What Elizabeth is saying is entirely justified. Take a look at John Edwards' voting record -- he racked up a 100% NARAL rating in North Carolina. If he's going to vote pro-choice every step of the way, even in a state where it's going to hurt him, you can absolutely count on him when he's representing less conservative national constituency. Neither Obama nor Hillary can make a similar boast.

So now Edwards is the candidate for women and the poor? Yeah, no way Hillary or Obama are reaching out towards those groups at all.

The Edwards cheer leading is getting kind of embarrassing.

It's strange you find these "unfair" criticisms. They seem pretty mild to me and she was responding to a question, not pontificating off the top of her head. It seems normal that Edwards wife would support him over the other candidates and would try to explain why she feels he is the better choice. What's so unfair about that? I read a lot of liberal and progressive blogs daily and I must say that TAPPED posts more anti-Edwards pieces than any other. I think you guys support and defend Hilary a bit too much and I wish you'd be a little more even handed to all the Dems candidates until the primaries are over. Just my opinion, though, and I know you are justified in posting anything you want. Thank you.

Mike, take a look at the policy proposals. None of the other two have antipoverty proposals anywhere near as far-reaching as Edwards. He's also the only one with a universal health care plan.

I'm happy to cheerlead day and night for a candidate with substance.

Neil,
I'm not opposed to Edwards as a candidate nor am I opposed to people beating the drum loudly for him. What bothers me is that the Edwards supporters (at least on the interwebs) seem so far into the tank for him that they either
are a) unwilling to understand why not everyone is moved by Edwards and or b) that we are still early into all of this and that any of the other candidates can (and in fact, might) come out with policy ideas that are just as appealing as those Edwards has aired to date. I don't know...I just find it hard to be worked up about some of the things we've seen to date from anyone. But then again, I don't have the same background in some of the subject matter (health care specifically) that so excites a large portion of the Edwards backers. While I certainly plan on backing Obama at this point, I would happily vote for Edwards should he get the nomination. I'm not so sure the same could be said in reverse.

Doubting: I haven't gotten the vibe that Tapped is anti-Edwards, mostly because Neil and Ezra weigh in on most of the postings about him. He's well defended here.

Awhile back, Elizabeth Edwards commented that her life choices made her a "happier" person than Hillary Clinton. At the time, she thought her comment was off the record. It wasn't.

Considering that comment, as well as this latest, I must say that, despite her claim, Mrs. Edwards has never struck me as a particulary "happy" person.

And if she is, why is there always this underlying current of bitterness to her and her statements?

If that's happiness, you can keep it.

I'm an Edwards supporter and I'm a huge, huge Elizabeth fan.

I think these comments about Hillary are the first time I've actually had a negative reaction to something she said. Keep in mind that I would definitely like to see Edwards get the nomination over Hillary, so it's not that. I just feel uncomfortable about her attacking Hillary directly in this context.

Of course I expect Elizabeth Edwards to support her husband. What I am disappointed by are the obvious falsehoods. Clinton hasn't said people should vote for he because she's a woman and the idea that Obama lacks a rationale for his campaign is just silly. It's not a commentary on which candidate is best it's a reflection of my belief that when people mislead the public they should be called on it.

Given that Mrs. Edwards yesterday announced that her husband supports federal financing of abortion (!), it's more than slightly ridiculous to knock her for calling her husband the better advocate for women--or, for that matter, to say that the three candidates are essentially in agreement. Hillary isn't going anywhere near that level of bravery, and it's quite reasonable to argue that she feels her gender permits her to take a more conservative stance.

To follow on something Mike B just mentioned...so, Edwards would back federally funded abortions...that SOUNDS great, but is that ever going to come to pass? Could that just be one of those statements that strikes the right tone in your ear, but your brain goes, "Do you REALLY think that's going to happen"?
I'm all about shooting the moon when it makes sense to do so, but I think dealing with abortion on the local level and finding funding options there would be a better move than trying to federally subsidize the practice (unless Edwards is planning on that being under the umbrella of his health care plan).

The people saying Elizabeth should support her husband or that John is a great advocate for women are missing the point. Boyd quite clearly took issue with the way Edwards characterized the other campaigns, not with the way she described her husband's. A point Boyd then reiterated.

Elizabeth said flat-out that she thinks both Obama and Hillary lack a rationale for their run, which is absurd on its face. Its not that Obama or Clinton are above criticism...its that the criticism is without merit because it has no coherent connection to reality.

You can try to dodge this point by talking up Edwards NARAL rating (apropos of nothing, really), but the fact is Elizabeth took aim at Hillary and Obama with vacuous crap. She should be called out for it.

Okay, put up or shut up. Other than being the non-Bush, what is Clinton's rationale for running? To carry water to her corporate sponsors? To continue the DLC-lite approach of her husband? What's the narrative? What's the purpose? Hundreds of tiny incremental changes, or even medium changes, don't add up to a rationale, any more than hundreds of bricks add up to a building. A laundry list of policies and programs doesn't cut it.

So again, really, what's Clinton's rationale for running.

What Vorkosigan is pointing at is that Edwards has a pretty straightforward story about why he's running and what he'll do as president. He has an armload of policy proposals that he wants to pass, and they're good ones united by a few simple, coherent themes.

For Obama's whole thing about transforming politics to be a rationale for running, we've got to have some idea what it means in concrete terms. I've never seen Obama or anyone else give me a good account of this. Are there good-government reform measures you want? Do you have a well-worked-out story about how Obama will transform our society? I want to hear this in detail, and it doesn't seem to be on offer.

And it's unclear to me what the Hillary rationale is either, unless it's to go halfway to what Edwards would give us. Maybe she'll come out for single-payer or a massive global antipoverty program tomorrow, and I'll see that she's serious about fixing health care in America. But it's not looking likely.

I agree with Elizabeth Edwards 100%. We do need a better reason to vote for a candidate than gender alone. John Edwards is excellent on women's issues.

When I heard Hillary Clinton say at the Sojourner's forum (in response to a question from an anti-choice preacher) that she would work with anti-choicers to try to get to a point where there are zero decisions for abortion, I felt betrayed. I felt like Clinton will abandon my rights the moment it's politically convenient for her.

I am voting for Edwards, and I am extremely proud of my candidate and his stance on all the issues that are important for me. It matters not one whit to me that he sent his wonderful wife to speak at the Planned Parenthood forum while he was out campaigning against poverty - an issue that is also a big one for me.

LOL. You expect more from Elizabeth? I expect more research from you on Edwards history. While representing red NC, he was a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose, and he supports a Federal Freedom of Choice Act which would protect a woman's choice even if Roe was overturned. I can't believe you think it's a big deal that Elizabeth thinks her husband is the best advocate on women's rights, and the funny thing is, if you had actually researched his record you would've realized her viewpoint is totally spot on.

I agree with Elizabeth Edwards wholeheartedly!
Contrast the image of Hillary making nice with Republicans by standing with Newt Gingrich to oppose violent video games - while she still refuses to apologize for her war vote!!
She'd have no problem negotiating with Republicans since as a Centrist - she's Republican-lite anyway.

But we need a president who can pursue diplomacy with ALL of the middle east - and with her hardline position on the war - she'd have a hard time negotiating with the middle east.

We need a president with a spine!
We need John Edwards.

Vorkosigan has a point, what is Hillary's campaign about? She's in it to win it, but what is she running for? I would disgaree with Elizabeth and agree with Boyd about Obama's campaign being centralized around a bi-partisan unity theme. But, I would definitely choose an anti-poverty, health care for all, progressive campaign over the unity meme.
Mike P: I'm an Edwards supporter and will happily vote for Obama if he's the nominee. ;)

Sam: I don't think Hillary's going around saying vote for me because I'm a woman either. When Elizabeth said, "She says, or maybe her supporters say, support me because I'm a woman", it should have been more directed at her suppoters. I've ran into quite a few Hillary supporters who have given me crap for being a woman and not supporting Hillary, or I get accused of sexism for choosing to support Edwards over Hillary. My guess is, that's exactly the kind of thing she was talking about, and I for one, agree with her on that sentiment. It shouldn't be about gender, it should be about who is the best advocate for American women, and Elizabeth believes her husband is.

Sam are you a Male?
If so, that explains why you don't understand where Elizabeth is coming from.

She is 100% correct! - And if you don't think you haven't heard or seen Hillary or Obama seeking the female vote - they you must be a man!

No offense - just truth! Try reading Gray's book: Men are from Mars, Women are from venus.

Awhile back, Elizabeth Edwards commented that her life choices made her a "happier" person than Hillary Clinton. At the time, she thought her comment was off the record. It wasn't.

Considering that comment, as well as this latest, I must say that, despite her claim, Mrs. Edwards has never struck me as a particulary "happy" person.

And if she is, why is there always this underlying current of bitterness to her and her statements?

If that's happiness, you can keep it.

Posted by: JoeCHI | July 18, 2007 04:19 PM
*****

Well, clearly in her case there are the choices she's made, which may make her happier person.

Then there are the things that *have happened to her,* about which she would need to be super human (or unhuman) to be happy!

She's never claimed to be super woman. The super woman in this campaign is Hillary Clinton.

"Elizabeth said flat-out that she thinks both Obama and Hillary lack a rationale for their run, which is absurd on its face. Its not that Obama or Clinton are above criticism...its that the criticism is without merit because it has no coherent connection to reality."

I don't think Elizabeth Edwards was *really* commenting on reproductive health at the PP event when she made this comment.

Her husband is on the poverty tour. (She's ill, but) she's there representing him even though she knows it would be better for him to be there himself.

What she was really thinking is:

"my husband has a better voting record on the volatile abortion issue that's on everyone's mind. He is also out there trying to be a man of the people, while these two are sitting on these huge piles of Wall Street money and my husband (for some suspicious reason) is the one who catches all the flack for being an insincere wealthy opportunist. Welcome to America."

Then she says:

"There's no point to these two."

Is she right?

I don't we can really say, but I wouldn't blame her for thinking it. She doesn't strike me as stupid.

This comment section has just provided further proof about the intractability of Edwards supporters.

Ok, Edwards backers...sell me. Make be believe like you believe.

Ok, Edwards backers...sell me. Make be believe like you believe.

We can't do anything of the sort if you aren't actually open to it, and I don't believe you are.

I like Edwards because his policy proposals are the most detailed, realistic, and progressive, and because he's probably the strongest general election candidate to boot. And I don't quite get why anyone would get a bee in his bonnet over Elizabeth saying something mildly unflattering (and entirely fair) about Hillary; this whole thread is kind of silly.

But then, I don't quite get why anyone would be so passionately opposed to any of the big three Dems, one of whom will shortly be the only thing standing between us and the collapse of Western civilization. All varieties of haters would be well advised to start looking for silver linings pronto.

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.

I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.