supporters are sometimes, maybe because of their support of the only white male in the top tier, are in my experience the quickest to take umbrage to claims of racism or, to a lesser degree, sexism. I have seen many comments essentially saying, "You're only playing the race card because you have no other argument"..."You're race-baiting"...etc. But in this thread we have some attacking those who criticize Ms. Edwards' comments as sexist...giving the appearance of hypocrisy, at least to me. Hopefully I've explained myself, sorry for the long response.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-08-16 09:22PM | 0 recs
I accidently trollrated

dk2's comment. I do not know how to change it. Can anyone give me a hint?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 12:43PM | 0 recs
yes

you just go back to the little down arrow where you rated it the first time and change it.

by dk2 2007-08-16 02:07PM | 0 recs
No

That didn't work.

If someone will rate it up, I can changemy rating.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-16 02:30PM | 0 recs
To a 3 n/t

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 02:30PM | 0 recs
Who is Really Running for President?

The more Elizabeth Edwards speaks out the less commanding and assertive her husband looks in comparison.  I don't have a problem with her outspokeness (in fact I like it most of the times), but it does make her husband look sorta like a wimp.  Why is she getting all the attention in his presidential campaign?  She seems to get even more attention that Fmr. President Bill Clinton.  Michelle Obama is as if not more accomplished than Elizabeth Edwards but she knows that she is not running for President her husband is.  Mrs. Edwards continued and seemingly increasing outspokeness is not a good sign for the Edwards campaign no matter how it is spinned.

by ColumbusAggie 2007-08-16 02:34PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads