John Edwards Is A Friend To Women

There are times that I get so angry that I can only shake my head in utter disgust, count to ten, and calmly respond to idiocy with good old fashioned fact and class.  It is late and I am exhausted, but the duty to rise and defend my candidate knows no schedule, and my desire to stand by a man who spends his life standing by me is not tempered by mere drowsiness.  Another areyouready diary has pushed me to this point.  I do not call for banning, I just feel that these are assaults that require response.  First the background:

Edwards has the 'right' sort of genitals to win?
by areyouready, Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:13:12 PM EST

This is hilarious. No wonder Edwards is treated like a clown by mainstream voters...

Though you have to wonder just how strong the Democratic ticket would be there even without Hillary on the ticket.

As others have pointed out, pursuing this line of argument puts Edwards in an odd position, because the unspoken message behind "I'm more electable than her" is "I also have the right sort of genitals." Does the guy running the most lefty campaign of the top tier really want to, as the kids say, "go there"? Apparently so.

Putrid.  Nauseating.  Unworthy of a good man and a good woman because Hillary is unfortunately reflected upon by this.  Still the best way to respond is with truth.  And the truth is that a lot of prominent women do support John Edwards, and I do not believe they would if they thought he was sexist.  See for yourself:  http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-re leases/20070717-women-leaders/


Edwards Gains Support From Prominent Women Leaders
Jul 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Elizabeth Edwards speaks at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Washington, DC - As Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards spoke at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund today about Senator John Edwards' commitment to improving the lives of women and families, numerous women leaders endorsed Senator Edwards for president. These leaders believe Edwards is the best candidate to put a Democrat back in the White House and protect women's rights. In May, the campaign launched Women for Edwards, http://johnedwards.com/women/ to organize women around the country who support Edwards.

The following women endorsed Edwards for president:

Belinda Biafore, Vice Chair, West Virginia Democratic Party (WV)
Cindy Burney, Assistant Prosecutor, City of Bay St. Louis (MS)
Maureen Byrne, Community Activist (ME)
Laura Edwards, Co-Founder, Lillian's List (NC)
Lisbeth "Libba" Evans, Former Chair, NC Democratic Party; former Co-Chair, Women's Campaign Fund (NC)
Adelaide Gomer, Park Foundation Trustee (NY)
Susan Good, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party Rules Committee and Member of the California Democratic Party Executive Board (CA)
Carolyn Honeycutt, Former President North Carolina Democratic Women (NC)
Kate Jacobson, Community Activist (MS)
Natalie Jayroe, New Orleans Community Activist (LA)
Pam Johnson, Board Member of the MS Women's Coalition (MS)
Kate Knox, Founder of EWomen and EMERGE Board Member, Attorney (ME)
Nancy Larson, DNC Member (MN)
Debbe Leftwich, State Senator; Co-Chair, Oklahoma Women's Legislative Caucus (OK)
Christi McCoy, Community Activist (MS)
Wendy R. Mullins, Community Activist (MS)
Mary Jo Neville, DNC Member (MD)
Muriel Offerman, DNC Member (NC)
Mary Pallant, Chair, Ventura County Commission for Women (CA)
Elisa Parker, Vice Chair, Tennessee Democratic Party (TN)
Carol Peterson, DNC Member (NC)
Nancy Quarles, Former State Representative (MI)
Melanie Taylor, Community Activist (NC)
Doris Vaccarella, Former Chair, MS Federation of Democratic Women (MS)

Additionally, the supporters below joined Women for Edwards.

Stella Adams, NC Fair Housing Center Executive Director (NC)
Linda Bolon, State Representative (OH)
Jennifer Brady, State Representative (OH)
Kathleen Carney, 8th Congressional District Chair (MI)
Liz Carpenter, Austin (TX)
Kimberly Chiapetto, Floyd County Democratic Chair (VA)
Pam Cooke, Board Member, National Stonewall Democrats
June Deadrick, Community Activist (TX)
Melissa Diaz, Former DNC Hispanic Media Director
Marie Donigan, State Representative (MI)
Trina Ellis Erwin, Michigan Women's Caucus Vice Chair (MI)
Hope Evans, Chair, Northwestern University Students for Edwards Chair (IL)
Joan Flynn, Macomb County Commissioner (MI)
Sherry Freeman, Delta Township Trustee (MI)
Shirley Frye, Community Activist (NC)
Lois Hill, Mount Clemens City Commissioner (MI)
Diana Keller, Wyandotte Democratic Club President (MI)
Christine Koch, Clinton Township Democrats (MI)
Kathleen Law, State Representative (MI)
Elizabeth Lenhard, Vice President, Warren Woods Board of Education (MI)
Maria Mannarino, Lathrup Village City Councilor (MI)
Colleen McGlynn, Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Fred Barry (MA)
Laura Miller, Former Mayor of Dallas (TX)
Paula Pierson, State Representative (TX)
Lana Pollack, Former State Senator, Environmental Leader (MI)
Melissa Price, Vice President, Young Democrats of North Carolina (NC)
Sarah Roberts, Macomb County Commissioner (MI)
Diane Saxe, DNC Member (MA)
Valencia Seay, State Senator (GA)
Ann Sheinwald, Rockport (MA)
Karen Dulaney Smith, Austin Independent School District Board of Trustees (id purposes only) (TX)
Trisha Stein, Former Executive Director, One Michigan (MI)
Melanie Tate, President, Kentucky College Democrats (KY)
Kathy Tocco, Macomb County Commissioner (MI)
Theresa Trujeque, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Clinton Interior Department (NM)
Sylvia Trujillo, Community Leader (DC)
Mayra Uribe, Community Leader (FL)
Meredith Vivian, Vice President, University of California, Santa Cruz (CA)

For more information, please contact Colleen Murray at 919-636-3203.


This is only a part of the tale.  There must be a reason so many powerful women support him.  Well here is his platform on women's issues from his site, along with quotes from female supporters:  http://www.johnedwards.com/women/


An Agenda For American Women
Building One America means ensuring that women can make choices in their lives with dignity and can participate in our society fully, as equals. The reality of women's lives today is still something far less. They are expected to do more, and they receive less. That's not right." -- John Edwards

American women still face greater challenges in the workplace and greater responsibilities at home. They make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and mothers--particularly single mothers--do even worse. Women are 48 percent more likely to live in poverty. More than 17 million adult women lack health insurance. Millions of working women struggle to balance their jobs with the needs of their families. John Edwards believes that--to build a larger, more secure middle class--we must do more to strengthen families, help women succeed at work and protect women's rights. [Census Bureau, 2007]

Economic Security
Helping Women Balance Work and Family
Two-thirds of mothers are working, most of them full time. More and more families are caring for their aging parents. But our workplace and public policies have not kept up with this new reality. Edwards will:

Give women time off when they need it by requiring businesses to offer seven paid sick days a year. Edwards will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more workers and help states offer paid leave so parents will not have to choose between their families and their paychecks.
Create a Great Promise early childhood education program for every four-year-old. For younger children, he will expand the child care tax credit and create a Smart Start initiative to improve child care quality and affordability.
Help families caring for their parents by expanding access to home health care, creating more choices for long-term care and offering respite care to provide caregivers a break. [Gerson and Jacobs, 2004; New America Foundation, 2005; KFF, 2006]
Securing Women's Retirement
Women are more likely to depend on Social Security for most of their retirement income, even though their annual benefits average only 70 percent of men's. Edwards will help women and other Americans increase their retirement savings by offering a new Get Ahead credit that will match families' retirement savings up to dollar for dollar. He will also examine ways to modernize Social Security to compensate women who pay less into Social Security because they are caring for children or other family members instead of working. [IWPR, 2003]

Ending Poverty within a Generation
Fifty-six percent of the nearly 37 million Americans living in poverty are female. John Edwards has called for an end to poverty within 30 years, through policies rooted in the core American values of work, opportunity and responsibility. He has proposed an ambitious set of goals, including lower taxes for low-income working families, 1 million stepping stone jobs, new housing policies to promote economic integration and other initiatives to promote education, savings and strong families. To help the 100 million out-of-school children--the majority of whom are girls--around the world, he will lead a worldwide effort to educate every child. [Census Bureau, 2007; UNESCO, 2005]

Raising the Minimum Wage
Women are nearly two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers. A woman with two children working full-time at the $5.85 federal minimum-wage lives nearly 30 percent below the poverty line. Because the recent increase to $7.25 by 2009 is too little, too late, Edwards will give 8 million women a raise by increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2012 and indexing it to increase automatically. [BLS 2007, Lovell 2007]

Women's Equality and Civil Rights
Protecting Women's Right to Choose
The decision about whether to become a parent is one of the most important decisions that a woman can face. Edwards believes that she should make it with her family, her doctor and in the context of her religious and ethical values. He will protect and defend the right to choose and reverse the damage that has been done by President Bush's anti-choice agenda.

Fighting Workplace Discrimination
Edwards supports the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the remedies for sex discrimination and deter wrongdoing. He will expand resources for female entrepreneurs through his new REACH Fund and by prioritizing the needs of women-owned businesses in existing programs. Edwards will also strengthen enforcement at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and will restore and expand women's right to fight workplace discrimination by overturning the Ledbetter decision that limited women's ability to challenge unfair pay.

Ending Violence Against Women
Achieving full equal rights for women includes the right to be free of violence everywhere. Edwards supports efforts to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which provides resources for crisis centers, domestic violence shelters and continuing education to law enforcement and the courts. Edwards will also aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and supports efforts to reduce violence against women and children around the world.

Women's Health
Guaranteeing Health Care for Every Woman in America
Two-thirds of uninsured women fail to get the care they need because of its cost. For example, while more than 40,000 women die from breast cancer every year, more than half of uninsured women have not had a mammogram for two years. Edwards will take on the big insurance and drug companies and guarantee true universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. His plan requires employers to cover their workers or help pay the cost; makes insurance affordable for middle-class families through new subsidies and purchasing pools; creates a choice of competing plans, including a public plan and--once insurance is affordable-- requires individuals to get insurance. [Census Bureau, 2007; KFF, 2005; ACS, 2007]

Strengthening America's Research Agenda
More research is needed into the diseases that affect women disproportionately, such as breast cancer, other types of cancer and HIV/AIDS. Edwards supports doubling funding for key priorities at the National Institutes of Health and supports the innovative Department of Defense breast cancer research initiative. Edwards will lift also restrictions and increase funding for embryonic stem cell research, while maintaining strict ethical guidelines to prevent human cloning.


"I believe in John's deep and profound commitment to the issues that matter most in women's lives. From health care, to Iraq, to poverty, to our environment, I know John is the most effective national messenger for the values we share and I have complete confidence that--with our help--he will win the White House and improve the lives of women everywhere."

- NARAL Pro-Choice America President Emeritus Kate Michelman



"Too many women are not getting the health care they need. John Edwards is the only candidate to outline a specific plan to provide universal coverage and I'm proud to be part of a campaign--the only campaign--with a detailed plan to cover all Americans."

- Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson



"I am proud to endorse my friend, Senator John Edwards. He has always stood to fight for real change in women's lives--working tirelessly to raise the minimum wage, end poverty and guarantee universal health care."

- Former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid



"John Edwards has laid out detailed proposals to strengthen families and help working women. John understands the need to prioritize families through good public policy that recognizes the contributions of America's women."

- South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

This is but a sampling of his wide ranging support among women, and an indication of the kind of "Pro-Woman" platform we can expect with an Edwards' Presidency.  Folks, from this point forward I vow to fight the fire of lies with the water of truth.  I do not know for sure John Edwards will win the Presidency, but I know I can sleep at night with him as my choice.  My heart knows political joy because I did not compromise.  After all these years, compromise has gotten old.  If you feel as I do visit http://johnedwards.com/ and learn how supporting him means you do not have to compromise anymore.

Find this and more at:  http://waveofblue.blogspot.com/  Progressive blog in support of John Edwards!



Display:


Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (1.50 / 2)

He didn't do the work to raise the cash.  He is done.  He will be out of money by the second week of Jan. 08.   That isn't a winning formula.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:12:37 AM EST

why have primaries? (1.87 / 8)

Why not auction off our nomination to the highest bidder?

It is pathetic to see the Clinton supporters worship at the altar of money and establishment connections. By that logic we should have elected Poppy instead of Bill in 1992.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do I do that? (none / 0)

Why are you painting with this broad stroke?


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

should have said "some" supporters (2.00 / 4)

it is not just dpAndrews, that's for sure.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why not inject reality (1.50 / 2)

You don't win if you are broke.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why have primaries? (1.50 / 2)

If it would put a stop to the nonsense of the Iowa caucus, a bidding process for the nomination would at least have one thing going for it!


by hwc on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 11:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (2.00 / 3)

You really need to read the financials, before making a really stupid statement, like this.  Edwards has plenty of money for Iowa.


by iamready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (1.50 / 2)

For Iowa.   If he wins he needs to raise enough money to compete in NH in 6 minutes and 30 seconds.   If he is lucxky there will be five days between the two ... not a lot of time to fundraise, clear checks, buy ad spots.  

Actually there may not be any ad spots left in NH.  Seriously, my guess is if you dont' reserve them 30 to 40 days in advance they will be gone.   Romney, Clinton, Obama, Giulinai, Dodd, Paul, etc. will have bought the schedule out already.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (1.50 / 2)

My guess is that Clinton and Obama have already put a lock on much of the available Iowa and NH advertising inventory.


by hwc on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

Don't forget the Republicans.  Romney is buying a lot of time.  I am sure Rudy and Thompson will as well.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

The fact that this was troll rated shows that some are abusing the ratings.

I heard a POTUS '08 guest from Iowa say this week that tv ad time in Iowa was already sold out through the orignal caucus date.  So New Hampshire can't be far behind.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

And you don't think that Edwards in his long range planning didn't do the media holds first?

Edwards has been through this before.  I think he knows what he needs.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is not B.R.O.K.E. (2.00 / 2)

There is plenty of ad time available! Political advertising is purchased at the highest rates with no discounting permitted. Political advertising is paid in advance. So all media likes to get the political spots. A lot of advertising (most) is purchased as a bulk number of spots with no specific time slot reserved. This kind of advertising would simply be shifted around if a political ad buy is placed at the last minute.

Also.... Edwards is not broke. The Edwards campaign is cost effective, with most advertising wisely planned to run closer to the time of the primaries. Edwards is on budget, and on plan!


by bettync on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Like I said (none / 0)

The candidates have already bought up every slot left on the networks in Iowa.  So New Hampshire can't be far behind.  


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards has the U.N.I.O.N.S. (none / 0)

And the California SEIU has committed to helping Edwards win in Iowa.  How much do you think that is worth?


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (2.00 / 8)

It always seems like the first comment is of this variety, every time someone writes a diary about Edwards or Obama.  "Hillary is going to win, so too bad for you."  It's content-free and quite sad, really.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

The content is that Edwards is broke.  That is the point.  The point is that after Iowa ... win lose or draw, he has no money to go forward.   You can paint all the rosey pictures you want but without money you can't even travel.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is in the same boat (none / 0)

He is broke too.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

Exactly!!  Edwards didn't do the work of providing gimmicky Edwards Girl and Mafia videos.
Instead - he's been providing substance from the gitgo!
But you have to KNOW substance to recognize it. You didn't - but the corporate media did - and began a 24/7 war on Edwards.  Obama and Hillary supporters have done their part too.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

How does Edwards being "broke" relate to his positions concerning full equality for women?

Always changing the subject when the discourse gets uncomfortable...


"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.
by aufklaerer on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is B.R.O.K.E. (none / 0)

A typical Clinton supporter answer. To them MONEY is the equivalent to political relevance. Poor people or simply people that aren't as wealthy as them have no right to say anything because since they have no money their voice has no merit.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:06:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry but I do think the electable (none / 0)

argument is a dog whistle campaign about gender.  

Further, no one running is the "friend" to women Hillary has been.  


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:13:17 AM EST

Hillary is not just a woman (2.00 / 7)

She is a very well-known woman who has had net-unfavorable ratings nationally for most of the last 15 years. Gallup had a graph on this. There have only been a few brief periods during which Hillary had net-favorable ratings nationally.

She is universally known and strongly disliked by a large segment of the population. Maybe that's unfair, but it is a reality.

When Bill Clinton ran for president, he liked to point out that only southern Democrats had managed to be elected president since FDR. Hillary is not a southerner.

I don't think that every woman would energize the Republican base, but I do think Hillary would. There are many Republican voters who would probably stay home if we nominate someone other than Hillary, but they will hold their noses and vote Republican if she is the nominee.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is not just a woman (1.50 / 4)

You're still spreading this sort of crap. Have you studied the latest polls? 43-45% will never vote for your guy, and you're still believing he's the most popular guy in the world.

This is getting so laughable. All you have is to lash out at Clinton with repetitive talking points. Negative attacks will not help your candidate. It's really possible your candidate will completely collapse in Iowa.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is not just a woman (2.00 / 3)

Back when some poll said 52% would never vote for Hillary, I'm sure you cared a lot about that statistic.  It's just amazing to see people cherry-pick polls with a complete absence of principles or reason, time and time again.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is not just a woman (none / 0)

Oh please Steve. Have you seen the most recent favorable/unfavorable polls? Hillary's on her way up and Edwards is on his way down. Chew on that!


by lonnette33 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is not just a woman (none / 0)

Yes, I think it's fantastic.  The more people get to know Hillary, the more they like her, or cease to dislike her, exactly as I'd hope.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (2.00 / 1)

concedes that Hillary may draw in Republican women:

"The point is there are many women who will on some level be inclined to view Mrs. Clinton's candidacy through the lens of their experience as women, and there is real latent sympathy there if she could tap it, which is what she's trying to do."

I could care a less about what Bill Clinton did when he ran, the electability argument is a dog whistle campaign about gender.  Gee, you act like it's just so commonplace for a woman to be running for president how could this even be a thought.  

Her favorables are steadly going down, so I see no problem there.  there is no indciation that Dem's and Dem leaning voters would stay home if Hillary were the candidate.


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Peggy Noonan probably wants (2.00 / 4)

us to nominate Hillary, just like every other Republican talking head.

I don't see Hillary getting large numbers of Republican women. If Republicans are disaffected enough to vote Democrat in 2008, they would probably vote for any Democrat.

I have met Republican and independent men who would not vote for Hillary but would vote for a different Democratic nominee.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok. You're right. (1.66 / 3)

Boy, you are so blinded by hate toward this woman, that it is impossible to talk to you reasonably.


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, I hate George Bush (2.00 / 7)

I have never been a big fan of either Clinton, it's true. I did vote for Bill twice, but I think he was a mediocre president who did little on many issues I care about. The Democratic Party was certainly in a weaker position when he left office than it was when he arrived. Not just in Iowa, but in many other states.

I am not "blinded" by hate for Hillary, but I don't think the Democratic Party will benefit from her as our standard-bearer. She should stay in her Senate seat for life, where she can do more good. She would have been a better senator if she hadn't spent as much time triangulating in preparation for a presidential bid.

If Hillary does manage to become president, I think progressives like you and alegre will become very disappointed in her, but moderates like hwc will be pleased.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I could make the same argument (none / 0)

about Edwards or frankly any candidate running.  My patience is wearing thin.  You've already said you think basically any of the other candidates is better.  This isn't about Bill Clinton, it's about Hillary.  That's who I am voting for.  I suggest you watch this video:

http://kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/pla yerhealth08.cfm?id=3645#clip_1

and then tell me Hillary is going to accomplish universal health care.


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I could make the same argument (none / 0)

I watched it and I found it full of hyberbole starting with the introductions.

As yet Clinton has done nothing to bring us closer to UHC but has learned to talk about it well.

It will require a cooperative congress which Edwards can help elect.  

She has picked up Edwards rhetoric.  But I don't see that she will take on the health industry to do this.

I trust Edwards determination more.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (2.00 / 1)

Peggy Noonan?  Are you kidding me?  I live in a swing district, and I am telling you the Republican Women will NOT, repeat NOT, vote for Hillary Clinton.  They will not.  And I do think that many republicans, as disgusted they may be with their candidate, will come out, hold their nose and vote against Clinton.  Look, I totally respect Hillary Clinton, for all she has gone through, but there is a distict percentage in this country that just will not vote for her.  And to think that just because she is a woman, that women will come out in droves, is ridiculous.


by iamready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, there is some polling to (none / 0)

suggest that indeed they will.  You know, not everyone gives a shit about politics.  Some people just vote the way there husband does.  Or, who do they personally like.

For one example, I've found a number of blogs with pro-life women who will vote for Hillary . Anne Rice is a famous one, but I'd be happy to send you links to others.  They tend to buy it when she says that she'll reduce abortion but not by legislating against, but through education and support for pregnant woman who do not want to get an abortion but do not have the means to have a baby.  Of course Dem's have been saying this all along, but maybe the argument resonates more when it comes from a woman.  Mark Penn has done some polling that suggests Hillary is doing well among Republican women.  I doubt he'd but that out there if it were terribly easy to refute. I think you undermine the significance of this historic event.  I suggest you read my diary about this:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/14/171 432/60#commenttop


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, there is some polling to (2.00 / 2)

I don't care about famous women.  I am talking about the everyday woman.  I live in a very hard core swing district.  I am telling you, the Republican women WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.  And for her campaign to inflate or just LIE that they will is wrong.  There is very serious polling that indicate these women will not vote for Clinton.


by iamready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I am talking about. (none / 0)

A number of women vote Republican only because they are "pro-life", and of course, as I say, this is anecdotal, but I have found a number of pro-life women online saying they are supporting her.

As for the polling, you have no evidence her campaign is lying.  My guess is Penn would have not released his numbers if he thought they were terribly easy to discredit.  You need to get a grip on yourself.  


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, there is some polling to (none / 0)

Southern women will not vote for Hillary.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agreed and macho southern (1.00 / 2)

men will not vote for a born again liberal wimp !!!

the 1998/2004 edwards is not the man as the same 2008 edwards ......

1998 edwards winnig nc is a liberal losing 2008 "brecky"  candidate....even i hometown nc...

The case in point...a lot of southers WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY DEM!!!  


by pate on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Southerners love Edwards (none / 0)

And they will vote for Edwards.  

And do you think your namecalling temper tantrum imprsses anyone?

LOL.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agreed and macho southern (none / 0)

now if we could find someone that these people would vote for ... because they are pretty upset and would flock to the polls for the right person

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2006-10-09-poll_x.htm


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, there is some polling to (none / 0)

Clinton operatives don't want to hear truth. They prefer to say shit like "well according to our polling...blah blah blah Hillary."

It should surprise no one that Hillary Clinton AND her supporters stay on message. It should also not surprise anyone that the Clinton campaign and her on message support club is intentionally playing the sexism card. It is a calculated strategy to gain empathy for their candidate. It is disgusting politics. Clintonian politics.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (1.00 / 4)

But they would vote for a black man or a wimp know to us as Edwards. Give me fricken' break. Comical. LMAO


by lonnette33 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (none / 0)

I meant to say "known to us".


by lonnette33 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (2.00 / 1)

Am I missing something? They'll vote for the Republican, especially if it's Giuliani.

In the latest Post-ABC, 80 percent of Republican women said they definitely would not support Clinton if she were the Democratic nominee. Fewer said so of Obama or Edwards. Only 11 percent said they would vote for her in a general election match-up against Giuliani.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/10/18/post_136.html


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, well, Peggy Noonan even (none / 0)

Dems are already looking at Giuliani, in case Hillary is our nominee.
Hillary would be the easiest Dem to beat!
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are just plain wrong (none / 0)

Get your facts straight:

"has had net-unfavorable ratings nationally for most of the last 15 years."

...simply not true

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hill ary

From '03 to '06 her favs were in the low to mid 50's and her unfavs were in the high 30's to mid 50's.  For a period in the late 90s her favs hit the low 60s.

 AGAIN LOOK AT GALLUP who has polled her since the 90s:

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hill ary


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One error (none / 0)

I typed:

From '03 to '06 her favs were in the low to mid 50's and her unfavs were in the high 30's to mid 50's.

Should have typed:

From '03 to '06 her favs were in the low to mid 50's and her unfavs were in the high 30's to mid 40's.

Her unfavs never hit 50 in the period I referenced.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One error (2.00 / 1)

Why would you vote for a dynasty? That's not America.
Father and son presidencies are very different from husband and wife. And while there are many questions about the uncharted dynasty waters - no one's discussing them.
Who are the donors to the Clinton Library besides the Saudi and Dubai governments?
Donors of the Clinton Foundation have provided a steady stream of cash for Hillary's campaign.
Clinton has earned $41M speaking to corporations and orgs - now donating to Hillary's campaign.

You don't see a problem with any of this??


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Weak (none / 0)

Candidates decide to run or not to run.  Voters decide to vote or not to vote.   This isn't the Ming Dynasty in china.  Nothing is imposed.  We have candidates -- many of them, talented and well financed -- and we have voters.  

A victory will be hard fought and well earned.  I respect that.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And another thing (none / 0)

I didn't hear any beyotching about a "dynasty" when Shrub ran just 8 years after his dad.  I didn't hear any B.S. about a dynasty when the wingnuts were talking up Jebbie to replace Shrub 5 or 6 years ago.  In fact if Jeb ran today the wingnuts would kick Fred and Rudy to the curb like a couple of $20 hookers.

But now that Hillary wants to be President the media and the wingnuts are peeing and moaning about a dynasty.   Worse, some on the left whose candidates are failing to make headway are adopting the wingnut talkiing points.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

one other thing (2.00 / 3)

With very few exceptions (georgep is one I can think of), the Hillary supporters at MyDD seem to live in safe Democratic states.

Do you think there might be some reason why MyDD readers in red and purple states have questions about Hillary's electability? Are we all just sexist?

It's easy to discount concerns about her electability if you live in a state that couldn't possibly go GOP in a presidential election anyway.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:30:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How many times do I have to (none / 0)

tell you I have lived all over the country and am from the midwest?  Sexism is an issue everywhere.  Hillary is the strongest candidate in the field, I think.  But until she wins some people will always wonder, can a woman win.


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one other thing (1.00 / 2)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/10/edwards_clinton_and_questions. html

Unfortunatley, your tiresome argument is going nowhere. Stuart Rothenberg has the following to say after extensive analysis of polls.


For weeks now, the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has been hammering away about New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's greatest alleged vulnerability: her electability. It's a good strategy, at least in theory, since Democratic voters will not nominate someone for president who they think will lose the White House again.
Unfortunately for Edwards, there is little evidence that Clinton cannot be elected president or that Edwards has a measurably better chance of being elected than she does.


The former North Carolina Senator seems to think that his Southern accent and stories about his father's work in a textile mill and his mother's days as a letter carrier will ingratiate himself with moderate and conservative populists. But after Republicans hammer him for his expensive haircuts, huge home and liberal views, his appeal to swing and socially conservative voters will suffer. For now, Edwards' negatives aren't as high as Clinton's because he hasn't been a national target for more than a dozen years.

It is of course true that Clinton could stumble in the next few months. But for Democrats hoping that doubts about her electability will derail her candidacy, the current evidence is skimpy.

Go to youtube, type in 'Edwards', if you believe this guy can be elected, i'll sell you a bridge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu 3Q

The truth is Edwards appears very weak...


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Full of hate. (2.00 / 3)

Why are you so full of hate for Edwards?  Rothenberg's analysis is measured, and by no means dismissive.  He may have a point, but Hillary does have high negatives and she is not trusted by the Dem base.  What's important to me is, that John is challenging the status quo, and whether he wins or not, he wins because he's changed the narrative.  I'll vote for Hillary if she's the candidate, but I'll push her to adopt the agenda John set forth.  He's the pioneer.  Stop pushing your hate.  It's disgusting.


by santamonicadem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:24:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one other thing (none / 0)

Hillary on the other hand appears bought by the corporations.  

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

John Edwards doesn't sound weak here either.  
This is a man determined to make things happen for the better.

John Edwards at the DNC - Will You Stand Up?


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one other thing (2.00 / 1)

Do you think there might be some reason why MyDD readers in red and purple states have questions about Hillary's electability? Are we all just sexist?

Well, has IA ever elected a female US Rep, Gov, US Senator, etc? The number of states falling into the category of 'never' is very small.

You are always calling out posters who live in 'safe blue states,' as you put it, to worry about IA which comes across as pretty much as an 'old boys club,' according to your own media.  

I wonder how much longer 'safe blue' will keep this status. We're always told to kow-tow to the south/midwest -- generally, more socially conservative and with a more 'populist' bent than what would be appropriate where I live (one of the highest concentrations of small business, nationwide). This isn't much of a 'Big Tent,' and that's why you see Giuliani competitive in so-called 'safe blue' states.

Just a view from the other 'safe blue' side.
 


by dblhelix on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry but I do think the electable (2.00 / 3)

what's electability a dog whistle argument in 2004? what about when clinton ran in 1990? see here's the problem- electability has been an argument forever. dog whistle politics is to tell someone vote for me "i am progressive despite what your lying ears tell you." has it occured to you that when edwards is talking mos telectable he's referring to the same things that he has always referred to- his agenda and character?


by bruh21 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry but I do think the electable (2.00 / 4)

I accept that this is your honest belief, but I mean, the Obama supporters think it's a dog whistle about race.

I think it's just an electability argument like any other.  When the Edwards campaign makes that argument, it is always, always, always backed up with poll numbers.  He doesn't just say wink wink, look at me, aren't I electable?

Over on the Republican side a bunch of old white guys are making electability arguments against each other, and obviously there's no code there.  Every candidate tries to show that they're the most electable, election after election.  A standard argument doesn't suddenly become sexist code because John Edwards trots it out, or at least that's how I see it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:11:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry but I do think the electable (none / 0)

Well, there are links to a couple of articles written by women who agree with me.  I've been more than fair to Edwards.  I actually never criticize, but yeah, I think that's a dog whistle campaign.  I don't say that lightly.  


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry but I do think the electable (none / 0)

Like I said, I accept that you're being 100% honest about this.  I don't think you're like areyouready, flinging around accusations of sexism just because he can.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry but I do think the electable (none / 0)

That is how you interpret it. I don't think it is the meaning of the position. Invoking sexism is a bad move, frankly. It sounds too areyouready ish.

The Clinton clan is trying to position any question about their leader as sexist. It is a desperate lie and we shouldn't put up with it.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (1.00 / 6)



Though you have to wonder just how strong the Democratic ticket would be there even without Hillary on the ticket.

As others have pointed out, pursuing this line of argument puts Edwards in an odd position, because the unspoken message behind "I'm more electable than her" is "I also have the right sort of genitals." Does the guy running the most lefty campaign of the top tier really want to, as the kids say, "go there"? Apparently so.


This is Ana Marie Cox's language, not my language, but I agree with her assessment. Edwards is playing this game for a while, and it has started to set some people on edge.

Edwards's way to appeal to women and minority groups is to put out some 'token' endorsements, at the same time, implicitly encourage his surrogates and supporters to spread those bias and prejudice to bolster his 'electability' crap.

Look at his campaign and supporters' manufactured outrage towards those 'poor Chinese' who dare to donate to Hillary. This is just the latest example of his game plan.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:21:34 AM EST

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/g ang_up_on_hillary_day.html?xid=rss-swamp land

Read yourself. If a female report is starting to use this sort of language, you get a problem.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:23:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

Edwards can't wrap up his own state.  That doesn't reek of electability.  He should have stepped aside and let Elizabeth run.  She is stronger and more respected.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

Totally agree. Each time EE comes out to voice her thoughts on some issue, he looks weak and wimpish. I know most JRE supporters won't admit this, but it is true.


by lonnette33 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

Nice diary with good information. It would have been even better if you had left out all of the introductory stuff and just made it a positive diary about your candidate. Thanks for providing info about his positions on these issues.


by LakersFan on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:20:31 AM EST

This woman supports John Edwards (none / 0)

John is the best candidate I've ever seen on all the issues I care about as a woman. I support him completely.

I also wonder how many of these people saying all women must support Clinton are actually men.


by sirius on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:33:37 PM EST

Re: This woman supports John Edwards (none / 0)

Who the fuck has said all women must support Clinton?  That's nuts.  She happens to have a strong record on women's issues.  That's just reality.  She is focusing on issues in her campaign that disproportionately effect women.  Edwards has a good record on women's issues as do all the candidates.  


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards (2.00 / 2)

Unfortunately for John Edwards, he is a little late in his outreach to women voters.  He underestimated their strength and power in this election.  Hillary did not.  She began her outreach early in the campaign and has been turning up the volume gradually over the past few months.  

Once all the polls started showing just how much support Hillary is getting from women, we began hearing from John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards and his supporters that John is the best advocate for women.  

I don't know who is actually calling the shots in John Edwards' campaign, but I'd say they missed the boat on the female constituency.

So, for that matter, did Barack Obama.

Now, that doesn't mean John Edwards isn't a "friend to women" as the title of this diary states.  But he's not the candidate the majority of voters consider the strongest on women's issues.  The facts speak for themselves.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/most_electable_democrati c_candidate

The fall of 2007 is a good time to be Senator Hillary Clinton. Her lead has been growing in national polls for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, her negatives have held steady while those for her challengers have been growing, she leads now in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that Clinton is seen as the most electable candidate in either party.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say that Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated by her party. That's up from 75% a month ago and the current total includes an astounding 50% of Democrats who believe she is Very Likely to win it all if nominated. No other candidate--Republican or Democrat--comes close to that figure. A month ago, 41% of Democrats thought Clinton was Very Likely to win.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:43:48 PM EST

Re: John Edwards (2.00 / 1)

Rasmussen does not share their raw data. The ABC poll that has been often quoted by Clinton supporters did publish raw data. A closer look showed that the amazing percentages actually represented only 283 people who were "leaning" toward voting for a democrat.

Edwards does very well in the match-ups in states who traditionally elect republicans.


by bettync on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a baseline requirement (2.00 / 4)

Every Democratic candidate is s friend to women -that is a basleine requirement, so I can't get excited by the comment that John Edwards is a friend to women. Hillary Clinton has been out front on womens and childrens issues for a long, long time, going back to her days as an attorney for the Childrens Defense Fund,founding Arkansas Advocates for Women and Children, serving as the head of the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, on and on.  It is not an election year interest, but a long term commitment. I am sure that John Edwards is sincere, but he does not have anywhere near the record that Hillary Clinton does, and to claim otherwise is a non-starter.    


by nascardem on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:30:20 PM EST

What kinda friend? (none / 0)

huh?

;)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:42:32 PM EST

Re: What kinda friend? (2.00 / 1)

Ohhhh.  That's bad.


by bookgrl on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women??? (none / 0)

maybe to some white women whe he uses his handsome features.......

but the minority women cannot relate to him much!!!

I know that the Latinos and the Asian American wome are not behind edwards.....eve richardson is ahead in this group..  


by pate on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 04:34:21 PM EST

Re: As a Friend To Women (1.00 / 1)

john did ot realise how important UHC was in  2004......too expensive

So it only became an issue for him when liz got sick......perhaps hurtig that huge savings he had...

I will go will someone who recogised this issue even when she was not married....

And mainly masculine voices stopped her in 1993/94....

jre is a handsome dude and a savvy lawyer!  
hillary is a plain speaking woman...

As for Todd? why the need for this diary this week?..this week when hill was out with her "women for hillary" and policies geared for middle class america ????


by pate on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 04:52:54 PM EST

Re: As a Friend To Women (2.00 / 1)

Hillary wasn't married in 1992????  Maybe Bill wandered around but I think they were married.

The conversation around here sometimes makes no sense.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary has bene fighting for (none / 0)

health related issues and children's aid etc since law school.....even before she was married....


by pate on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 07:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

Todd, a very nice diary.  You obviously have been convinced that Edwards is the right choice for president at this time.

Your diaries have good data, and you are being a great advocate for Edwards.

The criticisms here are mainly the same old phrases repeated.  They do not challenge the information you presented.  

Well done!!!!!!!!!


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:06:03 PM EST

Re: John Edwards Is A Friend To Women (none / 0)

Thank you.


by Todd Bennett on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.