I'm disappointed that Elizabeth Edwards went after Obama. . .

[wndycty]

. . .hey its politics and I guess all is fair, but I believe candidates spouses (especially those who have not held office) should be off limits. Seriously, how would it look if Barack, or Michelle for that matter, went after Elizabeth? If the Edwards campaign tactic is to have Elizabeth go after Barack because she is untouchable then that is low.

I guess all is fair in politics but this is a new low. I'm still a fan of Elizabeth but I'm quickly losing patience with the Edwards camp.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. You're going to have a rough time, then. American politics are ruthless.

MKJ

[wndycty]

4. Oh trust me I know. . .

. . .but the reality is going after one's spouse is more than ruthless and get worse when that spouse is very popular and suffering from cancer. When that spouse goes on the attack, how is the person being attacked supposed to respond without looking like a cold hearted bastard.

Hey its all politics and all is fair, but this just pisses me off. If the same words came out of John Edwards I would not be pissed. I don't believe that spouses should shut up, but spouses going on the attack, knowing a response can trigger a backlash, is just very disturbing, almost Rovish.

[fujiyama]

2. What did she say now?

I'm really disappointed by some of her comments over the last few months...and I really had admired her.

[jefferson_dem]

5. I agree. It's sad, really. Such bitterness...

n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Really? Her comments over the past few months make me wish she were running...

but I have no idea what the OP is talking about so, time to hit The Google.

[wndycty]

11. If she is the candidate I have no problem with her making the comments she made. . .

. . .I don't believe that candidates' spouses should be quiet, HOWEVER my issue is the fact that spouses are supposed to be off limits from attacks, so I feel its pretty shitty of the Edwards campaign to put her out there on the attack because they know that it would look for Barack if he swung back at her.

[Sukie1941]

3. I am also disappointed in Elizabeth

Of course she should support her husband, but all I have heard lately is from her, not him.

[GreenTea]

6. Oh my, me too....She should NOT be able to voice her opinion...neither should people

in the film or music biz. oh yeah....and people with vowels in their names!

[wndycty]

7. You can take that cynical point of view or you can realize. . .

. . .that as a candidates wife she is supposed to be off limits and it would be inappropriate for any campaign to attack her, so its rather shitty for her to exploit that immunity and go on the attack. This is not about her being able to voice her opinion and you know it. Her husband is hiding behind her and that is messed up.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

10. Yes, "shitty " of her, got it. How dare she say something?

And, her husband is hiding behind her???

Oh, and anyone who cites the word "inappropriate" in speaking of American Politics is in big trouble. MKJ

edit, put "shitty" in quotation marks.

[wndycty]

12. Do you think its appropriate for Barack or Michelle to go after her?

What do you think people will think if they attack her?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. LOL.

:rofl:

What people will think.

MKJ

[wndycty]

16. Answer the question. . .is it appropriate for Barack and Michelle to attack Elizabeth Edwards?

Its a yes/no question.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

19. Like an up or down vote. Anyway, you're quite swift to respond to any hint of more than a neutral

response to Mr. Edwards on a Democratic blog, no less.

I'll be looking forward to engaging in future repartee.

Good night for now.

:hi: MKJ

[wndycty]

20. Run away, don't answer the question. . .

. . .LOL

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

22. Oh, the answer to your question. I think it's worthy of its own thread.

Please post this as a subject. I don't consider myself worthy of answering your hypothetical.

It deserves exposure beyond my meager reasoning abilities. MKJ

[zanne]

41. Bleeding Heart.....that's not fair

You're obviously avoiding answering the question. It's no secret that I'm an Obama supporter, but I like all the Dem candidates and I think we should at least try to act like we're all in the same political party.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

55. I'd like to, as well. Those of us who have not aligned with a particular candidate yet are

left watching the supporters/campaigners of each of those candidates attempt to swiftboat the others.

And, I won't be drawn into it, myself. My anger and frustration are not directed at the Dem candidates, I appreciate that all of them are willing to bear the slings and arrows that are part and parcel of the political process.

Demanding that I answer a disingenuous hypothetical is hardly persuasive. And, this particular poster has said the John Edwards has "no balls", so I find no value in engaging in debate with that sort of divisiveness and name calling.

I must confess, it's become an almost visceral reaction when I see a poster with an "Obama" avatar, I've come to expect an attack rather than something inspiring about him.

Which is what I'm looking for. Sen. Obama appears to be everything one would want in a candidate, a leader. Yet, his supporters don't leverage their candidate's "hope". :shrug:

Anyway, I will defend ANY dem, when attacked, including each of our candidates.

Thanks for your post, BTW. MKJ

[wndycty]

59. "Anyway, I will defend ANY dem, when attacked..."

. . .so where was your defense of Obama or Hillary when Elizabeth attacked? Don't worry I won't wait for an answer.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

70. You're right, I should have clarified. I meant here on DU.

It's a given that politics are ruthless and I think Ms. Edwards has the right to say what she wants, as do all the wives and husband of the candidates.

Your attacks on the Edwardses, and saying that Edwards has "no balls" is at a level of vitriol I've not seen directed at Sen. Obama, here.

If anyone said that about Sen. Obama, I would most decidedly defend him against that kind of hateful attack.

The discussion, here, should be more substantiative than whether Mr. Edwards should "allow" his wife to speak.

MKJ

[Forkboy]

33. Kind of a disingenous question.

Elizabeth never attacked Michelle at all,and didn't even mention her in the article here,so bringing her into this seems wrong. (If she has in the past I apologize as I haven't seen any comments like that).If she had attacked a spouse (or child,etc) I could see being upset.

The question should be was it appropriate for her to attack the other candidates.I admit I'd prefer to see candidates do their own attacking instead of spouses or lackeys doing it for them,but this seems hardly worth getting upset or really even disappointed in,and is part of the political landscape,for good or ill.

[wndycty]

38. Not disingenous, since Edwards is a SPOUSE is it appropriate for Michelle. . .

. . .another SPOUSE or hell Bill Clinton another SPOUSE to go after Elizabeth?

[progressoid]

57. If she were running for president? Sure.

Do you think Hillary should have been the "good little wife" and just sat quietly in the corner during Bill's campaign and presidency? I seem to remember that being one of the criticisms of Theresa Heinz Kerry in 04 (by the Republicans).

By the sound of your indignation, one can assume that you will be equally upset if Michelle dares to voice her opinion in the future?

[madmunchie]

14. Did anybody expect anymore from JE????

I didn't and don't, I have seen thru him since last election. He is very very smart, shrewd, charismatic, good looking and calculating, AS WELL AS fake, not qualified and has an ego that actually is bigger than his brain. I don't trust him and Elizabeth going after ANYBODY, has been his MO, maybe she is just getting more vocal as their campaign gets more desperate.

Yes, my opinion, so all of you JE supporters don't attack so I have to post the laundry list of bad judgements that he made while he was in Public Office for 6 short years - while he campaigned for POTUS and V POTUS, busy busy 6 short years in Public Office - State and/or Federal-

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

17. Well, when I'm looking to attack Edwards, I will look you up.

:hi: MKJ

[madmunchie]

69. Somehow I don't think facts and logic applies to most JE supporters

most seem to "tune a deaf ear" to the facts of JE's poor judgement votes, extremely short time in office "doing the job that he was elected to do for the first time in his life, while taking time from that job to campaign for POTUS and V POTUS - really shortchanging his constituents, which is obivious by some really bad judgement calls on life and constitution altering votes.

Since leaving office his public service has materialized into a 24/7 campaign to get himself elected POTUS, while other candidates are actually still holding onto Public Service jobs and being active in trying to keep Bush and his policies in check....

Arrogance and no proof that the man is capable of handling the job of POTUS are his biggest flaws.

[surfermaw]

150. Obama likes experience, Mrs Edwards need to speak up

Where the heck will we be if the top two fold, they can't win the final election, Edwards is the only one of the three that can win, Big Business know that and are keeping out of the media, so heck Elizabeth kick up you heels and get him some coverage,

[madmunchie]

153. JE isn't qualifed his record in the Senate was short and dismal

his judgement on some of the most important issues we are facing was wrong. "Sorry", is for kids, not POTUS after thousands and thousands were killed on a war that was wrong to begin with. (I knew that the war was wrong why didn't JE????) JE cochaired the IWR while many many Democrats argued against it, Edwards still voted for it, along with the Patriot Act....the list goes on. HE DOESN'T HAVE SOUND ENOUGH JUDGEMENT - Period. I don't care how good he sounds or looks, I don't care what he says, his actions will always trump his rhetoric. Reagan was an actor and people bought into his bullshit to, just because he gave a good speech. It just totally amazes me how people have fallen hook line and sinker for a candidate that still needs to PROVE with ACTIONS that he is more than just a consumate campaigner.

[emilyg]

29. Agree.

She is not helping her husband. Seems bitter and angry.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. Link, please? (n/t)

[wndycty]

13. Here you go

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/elizabeth-edwar.html

[WorseBeforeBetter]

24. Thanks. (n/t)

[Catchawave]

56. Should have been in the OP.......

If you're going to create a smackdown thread, this information helps.

Jus'saying :hi:

[calteacherguy]

18. I think she feels defensive and protective of her husband.

However, these statements do not help Edwards' campaign, in my opinion. It sounds too much like complaining and making lame excuses for Edwards' failure to make a larger impact on the race.

[JI7]

21. it's a HUGE turn off

i asked this before, but why is she doing this ? i understand it's politics and it can get dirty but i don't see how it would help.

could it be Joe Trippi's advice ?

[DURHAM D]

23. Looks like most have forgotten that she went after Hillary...

Elizabeth said that she had made better life choices than Hillary and that she was happier than Hillary. I was astounded and thought it was unbelievably snarky. At the time I was just starting to read Elizabeth's book and went on to find out that she had some snarky comments to make about Teresa Kerry as well - Teresa was trying to help her find the best doctors and they apparently had a dust up. After those two incidents I came to view Elizabeth in a different way - although I still think she is smarter than and more real than her husband.

Also, about two weeks ago I posted that if they didn't stop their "dual candidacy" thing the press would start to nip at them. I have noticed that Elizabeth took a lower profile for a couple of weeks but now she is back. I think her taking the lead on any political comment is a really, really bad idea. Elizabeth has been getting a pass on her attacks but it will not last. Either Obama will come after her or the press will - big mistake. Michelle will not come after her - she has too much class.

[sandnsea]

25. Michelle will, with class

I don't know exactly how, but I've got a feeling the woman knows her way around a cat fight. ;)

[jenmito]

125. Could you imagine if Michelle said about Elizabeth...

Regarding her comments that she can't make John black or a woman, "I don't think Elizabeth realizes how much an advantage her husband John has had growing up as a white man"? Or "Growing up as a white man, John had an advantage growing up that Barack and I never had"?

[karynnj]

51. The Teresa comments were actually more cynical than that

These were before her cancer returned and before Senator Kerry left the race. Under a veneer of Southern niceness, she fed many RW themes on Teresa, mainly that she was too rich to understand middle class and poor people.

The incident with Teresa was not a dust up. She came close to blaming Teresa for sending her into a depression - because Teresa, without knowing he was Edwards' doctor, listed her doctor as one not to go to. Then she mentions that Kennedy's wife told her to ignore it.

She did not mention that Teresa for 12 years has hosted an annual conference via her foundation that is on women's health, particularly onocology and environmental toxins. Teresa had inside information on the state of the art and especially knew who to go to learn which doctors were considered best by their peers. Teresa had the insight to look at her own husband's previous tests and notice a trend that troubled her enough to push him to get more tests. Those tests, which found prostrate cancer, possily saved his health and maybe life. (It was interesting that the NYT had an article earlier this year that the AMA recommended practice is now to look at the history to see if the level is higher than past tests in addition to looking at the level itself. Kerry was not mentioned and this could well have been based on studies started before 2003 completely independent of Kerry's well publicized story, but it does show that her insight was solid.)

The question I had reading EE's account was why did she write this? Teresa did nothing wrong here. EE is clearly socially competent enough to tell someone politely that she wasn't looking for help. If EE's point was that she became depressed dealing with all the conflicting advice, that could have been stated with hitting the wife of one of JE's opponents.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. She is her husband's hatchet man

She went after Hillary a few weeks ago. Her health status make is necessary for the other campaigns to treat her with kid gloves.

[rufus dog]

27. and that is what makes it wrong

It appears to be a calculated move, if the opponents respond they look heartless, it does appear they are setting her up as the attack dog. Very unfortunate, he was my second choice, this is the second time she has gone on the attack, a third takes him off my list.

[SoxFan]

129. We have a winner!

That's the real issue. John Edwards keeps sending his wife out to fight his battles for him because he knows that she will be treated with a greater degree of deference. If JRE made a snide comment about an opponent, that opponent would be free to return fire. When it's EE making the remark, the Edwards camp can whine "no fair" if she receives counterfire.

John Edwards needs to grow a set and fight his own battles.

[countmyvote4real]

28. Crock tears from me to you. n/t

[jillan]

30. John is lucky to have her.

She is great.
Good for her for fighting for her hubby.

I would rather hear this from her than her Michelle tell everyone that Obama leaves his dirty clothes on the floor.
A little too much information about someone that may be POTUS.

[JI7]

31. Biden is the worst when it comes to giving too much personal info

such as that comment about wanting the kids to go to bed so he can have sex with his wife.

[Inuca]

105. He said that ?!?! LOL!! n/t

[jillan]

I haven't heard that one, but I did hear about one time

when he talked about going home every nite to make love to his wife.

Hey - I'll say the same thing now as I said about Clinton after his bj....

I would rather have someone sexually satisfied in power than one who is on edge all of the time. ;)

[politicasista]

145. LOL!

:rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Are you truly "disappointed", or are you glad she gave you more ammunition for your hero?

Even noting the hollowness of such a tone accompanied by your avatar, I certainly wouldn't characterize you as one of the most assertive of partisans.

There are, however, a few glaring and oft-echoed cliches on this board. Among them is the affectation of deep moral sadness welling up in a poster's heart at the wicked tactics used by (fill in formerly-revered person affiliated with opponent) which now force the poster to regrettably lose affection for (fill in regrettably now-less-loved opponent) and be sadly compelled to share such personal devastation with others who are as tender-hearted.

Admittedly, this tactic isn't as transparent as the sucking-of-pity threads where people bid "farewell cruel board" and exit DU awash in distress and aching for sympathy, but it's of a similar bent.

Does it really wound you so, or are you reinforced in your estimation of the rival's confederates?

Is this a true sharing of disillusionment, or community-theatre woe?

Does it drain you with the shock of an individual's baseness, or merely provide some handy and delightful fuel for the partisan bonfire?

Wistful musings wear thin after the pattern's been repeated enough by others, but perhaps this really is a true moment of forlorn dismay.

If so, be brave.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

34. Oh fuck

YES.

[AtomicKitten]

36. spectacular prose

[Enrique]

35. it was tough what she said, but not dirty

actually it wasn't that tough. Obama's stealing Edwards's message? It wasn't a very original message to begin with.

[zulchzulu]

37. I hate to say it, but it seems Elizabeth Edwards wants to be President more than John

Back in 2004, I thought that was the case and even had someone within the immediate Kerry camp who said as much. I am not going into how and where I heard it, but that was a discussion.

Guess what. Her dream isn't going to happen as long as she plays the cards the way she is.

[robcon]

39. I think the campaigns would all be better if they stayed positive

but I think that's unrealistic.

[karynnj]

65. Look at the impact that all this negativity is having

Here is a link to a Gallup article on the favorable and unfavorable respnses on all the candidates. The article itself is interesting, but the relevent part to this discussion is the data (neatly graphed :) ). What is clear is that all the candidates - of either party - are becoming less liked and more disliked. The levels are pretty astonishing.

By luck, Al Gore is included because he of 2008. This is lucky as they have the full series for him. If you look at the 1999 threough 2000 numbers his positives are significantly greater than his negatives and the level of positives is far higher.

If these trends continue this will be a campaign fought in the negatives - this is not a good sign and will likely lead to a winner who will have a hard time getting everyone behind him/her.


http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28363

[madmom]

83. I've been telling my SO all along that I'm not liking Obama or Clinton,

simply because of all the negativity!Save it for the repukes!!!!!!

[karynnj]

84. I think the stuff that hurts the most is stuff

that seems to come from the candidate or their campaigns. I know that there is always back and forth on campaigns, but the level seems so much nastier this year - and it has come from all 3 candidates. As I really don't think that Gore will opt to be a candidate, so I wish I could be enthusiastic about at least one of them - but I'm not. (A huge contrast with 2004, where in fall 2003, I was for Kerry, but would have been happy with Clark or Dean.)

[madmom]

131. I feel pretty much the same way, I'm not overly enthusiastic about

any of them right now, I'm leaning towards Edwards and/or Kucinich.

[acmavm]

40. It's soooo easy to tell the Obama/Clinton supporters from those

that don't. These threads are so stereotypically whiney and bitchy. But when the shoe is on the other foot (and not just in this thread), there are millions of good reasons why whatever happened happened.

You'd take away a wife's right to campaign just because she said something you don't like? How democratic.

[wndycty]

44. Don't even act like this is a gender thing. . .

. . .how appropriate would it have been for Bill Clinton to attack John Edwards?

[acmavm]

54. Who the hell said it was a gender thing (beside you). It's a right

to say what you think and believe thing. Apparently you think you should be able to say what you want. Maybe Ms. Edwards is running around under the mistaken impression that she can to. Someone should let her know that you think otherwise. Maybe she'll sit down and shut up.

:sarcasm:

edit: spelling

[wndycty]

66. Question, now that she has gone on the attack is it fair for other campaigns to attack her?

:kick:

[acmavm]

75. Apparently so. You Barrie people have.

[wndycty]

76. We haven't attacked her. . .we have attacked her husband for hiding behind her. . .

:kick:

[acmavm]

78. I'll remember that every time a married woman speaks her mind

it's because her husband is hiding behind her.

Like I said yesterday, you Obama/Clinton people are a riot.

[Totally Committed]

42. I'm not in either camp, but I have a question: Elizabeth is "untouchable" because...?

Because she's ill? I think she'd be the first one to tell you, she wants no special treatment because she has cancer. She's a tough lady. I doubt she's hiding behind anything. If she said something with which you disagree, I think she'd be the firat one to want a dialogue with you about it.

Just a guess on my part, but that's how she's always seemed to me.

TC

[wndycty]

45. She can claim she wants no no special treatment. . .

. . .but the first candidate to attack her would be committing political suicide.

[Totally Committed]

48. Okay, I can see your point.

It would be perception over reality. Fair enough.

TC

[wndycty]

50. You will notice in the OP I said I was disappointed. . .

. . .I'm disappointed because I really like her and I hate to see her do this.

[Totally Committed]

58. I did notice that, I was just curious for your reasoning.

Thanks for answering. :)

TC

[eweaver155]

43. Like the media has stated, She is only hurting her husband's campaign.

[Dawgs]

46. Agree, and I also like Edwards as a candidate.

Comments like hers won't help with me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. I stopped looking ten posts down to find out what she said that became

an issue. What did she say? Or is this thread just whether spouses should stand back and stay out of election process. Because, I would definitely like to hear from a spouse, knowing that he or she will be the president's closest confidante.

And if this rule applies to spouses, does it also apply to sons?

[wndycty]

49. Here you go

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/elizabeth-edwar.html

[Totally Committed]

62. Thanks very much for that. I was wondering what she said...

She seems to rip Clinton about as badly as Obama there, though.

Oh, well... bad all around, I guess.

TC

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. Thank you.

I think that Elizabeth Edwards reads the blogs and I think she has been instrumental in her husband's campaign. To deny the latter is not fair to her. I don't believe what she said about Obama was harsh. She was tougher on Senator Clinton. And what Elizabeth says has merit. She pointed out that Edwards was first to support universal health care, as well as tackle poverty, and Obama followed suit. Frankly, these were two issues that Obama should have pitched at the beginning of his candidacy, following that remarkable speech he gave at one of the conventions. But he didn't. He delayed and Edwards took the risk first. When Edward's campaign actually was harolded for it, that's when Obama came in. So, Elizabeth has a right to put in a jab. If Obama really felt that these issues framed him, why didn't he present them earlier?

Now, that she said it, we should all move on. It's not something I would care to hear over and over again as if it's a talking point of the Edward's campaign. But for an observation of what happened at that moment, it's okay.

[wndycty]

64. Is she now fair game?

Since she can go on the attack, can she be attacked?

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. That's Obama's choice.

I wouldn't use the word, "attack." Rebuttal would be okay. If he thinks it's important, he can address the substantive part of her comments and explain why he delayed. However, "attacking" without bringing out new information will prove counter-productive.

Remember that even though some of this infighting is necessary between the candidates because it's imperative for them to show differences between each other to win the Democratic vote for the primary, remember that there are Republicans also listening and these Republicans aren't going to spend too much time fine tuning their understanding of one Democrat or the other. If Obama has something substantive to say, then he should say it. But if he comes on with an empty attack, the Republicans will just remember the empty attack and not the details of the argument. So if there are details to hash out, bring them out. If not, well, it's always his call.

[trayted]

155. She's only fair game if you focus on what she said instead of on her, since that's what she did

What she said about Obama is exactly true. He goes around claiming to have "opposed this war from the beginning."

What he doesn't say is that he supported this war since the beginning of his Senate term by continuously giving Bush money to continue it.

I like to use this analogy.

Which is worse? Making a wrong turn down a one-way street and causing an accident, like John Edwards did in giving Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, or jumping into the car after you saw the accident and continuing to drive in the wrong direction, thus causing even more accidents, like Obama did by giving Bush money to continue screwing up in Iraq?

Of course, Obama is acting holier than thou when he acts like the only people to blame for the mess in Iraq are those who initially authorized it, as if he carries no responsibility for giving Bush every dime that he asked for, even after he had seen that the Bush policy in Iraq wasn't working by the time that he got to the Senate in 2005.

At least John Edwards can say he had no idea that Bush would screw it up as badly as he did. Barack Obama saw that it was screwed up and gave Bush more money to keep screwing up.

John Edwards says that he was wrong to authorize the War. Obama has never said that he was wrong to fund it. Instead, he tries to use the troops as a crutch, claiming that he had to vote for it as long as men and women are in danger, even though if you cut off funding there would still be enough money to remove troops safely from Iraq, and even if there wasn't, Congress could pass an emergency supplemental earmarked for withdrawal.

Obama has no excuse. And he has not opposed the war from the beginning. He supported it for 2 years with funding. John Edwards never supported any funding for it beyond the initial authorization.

I say Obama's worse for escalating it. If John Edwards started a fight, and then when things reached a point of it ending, Obama ran and took a swing at someone else and escalated the whole thing to another level, both are to blame. Edwards for starting it, and Obama for keeping it going.

So, yes, she's fair game. Only if you talk about what she was talking about, instead of some personal attack, because she was not personally attacking Obama.

[returnable]

52. I think it's obvious Team Edwards desperately misses...

...the free ride they got in the press during the '04 primary season. Now that Johnny is no longer the Media Darling, they're starting to realize how hard it is for second-tier candidates to get a whiff of air time.

Them's the breaks.

:hi:

[rosesaylavee]

53. I don't have a candidate at this point

and I am very appreciative of having Barack as my Senator. However, I think the candidates putting pressure on each other is fine. Senator Obama can withstand the heat and perhaps he will reconsider his health care plan in light of her statements.

I think all the candidates need to reconsider and then reconsider again all their plans - especially how they hope to combat the global climate change. We have a great field and I appreciate Mrs. Edwards speaking truth as she sees it.

[wndycty]

61. Is she now fair game to be attacked in response to her attacks on Hillary and Barack?

:kick:

[eweaver155]

67. Yes, she is fair game. She put herself out there and she should be able

to stand anything that comes her way.

[wndycty]

68. And how will the public view any candidate or campaign that attacks her?

:kick:

[eweaver155]

72. If you attack what she said in the media, the public will have no problem with it.

She put herself out there, with the off sided comments she gives. Therefore the other candidates have a right to respond.

[JANdad]

71. You are sounding an awful lot like Ann Coulter...

Oh poor me, I can not attack them b/c (fill in the blank)!!!!

Go ahead, attack EE and see what happens. I doubt her cancer will play into this. The fact of the matter is, she is right and you feel wounded b/c your saint's weaness was pointed out...

[eweaver155]

74. She is wrong. Her cancer has nothing to do with what she said. People are tired of hearing her

blame everyone else for her husband's campaign not doing as well as the others. First, it was Edwards can not help it if he is not black or a woman. Come on people, is that what a campaign as come down to? She thinks no one will respond. That is the problem. It is the very reason why the media stated last week, all she is doing is hurting John's campaign. John needs to get her under control, if he really wants someone to pay attention to his campaign.

[JANdad]

77. Oh don't worry

plenty of people are *paying* attention...eom

[rosesaylavee]

79. As a spokesperson for the Edwards campaign,

I would be surprised if she thought that she had immunity. As I said, I don't have a horse in this race at the moment so I didn't feel the words she spoke as deeply as you did. It read to me that she was comparing her husband to the other candidates. Her comments about Obama were less critical than those about Hillary in my opinion.

I didn't see these as attacks - just moves on the chess board.

[wndycty]

80. If any candidate or campaign attacks her for those comments. . .

. . .will the general public view her as a campaign spokesperson open for attack or will they view her as a candidates' spouse who should be off limits? Be honest with your reply.

[rosesaylavee]

81. I think she has made enough appearances on his

behalf now that she is seen as his spokesperson. I don't remember any one cutting Hillary any slack when she campaigned for her husband or Theresa Kerry when she campaigned for her husband.

As for 'attacking' - I think 'attacking' is usually done from a positiion of weakness and generally backfires except in cases where there is a personal attack - which I don't think she did. Maybe I missed that part if she did and if so, please accept my apology for just skimming her comments. I would suspect that Obama will address her points in some way in the next few days. He is a smart one and quick learner in this game.

[wndycty]

82. We are not talking about campaigning, we are talking about attacking opponents

. . .I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with her out there on behalf of her husband, but I do have a problem when she attacks his opponents because it would be wrong for the opponents to attack her.

[quiet.american]

60. What's all the hoopla about? She's addressing their politics, not them personally.

It's still a free country (in principle).

[Cameron27]

86. How is saying that Obama's lifted John's language

not personal?

[quiet.american]

87. In short, she's pointing to what she perceives as his actions, not insulting or trashing him. n/t

[Adelante]

85. I'm not disappointed, because it's no surprise

The more I've learned about EE, the less I've liked about her, starting with ungracious remarks about the Kerrys and Hillary Clinton, trying to raise campaign funds off her cancer, even calling her neighbor's property "slummy" - okay, the guy's a right winger and this is her opinion, but isn't it the sort of thing you'd say to your best friend over coffee in your kitchen and not to an AP reporter? Refreshing candor? Not to me: It's just bad manners and stupid politics. Nothing she says surprises or disappoints me. Every once in a while there's a call on DU for Edwards supporters and Obama supporters to unite, reminiscent of the Edwards-Kucinich deal in 2004. It leaves me rolling my eyes every time.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

88. the Edwards campaign itself is a disappointment

[huskerlaw]

89. Perhaps she should just go bake some cookies

and shut her mouth then, eh?

God for-fucking-bid that she have any opinions of her own, or that she has the NERVE to speak them. Or...even worse...that those opinions happen to be less than stellar regarding Obama. Where the hell does she get off?! She needs to learn her place.

She should shut up and disappear like Laura Bush. That Laura Bush is a good little political wife. Knows her place. Keeps her mouth shut. Really, she's a shining example for every female in America.

:eyes:

[wndycty]

90. This is not a gender/wife issue . . .

. . .its about spouses, and it would be just as inappropriate for Bill Clinton to attack a Democratic candidate.

[huskerlaw]

92. So she shouldn't be able to speak her mind

just because her husband is a candidate?

She didn't check her brain at the door when her husband announced his candidacy.

And frankly, your argument is reeking of the same sentiments that were expressed by Republicans against Hillary in 1992.

[wndycty]

94. She can say whatever she wants, however we can criticize the campaign. . .

. . .for its transparent strategy of having her go on the attack because other campaigns would be hesitant to attack her. You keep wanting to frame the argument as we are trying to silence her, but we are not. This will most likely backfire for the Edwards camp.

[huskerlaw]

95. Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you actually believe that the Edwards campaign is using her because she's "untouchable"...then I have even less respect for your position than if you merely wanted her to be quiet.

The Edwards campaign has done NOTHING to suggest that they're capitalizing on her illness. NOTHING. And for you to suggest otherwise is completely without class. And, if you want to get into people hurting other people's campaigns...if a majority of Obama supporters agree with you, well...frankly, that would reflect badly on Obama.

[wndycty]

96. The Obama campaign has nothing to do with this. . .

. . .I didn't get talking points, I didn't get direction.

[huskerlaw]

97. Neither does Elizabeth.

:hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

98. Yet, you mentioned Mr. Edwards's genitals in relation to his wife's speaking out. (Link)

That seems fairly gender specific. MKJ

edited to add:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3449302#3449318

[wndycty]

99. Oh god. . .LOL

:kick:

[Adelante]

91. Perhaps instead of living her life through her husband's

She might have gone into politics herself, you know, been an actual woman candidate in this race, like Hillary Clinton.

[huskerlaw]

93. That's ridiculous.

Just because she didn't CHOSE to get into politics, she shouldn't be able to express her own opinions? Please.

I haven't run for office either. Should I not be entitled to have opinions? Or, if I do, should I keep them to myself?

How about you? Are you a presidential candidate? If not, why not? I mean, aren't you then living your political life through someone else?

[Adelante]

101. "a shining example for every female in America"

Being the woman behind the man is one choice. Getting out there and doing it yourself is another. The first is not for "every female in America" nor is the second for "every female in America." I happen to respect both choices, even if in my personal opinion, as a feminist, I have more admiration for the woman who does it herself. But holding Elizabeth Edwards up as the model feisty feminist and "shining example for every female in America" is absurd.

[huskerlaw]

106. Where did I say that?

Oh wait...I didn't!

:eyes:

And my point is that unless you yourself are a "woman who does it herself"...in this case, by running for political office, you're being hypocritical.

[Adelante]

118. Well, you make no sense to me

I'm not campaigning for my husband. I'm not campaigning for myself. I'm not in politics. Elizabeth Edwards is in politics. She is campaigning for her husband. She proclaims her opinions in the course of her husband's candidacy. It goes something like this:

Candidate's wife: I am in favor of gay marriage.

Candidate: I am opposed to gay marriage.

Candidate's wife: Although my opinion of my candidate husband's opinion is that he holds a wrong opinion, you should vote for my husband!

Freaking balderdash.

Is she a surrogate for the candidate in the race or not? If she is, then she should be upholding his platform like any other surrogate. If she were running for office, her opinions would be worth something on their own. As it is, she represents him, except when it's opportune to go negative, at which point she is only giving her personal opinion, not his, so he gets to take no responsibility, although he, in fact, as the candidate, is the one who should take responsibility.

[huskerlaw]

121. Just because her husband is a candidate

does not mean she checked her brain at the door. She still has her own opinions. I don't know what is so bad or hard to believe about that.

[Adelante]

127. Of course, she has her own opinions

How are they relevant to her husband's candidacy? Who are we to vote for? She's not running - he is. It's his opinions that voters need to be considering. I must have seen it a thousand times and said it myself a time or two, why isn't she the one running for president? She decided not to do that and decided to support her husband's run for president. But, if she's not speaking for him, I don't understand what she's doing.

[huskerlaw]

128. You're the one attributing

her comments to John Edwards' campaign.

She has stated many times that she has her own opinions and she's not going to silence herself just because her husband is a candidate. And why should she, exactly?

I don't understand your position...which seems to be that anyone who has a spouse running for political office should keep their opinions to themselves. Why? She's an individual with her own opinions. Her opinions happen to be of a political nature, but she has never asked anyone to vote for her, or to support her husband because of her views.

[Adelante]

130. She's a campaign surrogate...

except when she's not and the voters all just have to figure out when that is or is not. Okey-dokey.

Anyway, I'm going out now. :hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

109. WesDem, that is an underhanded, lying thing to do. Put quotations around a lie and hope you don't

get caught.

You are not to be believed about anything, now. MKJ

[Adelante]

120. Excuse me?

What lie did I put quotation marks around? Please copy and paste so I know what you're talking about.

[huskerlaw]

122. You put quotes around

a statement that I never wrote. :eyes:

[Adelante]

126. Okay, I reread your earlier post

You were referring to Laura Bush and I took the closing remark for Elizabeth Edwards. I read hastily, so I apologize, huskerlaw. I don't retract anything else, but you did not say "a shining example for every female in America" in relation to Elizabeth Edwards.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

152. I was quick to accuse you of something I've done before.

I guess the quotations thing was a last straw and you were in the line of sight, or something.

Sorry.

Embarrassed. :blush: MKJ

[Adelante]

154. No no

No problem at all :pals:

[venable]

100. She said nothing wrong. Sheesh. This is less than minor.

so she finds her husbands candidates made up of less than they portray themselves. big deal.

It's hardly Rovian, nor is it different from Obama mocking those who voted for the IWR saying they all thought 'war would be a great idea, and we will be greeted as liberators'.

He said, approximately, that, and nobody raises an eyebrow.

That is precisely what she means by holier than thou. He DOES ACT THAT WAY.

[Cameron27]

102. Those who cosponsored the IWR should be mocked,

especially if they didn't read the NIE documents when they had the chance. I'd like to see Obama's full quote.

[venable]

112. or those with the most enlightened, uncompromising anti war position today

should be celebrated.

that's one reason I support Edwards. the least likely, other than Kucinich, to take us into a military adventure needlessly, IMO.

and, btw, the NIE was not a slam dunk that Saddam had no weapons. the NIE was, at best, a mixed bag.

[Cameron27]

123. Someone who was on the intel committee,

someone who was the only member of that committee not to read the NIE; someone who co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR despite the lack of reliable evidence, deserves to have his judgment questioned, not celebrated because he changed his mind years later.

It wasn't just the NIE documents that Edwards had available to him as a member of the committee. There were also closed door committee meetings that Durbin talked about, where the lack of evidence was enough to leave Durbin amazed and disgusted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. Perhaps the cancer meds are affecting her mind

Stranger things have happened.

[huskerlaw]

107. Welcome to my ignore list.

Her cancer meds are affecting her mind? That is an asinine, classless, and completely baseless comment.

[wndycty]

108. That comment was f'ed up. . .

. . .I think going after cancer meds is f'ed up. But it sort of proves my point, she can't attack a candidate and not expect people to take pot shots at her.

[huskerlaw]

114. It doesn't prove jack

Elizabeth isn't taking pot shots at anyone. Her criticisms are exactly that. Criticisms. Not to be confused with low, classless blows that don't have any basis in reality.

Everyone is more than welcome to criticize Elizabeth. It's not her fault if someone choses not to because they think they will be perceived as attacking her.

[wndycty]

117. But my point is. . .

. . .if she engages in criticizing other candidates Edwards can't be too upset with what gets thrown back at her. I don't think she should be attacked, but I also understand that if she is going to criticize others she has to expect it.

[huskerlaw]

119. There's a difference between

well-reasoned criticism and mindless pot shots though. I have NO problem with anyone who has a well-reasoned criticism of Elizabeth, John, or the campaign. In fact, I welcome that.

I do, however, take serious issue with the mindless pot shots. They do nothing to further ANYONE's goals. Not Hillary's campaign...or the people that support her. Not Obama's campaign...or the people that support him.

I think were we disagree is where the line between criticism and pot shots exists in this instance. And that's ok. We can agree to disagree on this one, I think.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

116. Oh, here I thought your point was that John Edwards doesn't have balls because he won't keep the

little woman in her place, where she belongs.

Oh riiight, I forgot, it's not a "gender" issue, as you keep repeating. MKJ

[venable]

113. 1) nothing at all wrong with her mind, and 2) are you serious? nt

[Beaverhausen]

104. How will Obama or Hillary stand the general election if they can't take this kind of criticism now?

Jesus, what big babies.

Seriously, if you think this is bad, you have no clue how ugly the general election will be.

[huskerlaw]

110. Seriously.

Buuut, buuuut...she doesn't bow down and kiss (Obama/Hillary)'s feet like I think she should! :cry:

She has cancer, so if I say mean things about her, I look like a jackass and it's not faaaaaaaaaaiiiiir! :cry:

Boo-fucking-hoo. :eyes:

[LaPera]

111. These are non thinking people your question is WAY over their media watching heads!!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

115. That's the sentiment I expressed in the first response in this thread. Then the whining began.

Sheesh.

MKJ

[elizm]

124. I don't recall Obama attacking Edwards yet...

Mrs. Edwards better be careful lest she opens a door for it, as Hillary did. Seems to me that is where it backfires on them.

[jenmito]

132. Could you imagine if Michelle said about Elizabeth...

Regarding her comments that she can't make John black or a woman, "I don't think Elizabeth realizes how much of an advantage her husband John has had growing up as a white man"? Or "Growing up as a white man, John had an advantage that Barack and I never had"?

[LSK]

133. woooo, another primary season where I get to disagree with you

So Edwards wife has an opinion? What does that have to do with his career of fighting Corporations and superior healthcare plan?

:popcorn:

[wndycty]

134. The issue is not what she said, its the role of a spouse (male or female). . .

. . .as it relates to going after another candidate. Since Elizabeth has injected herself into the campaign with criticisms of Hillary and Barack is she fair game? Can Barack, Michelle, Bill and Hillary unload on her? Or is she off limits?

This is not about her not having a right to an opinion, this is not about her sitting back and shutting up, this is about her picking fights with other candidates.

[LSK]

135. well if you wanted to compare apples to apples

The spouses of the other candidates are perfectly free to criticize:

1) Votes in Congress by candidates

2) Healthcare plans

Which is what you claim to be bitching about.

[wndycty]

137. So will you cry bloody murder if other campaigns go after her?

I don't want to see it but, if they do she brought it on herself.

[LSK]

139. you are not comprehending a simple fact

She is criticizing the CANDIDATES, not the SPOUSES.

[wndycty]

141. No I comprehend that fact, and since she got involved in criticizing candidates. . .

. . .would it be acceptable for the candidates and/or their spouses to criticize her as well? Or is she the only spouse that is allowed to criticize others?

[LSK]

146. sure they can criticize her, but not sure how it woud affect HER campaign

as she is not running for office and it would be stupid to waste time criticizing her, now wouldnt it??

If YOU ARE A CANDIDATE, you are open to criticism.

[wndycty]

147. And if you are candidate's surrogate who criticizes another candidate you are open. . .

. . .to criticism as well.

[wndycty]

136. Also having an opinion, speaking up DOES NOT bother me. . .

. . .after all Michelle Obama was recently very vocal about the whole "is Barack black enough issue," but engaging in the warfare of attacking other candidates is not a good role for any spouse, male or female.

I sincerely like Elizabeth Edwards, but she pissed me off with this. Not so much what she said (that is politics) but the fact is she in the attack position. I hope neither the Obama or Clinton camps take the bait and go after her because I feel attacking a candidates spouse (male or female) is off limits.

[LSK]

138. why would the candidates go after her??? wouldnt they go after John??

Did Elizabeth attack Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton??

:shrug:

[wndycty]

142. If she goes after a candidate it should it not be acceptable for that candidate or. . .

. . .his or her spouse to go after Elizabeth or is she untouchable. I think candidates spouses should be untouchable, but that was before EE decided to go after candidates.

[democratsin08]

140. obama is making too many dumb statements

i think edwards will overtake him for num 2

[zulchzulu]

143. ...statements that Edwards agrees with....

Name the statement in recent news that Obama has stated and Edwards was right there agreeing with him.

[NYCGirl]

144. Name 2 dumb statements. I dare you. NT

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

148. You're referring to how Obama has an unfair advantage because he's black?

:rofl:

I wonder what Elizabeth Edwards' explanation is for why Jesse Owens won the 1936 Summer Olympics.

[surfermaw]

149. Didn't Bill Clinton go after one of the Candidates,

I think he did, what is the difference in Clinton going after a candidate, and Elizabeth speaking her mind....

[Cameron27]

151. As the spouse of a candidate?

No I don't think he ever did that. He made a comment about Hillary and Obama's dispute, but he really didn't go after him.