Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions

Welcome to a special MyDD version of the Edwards Evening News! A lot going on, with Elizabeth blogging tonight over at DailyKos and answering people's questions. And also as I type, house parties in support of John Edwards around the country are just wrapping up. Follow me over the flap to see "what's going on".

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Elizabeth you Rock!
Elizabeth visited Dailykos tonight and has been taking questions. For more, go check it out. Here's some of what she said.

About winning Iowa:

I don't take anything for granted
But I feel great about Iowa.  They look for a candidate with a constellation of qualities: character, vision (as exhibited by fully formed ideas) and (because they are pragmatic) electability. John meets all their criteria and, in addition, he is well-liked in the state. The Iowa team has done a great job of organizing so we are ready.  I am convinced John will win Iowa and the only question (which I do not know) is the percentage.

About trade and jobs:

A President who thinks US jobs is part of his job
Wouldn't that be great?  No more weak-as-water trade agreements and an aggressive effort to strengthen businesses here matched with an end to any tax advantages for taking US jobs overseas: that's what we need and that's what we'll get with John.

About smart trade:

Smart Trade  
John opposed NAFTA (which was passed before he was in the Senate) and other trade bills that did not have a baseline of worker and environmental protections.  He believes that all our trade agreements without these (which may be nearly all) need to be renegotiated and that no new trade agreements should be entered into that do not guarantee a reasonable (for each locality) wage, worker safety protections and environmental protections.

About rebuking Bush's abuse of executive power and restoring constitutional balance:

Most Democratic candidates will promise this
But think for a minute about who has been the most out-spoken, the most courageous speaker on these (and other) issues.  It is John.  The strength you see in the campaign is a hint about what you will see in the White House.

About John's long history of fighting to end poverty:

Long before he went into politics, John was on the board of an organization that addressed homelessness in our hometown, and he established the development fund for that organization, Urban Ministries.  He and his firm did Christmas every year at a child care center in the projects, providing a party and presents for all the children. On alternating years, John was even (a thin) Santa.  He made sure there was a children's library in the new public library in the rural town in which his parents were raised.  He paid for a playground at a Title I school when the school system wouldn't update it and the PTA couldn't afford to.  And we built a computer lab at our inner city high school (that serves the most economically advantaged and most economically disadvantaged students in the district) so that all students would start from a level playing field.  I've got more, but isn't that proof enough?

About some in Congress not standing up to Bush:

Disappointing
It is disappointing.  I don't know enough who to blame.  We clearly need leadership.  I spoke at a Rage for Justice dinner recently and that is what we need: leaders who will rage for justice. The Iraq vote was an example.  Even those who voted the right way didn't exhibit the leadership we need right now. Silence, as MLK said, is betrayal.

About the primary calendar:

Iowa, Nevada, NH, SC
I feel great about the calendar. I wouldn't want John to trade places with any other candidate. (It would be nice to have their money -- hint, hint -- but John needs only to meet his budget, not their totals.)  Iowa looks great, I talked about it earlier.  Nevada will do Iowa style caucuses, which means that the most engaged voters will be participating and those are the ones who demand character, vision, fully developed plans, and electability.  John should do great.  John has run 2d or 3d in NH in polling and with the wins in Iowa and Nevada will, I believe, win NH as well. And John won in SC in 2004 with 45% without a win before that.  With the earlier wins, John will repeat in SC.  I feel great about this.

About priorities and the deficit:

Priorities  
With John we will have a President who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and he can address several of the important issues at the same time as well. Global warming, which you asked about, has to be an immediate concern.  This is an emergency, but so are the other things I talked about in earlier comments: health care, re-establishing our moral leadership.  And eradicating poverty is not a niche issue or a luxury.  Poverty drains our economic and social resources, it paralyzes our city services and it causes our rural communities to wither.  The costs of poverty radiate far beyond the lives of those in poverty.  But we need to address it primarily because it is wrong.

About public financing of elections:

Clean up and reinvigorate our election system
On two fronts:
(1) Public financing of campaigns. John has never taken Washington lobbyist money (or allowed them to bundle for him) but that is not enough.  He will fight for true public financing.
(2) A reliable voting system nationwide.  That means from voter enrollment, voter eligibility determinations, and actual voting processes.  No black boxes and a paper trail for all voting.

About the vital importance of health care:

You think about who is election is about  
I talk about this all the time.  About Mary who went back to work at 75 to pay for prescription drugs she could have afforded . . . if she lived it Canada. She was lovely; I met her in Iowa.  About Beverly, who I met in Detroit, who could hardly speak, so consumed was she with worry for her son in Iraq.  And the pretty young woman who leaned over me in Cleveland and whispered in my ear that she was afraid; she had found a lump in her breast but couldn't go to the doctor's because she had no health insurance.  She has a death sentence if we don't get her health care. It is not only easy to keep going, it is impossible to stop.

About making health care a priority:

This is a top priority  
John will move immediately on his health care plan.  With him at the top of the ticket, I believe we take enough new seats that he will have no problem getting it passed right away.

About speechwriters:

Ha! We don't have any speechwriters.
Refreshing, isn't it?

About people who like Elizabeth but aren't yet sold on John:

What you like about me  
I would guess is that I am authentic and talk about great ideas -- those, by the way, are John's ideas.

This campaign is about real change for America, transformational change away from where Bush has been taking us on his roller-coaster ride of incompetence and shortsightedness. Its much more than about an individual, its aabout a vision of America with hope restored, with universal health care, where the crush of poverty becomes a fairytale that noone believes really existed, and where the world can openly look up to us instead of snickering at our hypocrasy. Do you support change? Are you willing to stand up?

If you do, then drop some small change for big change Edwards way and join the campaign. Help Edwards and all progressive candidates out by through ActBue: Artists for Edwards or click on the cool bell (this is where things stand now):

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Tomorrow begins Today!



Display:


Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

And she did answer mine. When will Michelle Obama come here to answer our q's?


by benny06 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:38:23 AM EST

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

This is really good.  I'm glad you brought it here to MyDD!


by littafi on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:49:19 AM EST

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

So, how many more days do we have to endure the pissing match between John/Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter?

Coulter's ranting was distasteful enough.  Now we have to be subjected to an olympian Edwards vs Coulter Fest.

If John and Elizabeth really wanted to stand up to the hatred being spewed by "the crazies" they had the perfect opening and opportunity to confront Chris Matthews for showcasing Coulter in the first place.  I noted that neither of them said a word to him about that!  Who is using who in this absurd piece of political theater?

I read the comments in EE's diary on dailykos.com last night, including EE's comments and responses to questions.  One commenter had just sent the Edwards' campaign twenty-five bucks she couldn't afford.  She claimed she didn't own a sofa but was sitting on a cushion on the floor.

I don't like Donny Deutch (MSNBC).  I think he's a crass, beligerent showboater.  But he said something tonight on Hardball that I agree with.  He said (paraphrased)"Any guy who is on television in a prolonged back-and-forth with Ann Coulter isn't going to be President."

Ann Coulter is to be ignored.  Obama knows this.  Hillary knows this.  EE wants to stop the hatred?  Well guess what?  She just accelerated it.  Maybe it will bring in enough money to meet the 9 million goal.  


by samueldem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:16:04 AM EST

You can ignore it or stand up against it (3.00 / 1)

Personally I'm glad she and Edwards stand up against it and expose it for exactly what it is. Crazy hate speech.

If more people did this, including Matthews, and stood up against her ridiculous hate speech, Ann would be even more marginalized than she is now.

What Duetsch ignores is that Hillary Clinton has been just as outspoken about this sort of thing in the past and rightly so. As has Bill Clinton.

So he's wrong on that- standing up against hate shows that one is more ready to lead, not less. Havent we learned anything from the last election? Haven't we learned anything from our nation's history?

No cream and suger in my Democratic coffee, thanks.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comment is quite (none / 0)

silly.  


by littafi on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (none / 0)

I guess you are happy that the Edwards flap has resulted is a dramatic spike of Coulter book sales.  John was on Hardball last night complaining that Coulter's speech drowns out discussion about the real issues facing the country and proceeded to spend his whole segment talking about her and not about the real issues facing the country.


by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (3.00 / 1)

No we are happy that it resulted in an increase in people realizing what we face and who Edwards is. You spin everything they do as a negative, and that's why I respond to every diary where I find you posting. You could care less about Coulter. This is all about your issues with Edwards. So long as you remain irrational in your reaction, I am going to respond to you.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (none / 0)

Well you are exactly right I could care less about Coulter.  I don't give her the importance I guess you think she carries.  She has no real constituency, she's just a shockjock without a radio show. But if you are going to stalk me on this site, how about at least engaging in the issues or criticisms.  Edwards was given about 20 minutes airtime last night, I know he had at least two segments.  What I found amazing was not that he spent the first segment talking about Coulter - that's how he got on - but that he spent the 2nd segment on her as well.  I thought for sure he would take that time to talk about some of the issues - the War, Poverty, Health Care, Immigration - one of them.  Please explain how that criticism is irrational?


by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (3.00 / 1)

so you admit to trying to hijack a diary with irrelevancies- well that's at least progress.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:41:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (none / 0)

Maybe your intention is to reduce everything to irrelevancy, I'm not going to play along.  If you want to talk about the issues raised during the normal course of a conversation, fine, I'll respond, but this type of back and forth is childish.


by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (3.00 / 1)

my intention is to get an honest answer out of you so that others will not allow you to waste their time with your hijackings.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (3.00 / 1)

It doesn't matter how many books she sells. It matters how many votes it gets for our side. Let her be No. 1 on the NYT bestseller list from now to election day, as long as it allows us to raise money and win hearts and minds.

Shorter version: We're right, she's wrong. More people know it. Nothing about book sales matters to that equation.


by gas28man on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment is quite (3.00 / 1)

you are wasting your time- doug's trying to hijack the diary.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:41:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

Your comment strikes me as irrelevant here, in an entirely Coulter-free digest of Elizabeth's comments on the actual issues.


by DaveMB on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:56:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (1.50 / 2)

This is what Doug and George do- they hijack even positive diaries


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't care about her book sales (3.00 / 1)

The campaign has raised $1.2mm in two days.


by DrFrankLives on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

it'll blow over.  Donny got it wrong. This has solidified a number of people.  Galvanized is a better description.


by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 0)

Why do Obama and Hillary capitalist supporters hate John Edwards fundraising against slurs and for substance in political discourse?
Hillary just rolled in over $2M from the Indian community in response to Obama's staff identifying her as "punjab" - a reference to free trader Clinton sending U.S. jobs to India.
But Hillary didn't need to send out a fundraising email - this is all handled privately by her well oiled capitalist campaign machine.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

I am not going to start a diary about this, and this of course has not much to do with the recent "Coulter-Edwards" flap, but since is the Edwards Evening News! diary these latest numbers for Edwards may come as a bit of a surprise and point of concern:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/giuliani_and_thompson_gain_ground_on_ edwards

Giuliani and Thompson Gain Ground on Edwards

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Republican Presidential frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have gained ground on Democratic hopeful John Edwards over the past several weeks.
....
The latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 poll shows Edwards and Giuliani tied at 45%. Earlier in June, Edwards held a four-point advantage over the former Mayor of New York City. In fact, Edwards had held a modest advantage over Giuliani for three straight months in Rasmussen Reports polls.

Edwards still leads Thompson, 50% to 41%. That nine-point advantage is down from a 13-point Edwards' lead earlier in the month. In mid-May, Edwards lead Thompson by more than twenty percentage points.
...
Edwards is now viewed favorably by 52% of voters and unfavorably by 44%.  Those numbers are down a bit compared to recent months. From March through May, Edwards was viewed favorably by 55% to 57% of voters. In June, his favorables have ranged from 52% to 54%. The current measure of 44% unfavorable is the highest yet recorded for Edwards. Among those with strongly held opinions, 14% have a Very Favorable opinion of Edwards while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.


by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:04:10 AM EST

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

Call me an optimist, but if the polls are reflective of reality, then this latest dustup may be just what the Edwards campaign needed. Hillary and Obama are off the front pages, and John and Elizabeth are on, in a quite sympathetic way.


by gas28man on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

Maybe so.  I just don't see it making much of a difference.  Everybody knows Coulter is a bizarre hag.


by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

Have Obama or Hillary denounced Coulter's death wish against John Edwards?

Ed Schultz nailed it on Tucker last night!
http://tinyurl.com/2yoc2y


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 1)

I'd love to see this concern about Clinton's favorables and GE prospect.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

exactly.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

Whenever any numbers come out regarding Clinton it is diaried, sometimes multiple times.  I saw the new set of numbers this morning but am not interested in a diary about Edwards.  So, here is where this info fit.  

I am sure you are not saying the info should not be talked about here?   44% negatives are 44% negatives.  I recall a recent diary (wasn't it from you, clark?) about how Edwards was still the candidate with the best comparatives and lowest negatives, citing Rasmussen's numbers primarily.   This shows that that has changed, which is what I had contended at the time, that the numbers Rasmussen was going by were somewhat outdated.   These latest numbers are a bit different.   Not fatal for Edwards, but something to get under control to stay competetive.

 If Edwards negatives are at 44% and Clinton's negatives are at 47%, where exactly is the big difference on that end?


by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

The Hillary margin of error could indicate over 50% unfavourables.  +-4%. My guess is that her unfavourable ratings are over 50% without the brady effect.


by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

Uh, no.  Most recent surveys have shown her closer to 42% neg. rating instead (CBS/NYT, NBC/WSJ, Hotline/Diaego.)  

Going by your logic about MoE Edwards negatives could actually be 48%, right?  


by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

I'm just saying that you seem to think those numbers are irrelevant when discussing Clinton.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:40:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

I believe all of our top-tier candidates will be at around 45% to 48% negativity because they are all 3 perceived as "very far left" rather than moderate or centrist.  Now, that is the perception (which may not be true for any of the 3,) but that is what is fueling those numbers.

So, is it relevant?  Yes, in the sense that whoever the nominee is will end up with a high-40s negative.   I was pointing out that Edwards appears to be on his way to get to "the expected" number.  It is not a negative connotation to me, in fact, high negatives with the right-wing should make us proud, not cower in fear.  Being a strong, vocal "leftist" and being regarded favorably by the right-wing is impossible, after all.  

So, it was a reiteration that the expected in regards to "negative" numbers will invariably happen in the case of any Democratic candidate who is perceived to be rather far left from center.  In a way it was also meant to counter the (IMO) somewhat silly argumentation put forth about "electability," as negative/positive numbers mean very little to that process.  Head-to-head horserace numbers are more meaningful metrics in that regard, and they have become very much evened out amongst all 3 candidates.  If you look, the GOP candidate with the highest favorables of any candidate running (Guilani at around 67%) now loses in virtually every recent poll against Clinton, as the other two Democratic candidates are also very competetive against him.  That despite all 3 showing lower favorables and higher unfavorables,  proving that fav./unfav. ratings are not in direct correlation to the actual vote preference, make up only one of several factors.  


by georgep on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

It's called concern trolling. You came on to a post that was about Elizabeth Edwards' substantial answers to bloggers to talk about something else, ostensibly a "concern" you had about the Edwards campaign. Is there something else you care to talk about other than polling?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

The irony of a Clinton supporter talking about favourables.


by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

Things are changing.  As was predicted and has happened, both Obama and Edwards are now at 44% unfavorables.  The more is known about the candidates, the more Republicans won't like them much, and their negatives all end up in the same realm (45% to 47% negative.)  

I don't see it as a bad thing for our eventual nominee, just something that happens to all of our nominees (see Bill Clinton, Kerry, Gore) and trying to argue otherwise is kind of foolish.  Edwards showing these types of negatives was going to happen sooner or later.  It is probably sooner than I expected, but all of our candidates have negatives with the general population, as they are all campaigning far left from center, which of course does not curry favor with most Republicans and many Independents, who want to see a more moderated stance.    


by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

diary (none / 0)

This alone deserves a diary. Our most 'electable' candidate is crashing down hard.


by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (none / 0)

That's the only poll to put his negeatives so high. Let's see what the next raft of polls say. It amuses me how you love to cherry pick individual polls and insist they mean something if it helps Hillary or damages John or Barack, but if it helps John or Barack or hurts Hillary you insist we must never look at a single poll or group of polls and that we must average all polls together.


by Quinton on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth answers bloggers' questions (3.00 / 2)

Thank you for the post. It's nice to see the outreach.


by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:33 AM EST

The speechwriter comment (3.00 / 1)

was in response to me jokingly asking for a job.

Cool!


by DrFrankLives on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:34:59 AM EST

I think its great to see the outreach (3.00 / 1)

by her as bruh said, and actually by Edwards too, though she blogs quite a bit more.

Its a real testament to a the campaign they are trying to run and also to the netroots and blogosphere have come.

Regardless of the candidate anyone supports, we should all be hoping for more interaction like this, more outreach, more transparency. Its a great thing to see and good for the democratic process.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:21:17 PM EST


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.