Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

<href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporting-edwards-perpetuates-status.html

You can't end the monarchy by supporting the king, and you can't end the political, economic and social disenfranchisement of women and Blacks ("the poor") by electing another wealthy white male as President of the United States.

If you think about it, the most fundamental aspect of the status quo throughout American history has been the literal and figurative disenfranchisement of women and Black voters, as well as other sociological minorities.  They could not hold electoral office and they never have held the highest office in the land because white men ALWAYS have arrogated that office unto themselves, sometimes with the complicity of white women.  Women remain only 16% of the US Congress while 1% of the US Senate is Black in a nation with a 13% Black population.

If you define the status quo as "the continuing disenfranchisement of those who historically were denied the right to vote and hold elective office", it becomes clear that the election of John Edwards to the Presidency - another white male in a string of 43 consecutive white males - would constitute the clearest possible reaffirmation of the status quo.

For every group in America, economic advancement has historically gone hand in hand with political advancement, while closed doors to political advancement have consigned women and minorities to the lowest economic status in our society, even after centuries   of participation here.

The twin doctrines of white supremacy and its corollary, a belief in the inherent inferiority of blacks, combined with capitalism to create a powerful rationale for slavery. Nationwide, de facto and de jure segregation and discrimination based on the notion of race were accepted and effective tools to enforce and entrench a pervasive system of white economic power and privilege and black oppression and disadvantage.  http://www.answers.com/topic/african-ame rican-history
 
Electing Edwards to challenge that status quo is like supporting the king to challenge the monarchy or integrating an all-white male club by adding more all-white male club members.

When you define the status quo as "the continuing disenfranchisement of those who historically were denied the right to vote and hold elective office", and you realize that economic disenfranchisment continues to flow inevitably from political disenfranchisement, then you realize that America can do much more to alleviate poverty by electing a woman or Black president than by electing John Edwards president.  The political disenfranchisement of women and minorities has resulted in economic disenfranchisement which John Edwards, were he elected, proposes to eliminate 22 years after he leaves office.   http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches20060622 

<href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Much of the poverty of American families derives from the fact that women heads of household have less access to well-paying jobs even when they are well-qualified for those jobs.  http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm   And when the historically disenfranchised do achieve responsible jobs, they continue to be paid less than white men are.  http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record _id=91&page=91 These historical and continuing patterns of political and economic disenfranchisement cause the persistent poverty which John Edwards has proposed to alleviate by the year 2038.  

Women and children are much more likely to be poor, and minorities are more likely to be poor as well. It might well be considered patronizing to suggest that a white man is better qualified to understand and address a problem that effects women and minorities more than anyone else. Edwards is saying, "Trust me and I'll try and solve your problem." Women and minorities are saying more loudly now than ever, "Give us a chance and we'll solve this problem for ourselves!"

It may seem radical to try give women and minorities a chance after so long disregarding this alternaive out of hand. Yet - for people concerned about poverty - empowering women and minorities to solve their own problems really makes much more sense. But, John Edwards is saying to women and minorities, "If you give me your sandwhich, I'll tell you what it tastes like."

But the appeal of John Edwards' solution is understandably alluring - even ingenious - because it proposes to change the status quo in thirty years by maintaining it right now.

It is not unconceivable that electing yet another white man to the Presidency would lead to a diminuition in the poverty of the historically disenfranchised, with John Edwards serving as a "pass through" for those who have historically been disincluded legally and by custom.  But this is a very convoluted way of achieving what could be achieved much more directly by electing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the White House.  http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007 /01/two-americas-enfranchised-and.html

Of course, ending disenfranchisement is not the only goal of the Presidency, but it is John Edwards' raison d' être, which is why electing Hillary and Barack is the best way to achieve the goal that John Edwards espouses.

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporting-edwards-perpetuates-status.html

francislholland@yahoo.com

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, racism, sexism, suffrage (all tags)

Comments

56 Comments

Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one, Francis.

by clarkent 2007-02-19 12:53PM | 0 recs
yeah.....let's support

the spouse of a two term president who IS the washington DC insider, with more PAC money and lobbyist money than God because that will change politics.

Franics only uses Obama as window dressing for Hillary, who even he would have a hard time defending in a diary with this title if he couldn't throw in Obama's image.

I call bullshit too...

by TarHeel 2007-02-19 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah.....let's support...DLC Candidates

FH loves DLC members. (S)he probably doesn't want or believe in single-payer but just tries to use it as a wedge issue. I say bullshit. FH was banned by popular demand from DKos for this kind of dishonest garbage.

by FishOutofWater 2007-02-20 06:43AM | 0 recs
Do you disagree? Why?

If you call bullshit, you ought to offer a reason why.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you disagree? Why?

You're supposed to support the best man for the job.

by scaryice 2007-02-19 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you disagree? Why?

best "person"

by kevin22262 2007-02-19 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you disagree? Why?

I disagree because if we want to change the status quo we should elect someone who we believe will really the change Washington. Edwards is for publicly financed campaigns, for universal health care, for re-hauling HUD, for eliminating black box voting, for the card check, and he created a college for everyone program. It shouldn't be about race or gender when choosing a candidate. Everyone should support who they think will change this country for the better.

by Sarah Lane 2007-02-19 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you disagree? Why?

Well, Julius L. Chambers believes differently than you do. Kate Michelmann does, too. In fact, Kate Michelman goes on to say:

Hillary's run is historic. And there was a certain part of me that said, "How could you not be a part of this given all you've worked for?" And I do think it is really exciting and important and Hillary is a very fine candidate. But, again, for me, John's vision was very compelling. And women are not going to vote only because we have a woman running, but rather look at who will do the most for women and families. That's not to say that Hillary or Barack or Bill Richardson won't do good things for women. I just don't think it's an automatic vote [for Hillary] because you're a woman, though many women [may] feel they have to support the first woman candidate. Women will also be looking at the candidates' views, and at whether the candidates will lead them in the way they want to be led. I've never been known to do the expected, I suppose.

So I'm going to have to call bullshit on your statement that John Edwards represents the status quo.

by clarkent 2007-02-19 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

John Edwards supports economic fairness and that undermines the status quo.  Identity politics is the means by which the corporatists retain power.  

by littafi 2007-02-19 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

Electing 44 consecutive white men is the essence and epitomy of "identity politics".  Electing white men over and over again, to the exclusion of others and at all levels of government is part of the problem of white identity politics.  Electing the 44th consecutive white male president only exacerbates the problem of hegemonic white male identity politics.

If this were not so, then why does the media keep asking whether America is "ready" for a woman or a Black?  Isn't it because the traditional "identity" of American presidents is "white male"?  Therein lies the problem of American identity politics.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

Francis, I recommended your diary the other day because I think that it's important that we have a real, frank discussion of race in the blogosphere.  

But here, I've got to part company with you.  I think the logic holding your post together is thin at best.  John Edwards has the strongest views, and only clear programs associated with alleviating poverty out of all the candidates.  That matters.  Policy and the will to implement it matters more than a symbol, which is primarily what you are advocating.

If your logic were sound, then I'd expect you would advocate electing Clarence Thomas or Gov. Michael Steele as President purely because of their blackness, with a total disregard to their odious policies.

This does not make sense politically or pragmatically.

by Mike Connery 2007-02-19 12:59PM | 0 recs
Why mention Clarence Thomas or Steele at all here?

Why would you raise the strawman of electing Black Republicans when there is a liberal Democratic woman and a liberal Democratic man running for President?  

Since we all are at MyDD because we want to elect Democrats, and since I have suggested electing Democrats who are actively running for office, I can't for the life of me see what relevance the Republican Blacks have in all of this.

f your logic were sound, then I'd expect you would advocate electing Clarence Thomas or Gov. Michael Steele as President purely because of their blackness, with a total disregard to their odious policies.
 

I'm not following you on that.  I have recommended electing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and you suggest that MY logic requires the election of Republicans.  If  so, I would like for you to explain to me why that would be the case.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why mention Clarence Thomas or Steele at all h

Because you are basing your support and argument solely on their race and gender at the expense of policies that could support those who have been disenfranchised.  

Maybe I was inarticulate, but your argument is that the symbol of electing an african american or a woman president will do more to advance the rights of the disenfranchised than electing a white man - even if the policies supported by that white man would be more advantageous to disenfrachised groups than the policies of the symbolic candidate.

That makes no sense to me, and led me to the hyperbolic - though not necessarily out of the blue - example of the Repubican candidates.

by Mike Connery 2007-02-19 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why mention

Why not recommend just Obama? Hillary's people who will take over the government and are the same set of jokers who made her a hardliner with respect to the Iraq war. They are the same set of jokers that have marginilized people like Maxine Waters(You did hear how Joe Lieberman was able to insult Waters on national tv) and yet Hillary, this great friend of black people did not see fit to voice her outrage while she had the time to commment on Kerry's troops joke.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 07:18PM | 0 recs
LMAO

Support Hillary Clinton, the anti-establishment candidate!

Francis Holland, you're going to have to do better than this. Look at the Edwards health care plan. It is a great plan that gives us the potential to develop a single-payer system. HRC rejected single-payer in 1993, and I've never seen any evidence that she will propose any kind of serious universal health care plan.

Look at the establishment types supporting Clinton. Would they be doing that if they expected her to undermine the status quo?

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-19 01:13PM | 0 recs
Is Edwards' Health Plan Single Payer?

A former North Carolina senator making a second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards, has chosen not to embrace a single-payer health insurance plan, disappointing activists who contend that only a radical overhaul of the health care system can ensure that all Americans are insured.

During an appearance yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Edwards said he plans to announce details today of a plan that would result in universal coverage by building on the current employer-based system.

The Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004 said his plan would cost between $90 billion and $120 billion a year and would require a tax hike. "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes," he said. Mr. Edwards said he would roll back President Bush's income tax cut for Americans making more than $200,000, but he did not indicate if other taxes would also increase as the new plan was implemented.

"We take the 46 million, 47 million people who don't have health care coverage. We expand Medicaid. We provide subsidies for people who don't have coverage. We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage, or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets," Mr. Edwards said. He appeared to be describing what policy experts refer to as "pay or play" or an "employer mandate." In a bid to mollify liberal Democrats who back a single-payer system, Mr. Edwards highlighted the options for individuals to buy into new government-sponsored plans that would be set up in various regions of the country. "One of the choices, by the way, available in these health markets is the government plan. So people who like the idea of a single-payer insurer health plan, that is actually one of the alternatives that people can choose," he said.

"That's not the single payer we're talking about," a former director of Physicians for a National Health Program, Don McCanne, told The New York Sun. "That's way, way short of single payer."

During a speech in California in December, Mr. Edwards indicated that he and his advisers were mulling the idea of a single-payer system, akin to those used in Canada and Britain. "I think there's a legitimate debate that should take place on single payer versus building on the existing system. There are honestly good arguments on both sides of that debate," he said. "Those are the arguments that I'm taking into consideration as I'm trying to make my own decision."

Dr. McCanne said Mr. Edwards's comments on NBC yesterday dashed the hopes of single-payer advocates who were hoping that Mr. Edwards would embrace their goal. "It put us into a funk," he said.

SNIP

Mr. Kucinich said he suspects that his colleagues are reluctant to back single-payer insurance out of fear that they will lose campaign donations from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

SNIP

Mr. Jennings also said Mr. Edwards might quietly sell his plan as a stepping stone to a government-funded system. "What he's going to tell single-payer advocates is that this will become a single-payer plan, [that] everyone will eventually go there."  http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/e dwards_becomes_the_.php(Emphasis added, because this program is NOT single payer and there is no particular reason to believe that it would become single-payer, even if it were enacted.  Saying that this COULD BECOME single payer is like saying that a one bedroom shack could become a mansion.  

As you can see from this article, Physicians for a National Health Plan don't much like this proposal.  They consider it a disappointment, because it is NOT single-payer.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Edwards' Health Plan Single Payer?

Here's what Physicians for a National Health Program says about Edwards' proposal:

A former North Carolina senator making a second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards, has chosen not to embrace a single-payer health insurance plan, disappointing activists who contend that only a radical overhaul of the health care system can ensure that all Americans are insured.

During an appearance yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Edwards said he plans to announce details today of a plan that would result in universal coverage by building on the current employer-based system.

The Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004 said his plan would cost between $90 billion and $120 billion a year and would require a tax hike. "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes," he said. Mr. Edwards said he would roll back President Bush's income tax cut for Americans making more than $200,000, but he did not indicate if other taxes would also increase as the new plan was implemented.

"We take the 46 million, 47 million people who don't have health care coverage. We expand Medicaid. We provide subsidies for people who don't have coverage. We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage, or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets," Mr. Edwards said. He appeared to be describing what policy experts refer to as "pay or play" or an "employer mandate." In a bid to mollify liberal Democrats who back a single-payer system, Mr. Edwards highlighted the options for individuals to buy into new government-sponsored plans that would be set up in various regions of the country. "One of the choices, by the way, available in these health markets is the government plan. So people who like the idea of a single-payer insurer health plan, that is actually one of the alternatives that people can choose," he said.

"That's not the single payer we're talking about," a former director of Physicians for a National Health Program, Don McCanne, told The New York Sun. "That's way, way short of single payer."

During a speech in California in December, Mr. Edwards indicated that he and his advisers were mulling the idea of a single-payer system, akin to those used in Canada and Britain. "I think there's a legitimate debate that should take place on single payer versus building on the existing system. There are honestly good arguments on both sides of that debate," he said. "Those are the arguments that I'm taking into consideration as I'm trying to make my own decision."

Dr. McCanne said Mr. Edwards's comments on NBC yesterday dashed the hopes of single-payer advocates who were hoping that Mr. Edwards would embrace their goal. "It put us into a funk," he said.

SNIP

Mr. Kucinich said he suspects that his colleagues are reluctant to back single-payer insurance out of fear that they will lose campaign donations from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

SNIP

Mr. Jennings also said Mr. Edwards might quietly sell his plan as a stepping stone to a government-funded system. "What he's going to tell single-payer advocates is that this will become a single-payer plan, [that] everyone will eventually go there."  http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/e dwards_becomes_the_.php

(Emphasis is added, because this program is NOT single payer and there is no particular reason to believe that it would become single-payer, even if it were enacted.  Saying that this COULD BECOME single payer is like saying that a one bedroom shack could become a mansion.)  

As you can see from this article, Physicians for a National Health Plan don't much like this proposal.  They consider it a disappointment, because it is NOT single-payer.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:19PM | 0 recs
You're wrong again

and that article is misleading.  

Edwards's plan offers a single payer plan as an option to compete in the market against private health plans.

If it wins, we all win.  If not, it has made private plans better.  Personally, I think they have no hope of competing against a well-run single payer system.

You really need to stop lying and being a sexist racist.

Might help you.

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-19 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You're wrong again

I think that there's something very important in the approach that Edwards is taking.  

Private insurance isn't going to be able to compete against the government plan.

So what will happen is that we're going to end up with most people on government insurance because it won in the marketplace/

Not only that, for the millions of workers who have foregone increased compensation in exchange for health coverage will be able to renegotiate with the company so that the reduced cost for benefits in going to a government insurance system is reflected in increased wages for workers.

By imposing a single payer system  without a phase in, these workers will effectively see their compensation reduced as the wages that they've foregone in exchange for health benefits are handed over to the company.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-02-19 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You're wrong again

You really should stop zeroing out everyone's comments, DrFrank. We put a lot into our comments, and flagrant zeroing does not enhance a blog constituent's good standing.

by blues 2007-02-20 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: You're wrong again

I am not zeroing "everyone's" comments.  And I don't zero comments which required "a lot of tought."

on the contrary, I zero the idiots.

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-21 08:17PM | 0 recs
Nothing like

Trivializing real issues of race and class in politics by hiding behind them to shill for a candidate. Nice additional touch by tokenizing the African-American candidate into the powerless second bananna job.

Try just openly being the family retainer, royalist, instead of smearing real issues with shilling.

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-19 01:28PM | 0 recs
I don't think I've trivialized anything

The status quo is the 43-consecutive term white male monopoly of the Presidency.  It started in colonial times, continued throughout the slavery period, continued after women won the right to vote, and it continues to this day. The single most obvious thing that we HAVE NOT TRIED in addressing poverty is inclusion of women and Blacks in government commensurate with our numbers in the population.

John Edwards says he wants to be president to end poverty.   To me, that's like saying, "I want to eat your lunch so I can tell you what it tastes like".  I say, don't do us any favors!

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:23PM | 0 recs
The poor
The poor are the only universally disenfranchised.  Middle class women, blacks, and others have more clout in society than the poor.
littafi is right- race/gender identity politics can be used to sustain the false conciousness.  You are building walls between us that are unnecessary and distract us from reality.  Besides, when you write things like this, francis, it is an insult to every white man that believes in equality.
Mike is right, too, and I've tried to make this point before.  Should we support JC Watts and Liddy Dole?  NO.  Race/gender is a horrible reason to support or oppose someone.
by jallen 2007-02-19 01:29PM | 0 recs
Poverty != Disenfranchisement

While Poverty leads to Disenfranchisement, I don't consider them to be the same thing (as an obvious example, in many areas, in many times in the U.S.A., equivalently poor white males have been more enfranchised than poor African-American males). Put very simply, if I primarily want to alleviate poverty, I'd vote for Edwards. If I primarily want to reduce gender-based Disenfranchisement, I'd vote for Hillary. If I primarily want to reduce race-based Disenfranchisement, I'd vote for Obama.

by Zimbel 2007-02-19 01:50PM | 0 recs
Political participation is for improving finances

If you want to improve the financial prospects of women, who are the heads of most households these days, the only way to do so is for women to win more influence in our nation's politics, where they can insist on political policies that address their financial problems.  Political and economic empowerment are inextricably related.  If you are impotent in government, you will be impotent economically as well.  That's why large corporations donate so much money to political candidates:  They realize that, too a large degree, their profits will depend upon decisions made by the government and they want people in government who will understand their issues and make decisions that are favorable to their interests.  Women and Blacks need the same thing, and they can't get it when women are just 16% of the US Senate and Blacks just 1% of the US Senate.

It is patronizing to suggest electing a white man to solve a problem that principally effects women.    It's like starting a poverty program where all of the counselors are men and then wondering why the program hasn't brought more women into the workforce!

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
race/gender as a reason to vote

I disagree, a lot:

When we elect a president, we don't do so to simply "solve a problem that principally effects women".  We elect them for a heck of a lot more.  

It isn't true that the only way to empower women (and blacks) is by having more elected to office.  No way.  Another way is having women and blacks in leadership positions in business.  

For that matter, no one can 'solve' poverty.  Including government.

Elected white males don't specifically speak for all white males.  

by jptrenn 2007-02-19 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Political participation is for

Electing Hillary Clinton is no more empowering to women than electing Benazir Bhutto was for Pakistan. She got elected because of her dad's name. Hillary will get a lot of votes because of her husband's name. That is how she earned her goodwill. You are just being a blind follower. I have seen many people who support Hillary now bash Bush repeatedly over how stupid the Iraq war was, yet are prepared to send to the White House a lady who did the least to oppose Bush on this war among the current slate of Democratic candidates. Nice message that will send Bush and the Bushies and the DLCers who have nearly ruined the Dem party in the Dean era.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Political participation is for

I have seen many people who support Hillary now bash Bush repeatedly over how stupid the Iraq war was, yet are prepared to send to the White House a lady who did the least to oppose Bush on this war among the current slate of Democratic candidates.

Actually, Edwards co-sponsored S.J.RES.46, "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." Of course he's since recanted voting for it, but to say Clinton did the least to oppose Bush is inaccurate. At the time, Edwards was an enabler.

by domma 2007-02-19 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Political participation is for

As was Hillary. And Edwards was the quickest to recant it. Much earlier than Hillary did. And Hillary has had the benefit of interacting with Bill CLinton's advisers on foreign affairs than a novice like Edwards who entered politics on an international level much later.

Edwards showed more growth than Hillary in the last 5 years. Hillary has regressed from her 90s years where she was a good first lady and did a good job with foreign leaders. This is not just bout the Iraq war vote(though I do think the war vote is an automatic minus, but not a disqualification level minus), but also about how the politician has learned from the mistake commited in the iraq war vote. Hillary expressed some lame regret only when she realizes she needs to calm  down potential dissenters.

by Pravin 2007-02-20 12:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

hmm, apparently the gist of this post is that if you are white, male, and have made a good living for yourself, somehow that disqualifies you from being president regardless of whatever ideas you have put forward.

Pretty amazing stuff. And about as un-Democratic an idea as I've seen. And when it comes down to it, pretty racist.

As an aside, Edwards has said that if anyone is not voting for Obama because of his race or Hillary because of her gender, then he doesnt want their vote.

People are free to vote for whoever they like regardless, but basing your choice solely on any candidates race or gender, whatever it is, is sad and shallow. I think every single democratic candidate would agree on that.

Its also quite a backhanded slap to Hillary and Obama, basiclaly limiting and defining them solely by their gender and race. If I was a supporter of either of them, I would be offended by this post. Part of the reason why they are running I would assume is to show that race and gender bias can be overcome and America as a country can move beyond such narrow minded thinking.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 02:11PM | 0 recs
Vote for Hillary

her Estrogen levels are higher and she has two X chromosomes

by TarHeel 2007-02-19 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

No, the gist of this post is that after 43 consecutive white male presidencies, electing another white male president isn't the best way to alleviate the economic problems that have resulted for those groups who have NEVER held the presidency.

You define the problem is that somebody is hungry then give THAT person a sandwhich, don't give John Edwards a sandwhich to alleviate someone else's hunger.  It simply doesn't make any sense.

The Edwards promise(as paraphrased humorously by me):  'If you let me eat your sandwhich, I'll tell you what it tastes like.'

Women are the majority of the United States AND the group most affected by poverty.  So, isn't it patronizing to suggest electing a white man to solve a problem that effects white women more than anyone else.

I think John Edwards has just found a charitable reason for us to give him what his ego and ambition require.  

Poverty affects women more than anyone else, so lets elect a woman  - for once - to address the problem of women  and families' poverty.  It's pretty radical to suggest that people solve their own problems, but let's give it a try and see what happens!

by francislholland 2007-02-19 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

why do you automatically assume a woman is going to be better for women's issues and Edwards would be worse? Judge on their ideas and not their gender or race. You do a disservice to the Hillary and Obama campaigns.

Your post here seems to be doing exactly what you have disparaged:

"Likewise, a country that excludes seventy percent of its citizens from participation in its highest office based simply on their skin-color and/or gender will never be the best country that it can be."

"The Best and the Brightest, and Screw the Biases!"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/29 /95825/403

apparently you would exclude the other 30% solely on the basis of "skin-color and/or gender" just as easily. Its the same damn thing.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 02:53PM | 0 recs
After 43 consecutive men . . .

Every time you give a woman a job, regardless of how well she does the job, you're helping to lift a woman and her family out of poverty.  The more senior is the woman to whom you give the job, the more likely it is that she will hire even more women and lift even more women and their families out of poverty.

It's ironic that we've tried giving (tax) money to the rich to help the poor, but we've never tried equalizing power in our government to help women and their families rise out of poverty.  It's a radical solution, but considering that we've already tried John Edwards' solution many times, why not try a more inuitively logical approach:  Put women in power and let them solve the problem of women and families living in poverty.

Is it really a coincidence that women are 16% of the US Senate and that women in America earn 25%(?) less than men overall?  Of course not!  If women held the levers of power, they would exercise that power to lift themselves out of poverty.  Meanwhile, men have always used the levers of power to keep themselves privileged relative to women. So, electing a man to lift women out of poverty is a hairbrained idea, like wishing for winter to drive out the cold.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: After 43 consecutive men . . .

Your ideas might have a little more credence if Hillary started making solving poverty a central focus of her campaign and stopped taking PAC money.

Until either of these happen, you've got a pretty hard sell. She's about as establishment as you can.

A lot of people would love to see a woman president. But that doesn't mean that should be Hillary. And doesnt mean we should automatically discount anyone else who isn't a woman solely based on gender.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 03:16PM | 0 recs
Does she need to say that?

84% of the US Senate is men and poverty continues unabated, as does women's lack of political power to make choices to alleviate their own poverty.  

If you give a person food (i.e. political power), how do you know they'll eat it?  Well give it to them for once and see how it works out!

I don't think Hillary should make poverty the central focus of her campaign, because people know that increased political power for women and less discrimination will inevitably increase women's opportunities and reduce their poverty. Hillary's presidential candidacy is a step in that direction, and we need to validate and promote that with our votes.  

Does voting against liberal Democratic women help to lift women out of poverty?  I don't think it does.  But it's a novel and ingenious argument!

It's only if you ignore the fact that Hillary is a liberal Democratic woman that you can say that she is "establishment".  But, the "establishment" is overwhelmingly white and male.  That, I contend, is an essential fact about an establishment that has historically coincided with high levels of poverty for women and minorities.  

John Edwards says that he is different.  He says that he wants to be President NOT to lift up his own group (white men), but to lift up ANOTHER group( the ´poor, who are proportionately more comprised of women and minorities).  So, the question becomes, is electing a white man the best way to lift up white women and minorities?  It's an ingenious argument that Edwards is making, but I don't accept it.

Ironically, I think it's precisely because Edwards has proposed this as the central argument for his campaign that he is doing poorly in the polls.  It just doesn't make any intuitive sense, in a race against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

And most Americans (including Barack Obama in his Hope book) agree that the best way to lift up ANY group is through equal opportunities for jobs and other economic participation in the economy and in Government.  The best way to promote that equal opportunity with your vote in 2008 is to cast a vote that says, "Listen up, America, this is the land of equal opportunity from the Presidency on down!"  Electing the 44th white male president and rejecting a woman and a Black man is not the way to send that new message.

And so, if a voter shares John Edwards' goal of ending poverty, then a voter needs to vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson.  Logic compels this result, if you follow it through from Edwards signature issue to the reasons for the problem that he seeks to address, and on to the most obvious ways to address that problem, by increased societal participation by members of the target groups.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 03:47PM | 0 recs
After 43 consecutive white male presidencies

you can hardly assert that electing a woman or a Black man now means that we are excluding white men from the Presidency.  

John Edwards says that he wants to be president to end poverty.  That's the reason that HE offers.  That being the case, it raises a much larger issue of why women (mostly) and minorities are poor in the first place.  If you conclude that lack of political power is one of the reasons that women continue to benefit less from the nation's economy, then you have to conclude that electing a woman president would help to alleviate the problem of women's lack of political power in America.

It would be a strange result indeed if white men ran against all of the Democratic women in Congress, saying "Elect me instead of Ms. Ex, because I will end the problem of women's poverty better than Ms. Ex will.)  If we accepted that argument and ended up with a 100% male Congress, would that help or hurt the problem of ending women's poverty?

Empowering women is the best way to end women's poverty.  Electing John Edwards is not the most obvious way to empower women politically.  As a solution, it is attenuated at best.

by francislholland 2007-02-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
As the Rev. Jesse Jackson says...

..."It's not about gender, it's about the agenda. It's not about race, it's about THE race."

by MeanBoneII 2007-02-19 02:35PM | 0 recs
Why's a white man the best to end women's poverty?

You'll have to admit that it's a bit presumptuous for John Edwards to say that he knows more about ending women's poverty than women know, and more about ending minority's poverty than minorities know.  What's the basis of this special knowledge and ability that admittedly isn't based on specialized training and isn't based on personal experience?

by francislholland 2007-02-19 03:14PM | 0 recs
No, I don;t have to admit that at all

thanks for playing.

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-19 05:51PM | 0 recs
Racism is ugly no matter the origin

This guy is a racist.

He is race-baiting.

He is a Lyndon LaRouche operative.

They always present with the same, manic, style, because their garbage is always from the same source: good old Lyndon LaRouche, otherwise known as, the Roach.

If you ignore him, he will go away.

by jack reed 2007-02-19 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo
though I am a supporter of Barack Obama, I gotta say, this is not fair.  edwards is a white man but, has every right to run for the presidency.
Yes, it would be nice to break up the white boy network as leaders but, he is just as viable a candidate as anyone else.  He has alot to offer and just because he's white doesn't mean a thing.
I am hoping to see a President Obama myself but, let's just hope whoever gets the job is good and a hell of alot better than shrub.
by vwcat 2007-02-19 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

Francis, I thought elections were supposed to be about ideas.

And I'm a big Bill Clinton fan.
Wouldn't voting for him have been the status quo?

I mention this because I think you like Bill, too.
That's why I don't think this post works.

by v2aggie2 2007-02-19 05:36PM | 0 recs
I believe I have called you on this before

This is a racist and sexist argument, which reduces Obama and Clinton to little more than exemplars of race or gender.

If this is the level to which Obama and Clinton have to sink to win, then I am pretty sure neither of them will want the prize.

As Edwards said just last week:  "If you won't vote for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama because of race and gender, don't bother voting for me, because I don't want your vote."

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-19 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

There is only one status quo that matters right now, and it is the ever expanding body count in Iraq.  If the Clintons gave a crap about that they wouldn't have lied to Connecticut voters and told them that Lieberman was the same as Lamont, when it is clear that Lieberman is quite prowar.

by Dameocrat 2007-02-19 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

I didn't see you pros making thse arguments for Carol Mosley Braun who actually did address women in poverty.

by Dameocrat 2007-02-19 06:05PM | 0 recs
Carol Mosley Braun

Trust me, if Carol was even creating an exploratory committee, I would have already cut a check for her. I supported her position on every issue, up and down the line, when she ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.

As it is, I'm at best leaning for one candidate or another, depending on the month.

by Zimbel 2007-02-20 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

This is such a sophomoric and superficial argument.  Man, I can't believe that anyone is actually persuaded by this type of cheap trick posing as reason.

by bedobe 2007-02-19 06:20PM | 0 recs
The idea is

that one is entitled compete fairly, regardless of one's race, gender or orientation. One is not entitled to win, necessarily.

by Rooktoven 2007-02-19 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The idea is

Exactly, I would give a woman candidate more consideration early on to see if there is some potential to break the male barrier. After that, it is pretty much upto her to prove herself. I gave Hillary 5 years of consideration. She has pretty much declared herself as future President since she started running for Senate.

Same with minority candidates. We are at the stage in history where it will be nice to break the barrier. So I will make sure I give Obama more time than the typical white candidate to see if he can prove himself.

But after all said and done, the best candidate will get my vote.

Hillary is out. Obama is still being considered by me.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

Francis, this is disappointing.  I know you can do better than this.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 06:41PM | 0 recs
You are persistent

YOu still cling on to the fantasy that Hillary represents some kind of change. Edwards is not my first choice by any means. But his election as President preserves the status quo at the very top. His innercircle is not the same as the Clintons. He still has a lot of insiders, but empowering a different set of insiders is not as damaging as empowering the same set of insiders because you will not have a counterbalance if you keep empowering this one set. So I will be less concerned with the status quo if Edwards is a President versus a Hillary who seems to be on a mission that she has balls that even Lewisnky will take a liking to.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 07:15PM | 0 recs
Hollandosphere

There are valid points to discuss a Blackosphere/Whitosphere divide. But in your case, you communicate in a Hollandosphere.

Before we get the inevitable future whining about how you feel ostracized here, remember users like GeorgeP are getting challenged for their views on Hlllary too.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporting Edwards Perpetuates the Status Quo

Francis ....

the readers of this blog are much too knowledgable to accept this spin at face value. most of the responses I have read so far have been very cogent as the bullshit has been revealed.

let me make on thing clear, i support edwards for many reasons but probably the most germaine is: he actually represents "real democrats" if i might borrow a wellstone term.

by bamabarrron 2007-02-20 12:24AM | 0 recs
FH Banned from DKos by the Community

For being a dishonest divisive destructive "concern troll".

by FishOutofWater 2007-02-20 06:37AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads