Female blogger reaches "breaking point" with Edwards

Amanda Marcotte is an influential and famously passionate supporter of John Edwards' candidacy. As the media reported last year, she threw herself under a bus to avoid harming his candidacy. So when she breaks with Edwards' campaign over his sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton yesterday, we need to pay attention. Here's what Edwards said via ABCNews:

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., ... reacted to rival Sen. Hillary Clinton's emotional moment Monday.

Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business," Edwards told reporters in Laconia, New Hampshire.

Earlier in the day, Clinton became emotional when speaking to a group of voters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Marcotte writes today at Pandagon blog:

Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It's bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she's too feminine or too scary, but if she's more stoic, she's a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much.

Here's the video of Sen. Clinton's "emotional" moment:


About that moment, Taylor Marsh eloquently writes in "Emotional Clinton on the Trail":

[P]eople know when something is contrived. There is no doubt that she's exhausted and the wall politicians usually erect completely falls in this exchange. She shared her honest feelings with the voters, revealing the Hillary people who've known her for years says is behind the politician we see every day. It's a continuation of the "That hurts my feelings," likability moment during the debate on Saturday, which was delivered so flawlessly. There's a part of Hillary Clinton that has not been revealed to the public. It's who she is and people need to meet that part of her. It was a very real moment. ... (Read all.)

Taylor added this update:

UPDATE:More from the WSJ:

Allison Hampton, a retired teacher who was leaning toward voting for Barack Obama, says she'll now go with Clinton. "When she broke up at the end, that came from the heart," Hampton said. "She's genuine and extremely intelligent." (Read all.)

It is clear that Marcotte reacted as did Allison Hampton.  So would anyone.  It was a genuine moment, and powerful in that it exposed her humanity -- but not her fragility, as John Edwards wrongly attempted to convey.  That was a huge mistake by him.  He worked with her for four years in the U.S. Senate and knows her well from the campaign trail.  He knows what she's made of, and shouldn't spin false perceptions.

Like I've said, I have liked Edwards a lot.  He has been my STRONG second choice.  I've said many times that I could see Edwards in the Oval.  But ... now?

I hope he apologizes.  He has to apologize.


ABOUT AMANDA MARCOTTE:  If you weren't closely watching political news last year -- or you weren't attached with an umbilical cord to Daily Kos, where this was huge news -- you may have missed what Marcotte did to avoid damage to Edwards' campaign (via the National Journal):

Amanda Marcotte has resigned as the blogger for the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards. She blamed her decision on Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League who last week demanded that Edwards fire her for anti-Catholic statements at the blog Pandagon.

The Journal reports that Marcotte wrote in her letter of resignation:

[The campaign by Donohue] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

Some bloggers felt that Marcotte felt "encumbered by the campaign and unable to effectively defend herself from the right-wing." I don't know the intimate details. But she has been a strong defender of John Edwards.

Today, she broke with Edwards' campaign.  She may support Obama, she says, but is watching him carefully for any signs of sexism.

In the meantime, I reiterate my call for John Edwards to apologize.

Tags: Amanda Marcotte, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Pandagon (all tags)



Female blogger reaches "breaking point"

good for amanda. enough is enough. you can't support  a candidate that takes a cheap shot like that -"i'm a big strong man and i won't cry like hillary".  maybe a good move for a trial lawyer, but not very presidential.

by campskunk 2008-01-08 11:53AM | 0 recs
Yes, if anything's not "Presidential"...

It's trying to look "tough" by trash-talking a truly honorable woman who's also running for President. Sorry, but Edwards didn't make his case yesterday by bashing Hillary. He just looked like a prick.

by atdleft 2008-01-08 12:04PM | 0 recs
No bashing

He did not bash her. He did not say anything sexist. I think you are looking for a sexist remark much like the Obama people looked for a racist remark in what Hillary said.

Now what do you have to say?

by kevin22262 2008-01-08 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger

I like Edwards but I was really disappointed by that comment. He's usually so much smoother than that.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-08 12:34PM | 0 recs
as I wrote yesterday

this is the downside of pulling an all-nighter in the middle of a campaign. That was a mistake Edwards would ordinarily not make.

And let's not kid ourselves--the only reason journalists asked Edwards for a reaction on Hillary's tears was to set him up for a gaffe. Chip Reid of CBS has admitted that reporters get annoyed by how Edwards stays on message. They want him to make more mistakes so they have stories to cover:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=816

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger

Oh, he can be passive-aggressive slime.  Definitely pulled that act a lot late in his run against Kerry in February and March '04.

I'm not going to regret seeing him drop out.  I'll regret Elizabeth not getting a whole lot of gratitude or vindication.  Maybe she can be a professional advocate and he can go make movies or something.

by killjoy 2008-01-08 10:23PM | 0 recs
Marcotte later

changed her position when she learned the truth.

Good try at a smear, Susan and campskunk. But once again, you people are worng and stupid.

by TomP 2008-01-09 05:01AM | 0 recs
You people?
what people would those be?
I think you are stupid and wrong. So there.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 06:34AM | 0 recs
Tips & Comments welcome!7

Comments and tips welcome!

Last night, I also wrote this over at No Quarter, and invite you to join in the huge discussion there:

Protestors to Clinton: "Iron My Shirt"

-- Some sexist men came out of the woodwork, and all hell broke loose.

by susanhu 2008-01-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
I just don't know...

Why Edwards said this. Does he really think this kind of latent sexism scores brownie points? Does he really think he looks "tougher" by mouthing off like that? I agree with Amanda here... Edwards did look like a prick.

by atdleft 2008-01-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
it's natural to him

he believes real men slap down the girls.  He feels it in his gut. He's being true to himself.  Ick.  

by anna shane 2008-01-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips & Comments welcome!7

That's a great diary. I just read it. Please cross-post it here. It's really disturbing how little coverage or concern there is about such a blatent sexist attack on Clinton.

by LakersFan 2008-01-08 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips & Comments welcome!7

Thank you!  That's very kind of you to say.  I shall.  Will have to upload that image to ImageShack first.

At the end, I link to a rather long story I wrote a little while ago about Hillary's history of working for women and children.  It is long, but can easily be scanned because I've boldfaced the most important parts.  She has such a long history of work that it's rather impossible to summarize briefly.

OT:  Your username reminded me that I haven't been keeping up on basketball like I usually do.  I don't even know the standings.  Partly, too, it's because the Sonics' situation in Seattle is so tenuous, and because I don't live in Seattle anymore and can't get to the games.  My favorite year when I went to all the playoff games:  1993 (or 1994?, yikes), when the Sonics made it to the Western Conf. finals.  Get this:  I had tickets for all the playoff games.  The West. conf. finals cost me $12/ticket.  If they had made it to the finals, I would have paid $15/ticket.  Oh for those days again :)

by susanhu 2008-01-08 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips & Comments welcome!7

The ABC story completely misrepresented what Edwards said and but plenty of innuendo into his mouth.

Marcotte has backed off, maybe you should too. Sometimes the media tends to report what they want rather than what actually happened (witness the original "hillary crying" story).

by adamterando 2008-01-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips & Comments welcome!7
I wish everybody would get off their highhorses. Screams of racism, sexism, short & tall ism - I'm sick of it all. Hillary cried, I don't give a damn. Obama is glib, I don't give a damn. Edwards dared to say life is a bitch and then you die to Hillary, I don't give a damn. Oprah played the race card, and Hillary played the gender card. It works both ways, and I'm tired of all the whining about who hurt whose feelings.
by dkmich 2008-01-09 12:54AM | 0 recs
with Edwards

Maybe Amanda can go write another anti-Catholic tirade next.  She's a joke of a blogger and it was embarassing that Edwards ever hired her.

by Vox Populi 2008-01-08 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: with Edwards

Bloggers, like newpaper columnists, often are reflexively provocative - they like to and they need to write copy that will spark interest in their readers; and the immediacy of the blogging medium makes it even more likely that they'll often write stuff that isn't carefully thought out.

This is a perfect example.  Marcotte is proposing that Edwards is sexist (and therefore perhaps no longer deserving of her vote!) based on this remark?  The only thing that can be gleaned solely from this remark is that he might have been more gracious, in this instance. To propose, instead, that we should conclude there is something larger here - to the point of abandoning all the evidence we supporters had used up to now to form our opinion of him and his candidacy - is just not tenable.  

Regarding Clinton's behavior, as much as one can sympathize with a person being emotionally drained - and showing it a bit - when they are in the midst of something as grueling as a presidential campaign, one should also acknowledge that it was very unusual behavior for a presidential candidate. And yet it seems many people are acting as if this behavior should be viewed only sympathetically.  I don't think that's tenable either.  She is a candidate for president, and so everything she does, will to some degree be examined in that light.  

Dean was taken to task, mercilessly, for his exuberance in his speech to his supporters after losing Iowa; obviously, that level of ridicule was unfair, but even Dean, blunt as always, admitted that it was a mistake because it wasn't particularly "presidential" behavior (I think he said it might be appropriate to show such exuberance at his son's hockey game, but not on the campaign trail.)

by Rob in Vermont 2008-01-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

You know, I and several other Edwards supporters did not hesitate to take him to the woodshed over this.  I don't think you have to go making it a two-day story.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

I have a feeling that there will be a bigger news story tonight than "John Edwards is a meanie!"

by Vox Populi 2008-01-08 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

Dial me up when he apologizes, Steve.

by susanhu 2008-01-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

He ought to apologize.  But the issue has already been beaten to death either way.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 12:27PM | 0 recs
no more sexism now?

he need to do more than apologize, he needs to search his soul.  This kind of mockery isn't just nasty, it's heartless.  And very retro, not.  

by anna shane 2008-01-08 12:33PM | 0 recs
Yes, this is much more serious...

Than just another little campaign scandal. We're still dealing with sexism here, with the belief that "men are stronger than women" and that "women are too emotional to govern". So when men in power cry, it's supposedly OK... But when women in power cry, there's something wrong with that?

Indeed, John Edwards needs to do some soul-searching.

by atdleft 2008-01-08 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, this is much more serious...

Did Edwards cry?

If not, I don't see how it's a double standard.

Frankly, I'm sick of seeing Bush crying too.

He kills thousands of people and he cries about it.

Now I'm supposed to think "Oh. He cares, so it's OK."

Annoyed about Durbin and Boehner crying. Or Tony Snow.

What is this, anyway? Who coddles these people?

Make your decisions and suck it up and live with them, like millions of regular people do every day.

by Bush Bites 2008-01-08 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point
As a female, I think the female blogger needs to apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill. I think you need to apologize for the melodrama, "female blogger reaches breaking point". I think the world needs to apologize for turning everything into an issue of political incorrectness for which someone is required to apologize. If your/her support for Edwards was based on something so shallow that this is enough to get your shorts into such a huge knot, I can't even begin to imagine what criteria you used to pick your candidate. I wish everybody would just quit the nitpicking of everybody to death. This country has huge issues in which the Democratic Party is justly responsible. So while Rome burns, party partisans fiddle over fiddle faddle.
by dkmich 2008-01-09 01:07AM | 0 recs
yes let's forget ever having a woman

president because if we refuse to pay attention to these type of sexist tactics we never will.  We will be excusing this type of thing over and over and men will use it to win over and over.
No, it is important and the vote should tell you that.  The media, the other candidates all piled on Clinton and it was UGLY AND SEXIST and woman said "hold on there a minute boys, you are NOT going to do this to her".
Part of that imagery was Edwards and Obama double teaming Clinton in the debates and on the campaign trail.  For me it brought back every memory of all the times I have watched men circle the wagons to protect their power and not let women in.  I don't think that shutting the girl out because she is the girl was the intention of the two other candidates, but it was an ugly reminder to many of us and women reacted.  They reacted DK and that makes it real and it means that Edwards (who screwed himself with his very unpleasant behavior) and Obama need to confront their thinking about buddying up to shut her out.  It hurt both of them.
Because women gave her such a boost you simply can not say that sexism is not an issue.
Now the other thing is, and this is what hurt Obama, Union members came out strongly for Clinton.  The fact that Obama has little union support and has attacked tradition democratic party stalwarts as special interests, the fact that he has done all this talk of conciliation with republicans and even his claims about social security hurt him with partisan loyal democrats.

Then there is experience...those voters voted for Clinton by 71 percent, Edwards got twenty something percent and Obama ONLY 5 percent.  Experience is NOT a dirty word apparently and at least in NH Obama fail totally to make his case for "judgment" over experience.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: yes let's forget ever having a woman
Sexism is not my issue. The economy, jobs, globalization, and the environment are the key points. If that isn't taken care of, women and men will have nothing to compete for, unless it's goats. IF my choice was between the first female and the first black, I would vote for the first female. But I'm not interested in setting a Guiness World record, I'm interested in an economic future for my grandkids. Money may not buy happiness, but it sure helps.
by dkmich 2008-01-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

Steve M, my hat is off to you for criticizing him.  That makes me respect you, and respect your support for John Edwards.  You're not a blind follower.  

And I know he's better than that.  Just hope he doesn't do it again because it is very important -- if for no other reason than as an example to his children, including his two daughters, and even moreso to his son to show him how men can and must treat women respectfully.

by susanhu 2008-01-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches breaking point

I think when you are wrapped up in 24-hour campaigning, there's so much pressure to see every single thing through a political lens.  And I think that's the temptation Edwards gave into here - not a sexist urge, I hope, so much as an urge to turn it into a political point somehow.  Sometimes the right move is just to be classy and score your points somewhere else.

I assume you agree with me that there's no way a woman like Elizabeth would be with him all these years if he had a problem respecting women.  Although Elizabeth seems to have her issues with Hillary too, frankly, for reasons unknown to me.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 01:25PM | 0 recs
EE said
'poor Hillary, she has had to act like a man to get where she is".  She said at another time "I think I have been happier in my life than she has because of the choices I have made."
Steve, these are classic sexist smears against powerful ambitious women. My opinion is that the Edwards have a very traditional marriage and that this is the way they actually think.  I believe that they ARE sexist to that extent.  But if I am wrong and this was just a cynical ploy on her part to call out to sexist bigots, I really don't know what to say about that.  I think it's despicable for any woman to do such a thing.
And there might be a certain amount of envy on EE's part.  After all she must have had a certain amount of ambition as a young woman when she went out and got her law degree.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:26AM | 0 recs

What was sexist?

by kevin22262 2008-01-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Oh, just the implication...

That it's OK for men to show emotion, but not for women. Did Edwards' staffers give him the memo on not crying when he started showing emotion when talking about his past legal cases? And has he condemned CReeps like Willard Romney and John Boehner for crying on queue?

Gimme a break, we know where the sexism was hiding in yesterday's comment.

by atdleft 2008-01-08 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, just the implication...

It's okay for men to show emotion?  I think Ed Muskie might disagree with you.  It may not have been wise for Edwards to pull a page out of the GOP playbook yesterday, but I can guarantee you if it had been Obama choking up because of the stress, Bill Clinton would have been all over that with stronger language than anything  Edwards said.  Give me a break indeed.

by Piuma 2008-01-08 12:48PM | 0 recs
oh come on, try to learn a lesson here

in fact you don't know what Bill Clinton would have done.  Edwards HAS shown emotion on the campaign trail and I don't remember Clinton saying anything about it. So don't just make shit up.

And Muskie?  How long ago was that?  Things have changed since then.

This is not the first time the Edwards campaign has tried to appeal to American's latent sexist thinking.  In fact I believe it is the third time. They have a problem and they should stop now because they can't win and it is making them seem very hateful.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:35AM | 0 recs
Except Edwards never said

any of that nor implied it.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Except Edwards never said

yes he did and it is not the first time the campaign has tried to play that game.  Learn from it don't deny reality.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, just the implication...

He did not bash her. He did not say anything sexist. I think you are looking for a sexist remark much like the Obama people looked for a racist remark in what Hillary said about LBJ and MLK.

So are we going to start damning people simply by supposed implication?

Elizabeth would kick his butt if he was being sexist!

Now what do you have to say?

by kevin22262 2008-01-08 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, just the implication...
Next, it will be "Oh, just the <u>thought</u> This is all so junior high school, I don't know where to begin. PS: Elizabeth would have kicked his ass.
by dkmich 2008-01-09 01:12AM | 0 recs
I say you are a fool
EE said "I feel sorry for Hillary, she has had to act like a man to get where she is".
That is a classic sexist smear ahd she knows it. I don't know how old you are, but EE, Clinton and I and all women close to my age remember when that sort of thing was said about every woman who tried to be anything besides a nurse a teacher or a Mommy.
  Now why would she kick her husbands ass for making a sexist statement?
They are in agreement. Either they are sexist, both of them, or they agree that these are acceptable campaign tactics.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I say you are a fool

Show me that quote.

I am 45 by the way.

by kevin22262 2008-01-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
This has to be the most important issue in 2008

I'm glad you diaried this. I had no idea that John Edwards was such a disgusting, vile, sexist pig.

Oh, you left out the part where Edwards explicitly said he wasn't commenting on Hillary Clinton.

His exact words: "Oh, I don't really have anything to say about that."

Thank god we are moving beyond the trivialities of health care reform to the distorted surrealities of near tears.

by jedreport 2008-01-08 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: This has to be the most important issue in 200
of course he was commenting on Hillary Clinton.  All the adults and even the idiot media understand that. He made a boo boo, and people didn't just ignore it.  I am sorry you would like to pretend these things don't matter but they do.
So stop with the strawman argument/implication that anyone is trying to make it the main issue of the campaign.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:47AM | 0 recs
Edwards may not have said that

I just wrote Sexism Alive and Well on here and I link up to a story on DU that Edwards didn't actually say this.

I sure hope not and I can believe he didn't.

That said, I'm glad to see so many women starting to pipe up on the sexism going on.

and as far as former Pres. Bill blasting Obama on a fairy tale, that too is BS, it's his wife who is running and that trumps everything.  Besides it is a fairy tale.

by Robert Oak 2008-01-08 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards may not have said that

The "out of context" argument really doesn't wash with me.

Imagine if I said, "I have no comment whatsoever on President Bush.  By the way, I believe that our president really needs to not be a moron."  I hope people would not be foolish enough to defend me by arguing, "But he explicitly SAID he wasn't talking about Bush!"

I am disappointed in those of my fellow Edwards supporters who are willing to advance such a lame excuse.  You know, when you screw up, you screw up.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 12:31PM | 0 recs
don't get me wrong

I just wrote my first ever blog post not about something labor/economic related, about the incredible sexism going on in this campaign because I find this all so outrageous and shows how "stuck in the 50's" the US is with respect to sexism.

If he said it, he should massively apologize and blast himself, no doubt about it...but then Elizabeth is the one who really should be running too, what can I say, she's the real brain.

by Robert Oak 2008-01-08 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: don't get me wrong

Perhaps that is why she is not running.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards may not have said that

thank you Steve.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:49AM | 0 recs

Firstly, this is an old story now

You know very well Edwards wasn't talking about Clinton and he had no idea of the event at all when he was asked about it.

Now when Hillary said Edwards has never fought for anyone in his life, all these families he's fighting for on the campaign, I didn't hear you call for an apology. Wonder why?

by Progressive America 2008-01-08 12:26PM | 0 recs
enough hate speech yet?

Edwards is the hate candidate, we're all sick of hate, and these nasty personal attacks.  I know he's losing, but he has no class about it. Those tee shirts that say iron my shirt, the truth is out Hillary didn't have to 'play the gender card' being a girl is quite enough, she just had to wait for the hate to seep up to Edwards and to some of Obama's supporters. Which is really wild, Obama's hope message is about ending the hate, but his supporters aren't supporting his hope message.  What gives, why isn't the DNC speaking out against hate speech?  This is why a real girl needs to be president, we can't rely on the guys to even notice that it's ugly and harmful.  Are there not enough crimes against women, must our own party leaders tolerate hate speech?  

by anna shane 2008-01-08 12:26PM | 0 recs
Oh Pleeze.

I am not here to defend any of the sexist stuff that has been going on in the campaign.  But your demagogery here just speaks for itself.  I wouldn't be surprised that some of this stuff may come from Clinton plants and am absolutely confident that John Edwards would not resort to such pathetic campaign tactics.  It is the fact that Hillary almost cried that is newsworthy by itself period, and it was the news media whom made a big deal of it, not John Edwards.  

by msnstd 2008-01-08 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: enough hate speech yet?

This is absolutely absurd.  Anything shred of legitimacy to the complaint is out the window because you are clearly crazy.  "Hate crime" ?  "Hate Speech"?

Seems like the facts got away from you and you keep running harder in the other direction.  Keep going until you abandon on the haters over at the DNC and in the progressive movement all toghether.

Where is Anna Burger on this?  Why isn't John Podesta crying foul.  Crooks, liars the lot of them.  

Please.  Go join Nader - Oh NO.  He didn't even abandon his support of Edwards over this.

And Steinem, she had that whole op-ed and never mentioned this assault on her candidate.  Simply an outrageous act by another hater.

Wow... Hating is fun now that you mention it.  Just a little roleplaying and I am right with you.  HATE HATE HATE!  YAY.

Anna Shame.

by Orlando 2008-01-08 03:01PM | 0 recs
yes, God forbid

woman go to far in making their case.  Woman must always be careful not to make too strong a case against sexism.  After all sexism never REALLY hurt anyone.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:55AM | 0 recs
How do you like this

Got it from Pandagon, at CNN:

REPORTER: Yesterday when Senator Clinton had a moment where she broke down and seemed emotion on camera, you responded to that by saying that the presidency is tough.  Are you suggesting that she's too weak to be president?  Is there a tinge of female bias there?

EDWARDS: Absolutely not.  What I said was the campaign trail is tough.  And it's tough on her, it's tough on me, it's tough on Senator Obama - it's tough on all of us.  And I have enormous respect for anybody - including Senator Clinton - who goes through this difficult process.

REPORTER: So what are you suggesting that the problem was with her crying?

EDWARDS: Nothing.  I didn't suggest a thing was wrong with it.  What I said was, I am ready to do this job, and I do believe that.

Edwards' initial response was insensitive, but he's been rightfully taken to task and I think he's walked back from it - hopefully to the satisfaction of his critics.

by Drew 2008-01-08 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: How do you like this

Well said, Drew.  But I do think he should also apologize.

By the way, I admire Steve M's efforts to speak out on this issue as well.  I do not admire those who say this is an "old story" or deny he was insensitive.

I WANT to stay on Edwards' side.  Sen. Clinton is still my first choice but I'd much prefer Edwards as the nominee than Obama.   He made an error yesterday -- and I think he has been unduly hard on Sen. Clinton, which I fear just helps Obama instead of himself.  I just hope he stays in the race because he's got the "right stuff."

by susanhu 2008-01-08 12:43PM | 0 recs
One thing I have learned

From the past few election cycles is no matter how much you like your candidate, it's better not to defend them when they're wrong.  And that's the case with this response.

I doubt he'll offer a straight-up apology, but I hope the quick pivot shows that he understands how foolish his initial response was.

by Drew 2008-01-08 01:03PM | 0 recs
Great Points!

I think everyone here needs to settle down before it gets too weird.  Just think what it will be like when it is the election itself.  If it is a Hillary or Obama as the Democratic Presidential nominee, it is going to get very, very nasty.  I agree that the way Hillary is using Kennedys and MLK in attacks against Obama, may also deserve some introspection.

by msnstd 2008-01-08 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: How do you like this

I'd ask you to back up what you have said but I know you can't.  

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: How do you like this

"I apologize if I gave any offense" would have fit in there quite nicely.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: How do you like this
well it would be nice if he wasn't lying and denying what he said and what he meant.
It is a non apology and he is trying to pretend he didn't do what he did.  I don't know what to say to that.  I know that is what he has to do because to admit it would sink him, but I am not impressed with his candor certainly since there is none.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 04:58AM | 0 recs
Turn Up The Heat!

Now you're on the right track.

by mboehm 2008-01-08 12:37PM | 0 recs
Much Ado About Substantially Nothing

Watching the tape of Hillary closely, and considering the context, including all the other things that the Clinton campaign "attempted" to do yesterday, I firmly believe that Hillary's "emotionally released" sound bite was premeditated and prepackaged. I mean, c'mon, watch the tape yourself.  Do not believe the partisans or the MSM.  Her comment was fully and completely scripted, as Keith Olbermann and other sensible commentators have concluded.

It looked to me like it was designed by her campaign to be uttered with a dash of emotion. It seems, however, that Hillary took her lines in the script right to the edge of maudlin...then probably crossed that line. Uhhhhh...no.  (And by the way, she didn't actually cry, so why should they even be asking about this?...Oh wait...that was the Clinton plan to shove Hillary emoting into the news, and they succeeded!)

Additionally, her comment that "this is personal" was a direct ripoff of what Edwards said during the NH debate a few hours before her scripted comment.  And, the MSM (essentially wanting John Edwards to be credited with nothing in this campaign) did not want to report the fact that this scripted moment was a direct ripoff of John Edwards less than 48 hours previously.  Because....?

That part of the script that had her deliver this line:  "some of us are right, and some of us are wrong", SHOULD have been the story of this particular episode.  In particular, the media should NOT have spent more than a minute reporting about her tearing up (which actually was trivial), and instead, immediately thereafter, asked Hillary to detail where SHE is right, and Barack Obama is wrong.  

She, and her lines, dropped a very blunt attack on her opponents, and she should have been asked to explain EXACTLY what she meant.  Instead, we got the soap opera reporting about emotions, which is what the Clinton campaign was trying to do with this script.  Oh, brother.  

Of course, the notion that a candidate on the campaign trail (whether it be a man or a woman) can say...in so many words...that I deserve sympathy, because this is SUCH hard work, and NOT receive a fair amount of scorn from the voters, is simply fantasy. If a male candidate whines about how hard it is on the campaign trail, they deserve the frowns that follow.

When George Bush kept saying in debates back in 2004, that "this is hard work" voters, to excuse his failures...THAT deserved scorn.  As I see it, if Bush couldn't stand the heat, then he should have gotten out of the kitchen.  If you can't do the job, then get out. Kerry should have said that to Bush's face when he whined during those debates.  And that would NOT have been tone deaf, (even if Bush were wearing a dress.)

The ABC blog report you reference on Edwards is hopelessly biased against Edwards, suggesting that he "pounced."  How about Edwards commented?  He didn't "pounce." He answered a question.  He answered?  What?  How could he?  He said that the Presidency is hard work, and grueling...which is...uhm...the truth.  

If the MSM were actually reporting on Edwards as their "favored candidate" (as they are presently with Obama), when Hillary whined about how hard it was for her to campaign all these hours, then Edwards would have been contrasted to Hillary. In particular, a fair media would have, at that juncture, reported that unlike Obama or Hillary, Edwards was showing incredible endurance, pulling all nighters (while the reporters following him drop like flies and doze off) and still remaining substantially lucid through it all.  

Instead of reporting that contrast, we get things like this diary, and that "pouncing" ABC blogger whose only interest is to use Edwards as a convenient dumping ground for garbage slams.

Look, those of us who are on the campaign trail talk to reporters.  We speak to them. We know that they like to trash Edwards.  Edwards is their chosen garbage dump. This diary is just more garbage.

by Demo37 2008-01-08 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Much Ado About Substantially Nothing

It's ridiculous to think that Hillary faked the whole thing.  The woman has been on the national stage for 16 years, and not once have we seen an indication that she's capable of whipping out some Meryl Streep-like performance at a moment's notice.

Now, if this were Bill we were talking about, completely different story.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 01:39PM | 0 recs
Not What I Said

Steve, you misinterpret what I said.  I did not say that "the whole thing" (what is the whole thing...the lines...the emotion?) was "faked."

Here is the reality as I saw it:

1) Hillary was tasked with delivering the scripted lines about this being very personal to me (John Edwards)...into the "right and wrong" part...through the "no idea on day one" part.  

2) She was asked to deliver these lines with a modicum of emotion, to "feel it" as we say in politics, and deliver the lines that day. That, I hope, we can agree on, because...well...that would be the most intelligent and useful way to deliver these lines.  Could I have delivered those lines with a bit of emotion?  You bet I could have.

3) She did a very capable job of doing tasks 1 and 2, but perhaps, for some out there, she pushed the emotion just a tad bit too far. She did not shed a tear.  Thus, as I see it, there really was no "emotions" story here.

4) The MSM decided to take the "she's showing emotional connections" bait, and they ran...well...silly with it. (Britney Spears news anyone?  Sigh: such is the state of our MSM.)  

5) The MSM should have focussed on the substance of Hillary's very stark attack. They also should have focussed on the idea of whether one candidate or another, might have greater endurance...because...uhm...Hillary just raised that issue with her comments about it being tough on her. Instead, they decided it was "emotions" they were interested in.

What we ended up with was silly reporting about "how" a candidate delivered her premeditated set of lines...with emotion.  And now, we have a diary dumping all this garbage on John Edwards because, if it happened in the race, it must be John Edwards fault. Oh brother.

by Demo37 2008-01-08 02:48PM | 0 recs
An Over-Emotional Reaction to Nothing

I have to disagree with all of the outrage about John Edwards' benign comment.  Sexist??  That's quite a distortion unless you WANT to see it that way.

I'm an Obama guy and he did the best thing -- he didn't touch it with a ten-foot poll.  Point being, I don't care what Edwards said.

IMO, this is an overreation by the blogosphere -- especially the female blogger in question.  I truly believe that Edwards would have used the same words if it were Obama crying in the same situation that Hillary is in.  In fact, it would have looked a lot worse to the public if it were a male candidate breaking down as Hillary did.

by KISSman 2008-01-08 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: An Over-Emotional Reaction to Nothing
you are a fool if you think women should just shut up and take it when men are sexist.  And she didn't "break down".  In fact I would say that Edwards has tried to show the same kind of emotion in his stump speech and never got accused of breaking down or crying.  And if he had said the same thing about Obama he would get called on it too, for suggesting Obama wasn't "manly" enough to be president because he showed some genuine emotion.
Edwards tried to cynically play to sexist ideas to get one on Clinton.  He got snagged on it.  Shame on him and on you for not getting it.
by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:04AM | 0 recs
She resigned because she

was getting death threats from right wing weirdos.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: She resigned because she

oh I see, we can't trust her to tell the real reason she resigned.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:14AM | 0 recs
Good work Susan


I really enjoyed reading all your dairy's these last few days. You really stuck with Hillary through her darkest hour. That is very cool.

by moi moi 2008-01-08 09:15PM | 0 recs
So.. answer me this

If Edwards was sexist in an implied way, then was Hillary racist in an implied way in regards to her LBJ / MLK comment? I would say NO to both because I know the truth about both comments and the truth about these two and how they are.

Hillary is not a racist and Edwards is not sexist. Elizabeth would kick his butt if he was!

by kevin22262 2008-01-08 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: So.. answer me this

no because all implications are not equal.  Edwards may or may not be sexist but he tried to use sexism to hurt Clinton.
In fact it was Obama who tried to use JFK and MLK against Clinton.  His comparison of his speeches to theirs was ridiculous and Hillary called him on it.  All she said was that speech wasn't enough, that their speeches had to be backed up with action to make the reality of change happen.

You can draw a false equivalence here, you aren't fox news.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: So.. answer me this

You are spinning like fox news. Show me where he said anything sexist. The best you will find is you taking his words and implying he was sexist.

The same can go for Hillary's words about MLK and LBJ. Many took the implication to be racist.

I feel you are being sexist by implying that a simple statement, made by a man with no sex or gender included, automatically must be sexist because it was not compassionate towards the woman that is being discussed.

Please show me his quote, in context, where he is being sexist. If you are going to try and just imply sexism then I will imply racism into Hillary's quote.

You are doing a disservice to women and gender relations by implying that men are deemed to be sexist because they are a man. I have heard black leaders (not all and I can not remember who said this) say that white people are automatically racist because they are white (not a direct quote). Are either of these fair? I think not.

by kevin22262 2008-01-09 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches

i love both obama and hillary, but the blatant sexism of hillary haters, the media, and edwards really is emotionally pulling me toward her.

i wouldn't have agreed before this campaign, but what Gloria Steinem wrote is true: sexism is a tougher nut to crack than racism in this county.

the denial of edwards' supporters that there is any sexism here is simply remarkable (but of a piece with their blind self-righteous love for that empty suited opportunist).

by CalDem 2008-01-08 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches

that is exactly the sort of thing that drove me to first defend her and her supporters on line and then decide to support her myself.  The mob mentality, the double teaming of Edwards and Obama supporters (duplicated by their candidates in the campaign debates) those things were a huge turn off to me.
Now Edwards has pulled a boner, and he is getting some heat for it.  His wife has done the same thing in the past and NO ONE called her on it at all. (see some of my other comments on this thread if you are not familiar with her sexist remarks)
The thing I realize is that many younger people have no clue what sexism is and how insidious it is in all parts of life, even still.

The other reason I am supporting her is because I sincerely believe that she is best prepared to be president.  I think she is an extraordinary woman who would make a great president. She works harder than anyone.  She has sucked up a lot of pain and continued to fight for this country, reaching out to those on the right who hated her.  And they have had to give her respect for that and admit that she is a damn good and effective senator.
When we have someone with this much character and talent why shouldn't we have the first female president? We nay not have another opportunity for a long time.
I think Obama will have his chance, but I do not think he is quite ready yet and in many ways I think it is going to be easier for a black man than it is for the first woman to be elected.  It is a hard choice to make, but in this case I just find Clinton to be the more compelling and experienced leader.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Female blogger reaches

Show me the blatant sexism.

by kevin22262 2008-01-09 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Looney Tunes

you are not a feminist, sorry.  You can't separate your own partisanship, you love of your team, from the reality of the situation. What you just posted was abusive and dismissive and you have been duly rewarded by the kind of people here who love to see some one claiming they are a feminist and then stabbing women in the back.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-09 05:12AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads