Elizabeth Edwards Emerges From Her Husband's Shadow

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Edwards Emerges From Her Husband's Shadow
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; Page C01

Her hair has grown back, longer and thicker. She needs a hand climbing into the director's chair positioned at the front of the George Washington University auditorium. Look closely: The wedding band is missing.

"She looks a bit fragile," observes Liz Roberts, an Arlington woman in the audience Monday evening. "Maybe vulnerable," says her friend Debbie Nichols.

And yet Elizabeth Edwards is here. Inside the Beltway, in front of the cameras, one week before the Election Day she once dreamed would carry her husband into the giant white house just seven blocks away.

The "husband," as she refers to him, is not here. This is Elizabeth's gig, her topic, on her terms. There will be no mention of the scandal. No interviews allowed.

Nearly three months after former senator John Edwards acknowledged he had had an affair with a campaign consultant, Elizabeth Edwards, 59, is gradually reemerging, cautiously creating a new public persona -- not as the victimized wife, but as an expert on one of the most pressing domestic policy issues of the day: health care. An expert with an unfortunately heavy dose of firsthand experience.

"Until October 2004, the only time I ever went to the hospital was to have babies," she says, gently reminding the crowd of several hundred of her first cancer diagnosis. "You have no idea what's coming down the pike at you."

The event is billed as "Sick and Broke: A Conversation About Health Care With Elizabeth Edwards," a cozy chat with a friendly interviewer from the liberal American Prospect magazine. It is sponsored by the Center for American Progress, the left-leaning think tank where she is now a senior fellow....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803640.html?hpid=topnews

[That Is Quite Enough]

1. OMG, I Heart Elizabeth Edwards.

One of the strongest, classiest, and most amazing women...ever! :loveya:

Ok, better calm down. I'm in a strange mood tonight.

[glitch]

33. I could not possibly agree more. I want her to get back her strength and play a big role in the new

Obama administration! To Elizabeth Edwards: :applause:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. K&R.

[noamnety]

3. That's some pretty offensive reporting.

Summary: "She's here to talk about health care, not her husband. Speaking of her husband, did we mention him and his scandal? Would you like to hear more about that, and about how she's handling it and how other political wives have handled the scandals of their husbands?"

[Miss Chybil]

6. Where is mention of your third sentence? Did I miss something? nt

[noamnety]

27. Maybe you didn't click through all the pages of the article

There was talk of how other wives "stood by their man" or didn't during the public airing of their hubbies scandals.

[az chela]

8. I didnt get any of that when I read the article

You sound like a bitter negative person

[noamnety]

28. Your personal attack is unwarranted and against DU rules.

This is supposedly a report of a talk a woman gave about health care. She specifically asked to keep the focus on health care. Instead the reporter chose to devote equal space (and higher priority space by putting it ahead of the health care issues) to the actions of her husband. I don't think it's necessary or productive to define women - and detract from their issues - by focusing on what their husbands have done sexually with third parties.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. The reporting may be offensive, but it's part of the fabric of modern news.

Elizabeth Edwards is famous for one thing: being Sen. John Edwards' wife.

The fact that the wheels came off the relationship in such a high-profile way will be reported upon, and it's unrealistic to expect people to ignore the elephant in the room.

Bill Clinton was the President of the United States. To this day, he is almost never interviewed without the name "Lewinski" being mentioned. The press talks about what they think we want to hear, and they hold that view with some justification.

On the topic of infidelity, does anyone find the way that John Edwards was treated odd, given the way that Gov Palin is being treated, after doing the same thing with her husband's business partner?

[waiting for hope]

76. This could be a topic all it's own:

"On the topic of infidelity, does anyone find the way that John Edwards was treated odd, given the way that Gov Palin is being treated, after doing the same thing with her husband's business partner?"

Better yet - also throw McCain in there too.

[dorkulon]

154. huh?

Seriously. If you're going to claim that, you ought to provide some support for the claim.

[karynnj]

148. i don't think the treatmant was that odd

The Palin story was never really proven and it was long ago. (consider why Lewinski was far worse than Flowers - where Clinton's stonewalling, lying and scapegoating made the story worse than it had to be)

I think the greater anger in the Edwards case came from 2 factors:
1) It was on-going as he ran for the nomination. (There are photos of her with him at the New Orleans launch) Even in retrospect, this led to revulsion that he was risk a loss in a very good Democratic year had he won the nomination. He knew the NE had already published accusations in 2007. This goes beyond the Clinton risk taking.) Consider Gary Hart.

2) The combination of the centrality of the Edwards relationship to his public persona, with many trusting him partially because of Elizabeth and the fact that she was bravely dealing with cancer while doing everything she could to get him elected President.

A third lesser factor was that on many things, Edwards' record was not consistent with his record. He implicitly asked for trust that his real current position was what he said. For many the shattering of trust in his denials of the relationship could have also shattered the needed trust to take his words over his record. If his Senate career would have matched his 2008 rhetoric, his situation might be more like Hart's. (rejected, but still given credit on the issues he raised and worked on.)

[Two Americas]

72. wow

Well said and I agree completely.

[glitch]

141. Excellent point well-stated. Typo WaPo unfortunately. VERY typical Ceci Connolly. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. The only reason she is famous is becuase of her association with John Edwards

It would be like writing an article about Kato Kaelin and not mentioning OJ Simpson.

[earth mom]

4. Are the Edwards separated or divorcing? I'm sad to read that she isn't wearing her wedding ring.

Btw, I think Elizabeth is wonderful. :hug:

[JeanGrey]

18. Let's hope she is kicking him to the curb where he belongs!

[Lugnut]

20. I'll second that sentiment.

He earned being kicked to the curb.

[salguine]

23. I'll third, fourth and fifth it. i actually admired him once. Fuck him.

[JeanGrey]

41. Thank god he wasn't our nominee and ruined our

chances...................

[Lugnut]

42. That's what really ticks me off.

I'd gladly choke him just for betraying Elizabeth but he jeopardized a whole country with his hubris. It was unconscionable.

[JeanGrey]

49. Very well put and so true. The very thought of it gives me

chills......................

[adigal]

54. She betrayed us too, going forth with his ambitions, KNOWING

that he had an affair. She has sorely disappointed me. And I thought the world of her.

[MonteLukast]

94. Because, dare I say it, she was putting his-- their-- IDEALS first?

I know we don't think lying for an ideal is possible after 8 years of Bush-Cheney and their fucked-up conception of "ideals". But we need to start entertaining that possibility.

[adigal]

149. Or their Ambition - with a capital A n/t

[earth mom]

84. That is total bullshit. Edwards was the ONLY candidate that would have fought the corporate

bastards. If you think Obama is gonna fight the status quo you're dreaming.


That Edwards made an all too human mistake in his private life-which is none of your business-has NOTHING to do with his ability to lead the nation.


I question the motives of anyone who disses Edwards for this because it is all too reminiscent of what the rethugs did to Clinton. :puke:

[MonteLukast]

93. I second your motion.

Nothing is ever going to get solved or answered by black-or-white moralizing about affairs.

Yes, he cheated on a sickly wife. That's the hardest point to get around. It's the main impetus behind dealing with Edwards in such a binary fashion.

But do we learn anything?

Do we ever figure out what to do, to fight those destructive emotions that propel someone to think it's OK to abandon a partner once they become less than whole?

Do we ever learn how to love and promote a person's ideas at the same time we hate their decisions?
(Those who believe Edwards was a phony all along have answered that question for themselves. It's a simple answer to the question. Well, part of our task as progressives is to beware the quick and simple decision.)

Do we ever come up with an answer to the problem of intelligent wives being "uncomfortable", and stupid but cheerful and accommodating mistresses being "comfortable"; and thereby debunk the idea that brains are sexually unattractive?

No, we do not. We really don't do much of anything when we think black-or-white.

[Two Americas]

99. third

I agree.

[Orsino]

127. He didn't just talk a good game; he delivered, for years, when he didn't have to.

When the spotlight was off him.

His fall from grace seems (but what do we know about his private life, really?) to have occurred once he was back on the campaign trail. It's a shame, and perhaps he might better have stayed home, doing what he did best, rather than nerfing his publicity value with a faceplant on national TV.

[JeanGrey]

134. You are living in a dream land if you think Edwards would not

have GUARANTEED a repuke win!

[Two Americas]

138. who said anything about that?

With what we know now, that could very well be true. So what?

The whole country is trending Democratic. Who cares now about what-ifs and might-have-beens?

The primaries are looooong over, and I would give it up. Edwards is dead politically. No one feels more betrayed than many of us Edwards supporters. Let it go. We have. The message he spoke - for whatever his character, for whatever his failings, whether he was sincere or not - lives on. That is what matters to some of us. Winning a petty intra-party primary scrap is not so important.

[cali]

160. oh bullshit. Mr. Hedge Fund had no problem whatsoev er screwing

the poor with his scummy investments. John Edwards was a lying opportunistic son of a bitch liar.

[MountainLaurel]

38. Yeah that

:thumbsup:

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. ...

x(

[closeupready]

29. I agree. She is a total class act, 100%.

:loveya:

[hamsterjill]

64. Totally agreed.

Now compare her with Sarah Palin...and well, you get my drift.

It takes a lot more than $150,000 worth of clothes to make someone classy!

[earth mom]

86. Yep, 150K bought Palin exactly ZIP. Which is actually kinda funny when you think about it.

:evilgrin:

[Eurobabe]

32. I have alot more respect for her ( I always liked her before too)

He doesn't deserve her. Screw him.

Hope you are feeling better with each passing day Elizabeth :hug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. She has to do what is right for her.

I'm sad to see people seperate too, but I can understand why.

[IndyOp]

39. The wedding ring might be missing because she of treatment - swollen fingers

make rings that used to fit impossible to wear. It happened to my mother when she was going through chemotherapy and on other drugs after she gave up chemo.

Just a thought...

[karynnj]

173. Here's something that backs your theory up

Here's a link that shows that at various points (when her weight was higher) she didn't wear her ring - going back to 2004 - including at least one picture with John. http://gawker.com/5071797/elizabeth-edwards-serially-ringless

Given the People magazine article where she did speak of the hurt and anger, but spoke of them needing to stay together and the kids needing to see their dad as a reformer - not for this scandal, it was irresponsible for the WP writer to call such attention to this and starting rumors without even asking.

[Marrah_G]

51. She probably isn't wearing it due to her illness

[question everything]

56. Her cancer treatment could cause swelling -

at a recent appearance on Colbert I thought that she gained weight - and the ring may be pinching.

[Maccagirl]

5. I have incredible respect for Elizabeth Edwards

I have no respect for Ceci Connolly.

[az chela]

7. I love and respect this woman more than she can ever know.

I have cried many tears for Elizabeth when she was sick,when she got sick again and then when John betrayed her but I can only hope that I am a tiny bit the person that she is and has always been.
My love goes out to you dear Elizabeth and to your children.

[bobbolink]

43. then it would be appreciated if you would show the same respect to her other supporters.

Elizabeth wouldn't have EVER stooped to such attacks.

Would you be proud to have Elizabeth see your harmful words?

Time for some soul searching.

[bridgit]

9. What a wonderful woman...

Elizabeth :hug:

[DavidDvorkin]

10. His shadow is much diminished.

[Booster]

11. Elizabeth was never under John's shadow. I was a huge

supporter of John Edwards and a large part of that support was because of Elizabeth. John Edwards will never be half the man Elizabeth is. I love this woman.

[tishaLA]

15. I thought the same thing when I read the headline

I am an avowed fan of Elizabeth Edwards and I have never thought she was in anyone's shadow. I have often thought that, had we lived in different times, when a woman could reasonably expect to pursue the presidency on equal footing with men, we would have been voting for her rather than her husband.

[Tatiana]

12. I love, respect, and admire this woman so much. I'm glad to see her getting out there.

She's strong and she'll be fine. Her voice is an important one in the fight we're going to have over health care.

[defendandprotect]

13. Elizabeth was obviously always the better qualified to be a candidate . . .

and John Edwards seems to have purposefully sabotaged himself?

Who could fu this badly by mistake?

Saw Elizabeth on C-span yesterday and watched awhile -- sad.

[glitch]

34. Agreed. nt

[Beacool]

14. I'm glad that she's out and about.

It's nice to see that she's feeling better. It must have been an awful time for her dealing with her illness and the uproar caused by her husband's infidelity. God bless her!!!

[FLyellowdog]

16. Thank you for this post.

[JeanGrey]

17. You go, Elizabeth! And I hope you've dumped that trash

you are married to and I hope you still control the money!!! YOU GO. You have more class in your little finger that John and his "little family" in their whole bodies. We love you.

[Swamp Rat]

19. .

:loveya:

[Tutonic]

21. As much of a prick as John Edwards may be, I still have to give the

map props. He forced Obama and Hillary to become better candidates. He sought to represent the oppressed. And to be quite honest I don't know how I would react if I tragically lost a child. The man is human. What he did to his family was wrong but I'll leave that to them to sort out.

[Pastiche423]

22. He did nothing of the kind

He was/is a poseur. Moreover, he did jack shit for the oppressed.

[juajen]

24. Thanks for saying that, Pastiche. I totally agree.

I've been thinking a lot of Andy lately. I don't think he would be too happy with the progress made on election fraud. Miss him and so many more. Where have all our DUers gone?

[bobbolink]

45. As one of the "oppressed", I disagree completely with you!

He was the ONLY ONE to get SHillary and Obama to even bother to mention poverty... and after his oblivion, that's what poverty is in... OBLIVION.

You're entitled to whatever anger you have, but remember that there are some of us who were VERY HURT and will remain so because we have NO CHAMPION!

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. !!!

:thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

66. Thank you. Its refreshing to be heard amid the attacks.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. ...

:hug:

[bobbolink]

68. .

:pals: :hug: :yourock:

[Pastiche423]

70. He was NO champion

He was all talk and no action. And please stop acting like you are the only poor person on this board. It's has gotten tiring, especially to those of us that are not only poor, but disabled as well.

Lookit, I've known johnnyboy for years. Furthermore, he was my senator for the 1st two years of his only term. I know how he voted when he had the chance to make a difference and it wasn't for the poor.

He claimed he worked for a hedge fund (you know the people that help put us in the financial crisis we find ourselves in) to LEARN ABOUT THE POOR. Hogwash!

Keep your fairytales, but don't expect anyone else to believe them.

[Two Americas]

75. so what?

No one was advocating him for sainthood, or even claiming he was an exceptional or good politician. There was a remarkable lack of personality cult around the Edwards campaign when compared to other candidates. You on the other hand seem quite obsessed with the personality. Edwards sucks, he betrayed us in my opinion. So what? Enough about it already.

I don't see where bobbolink ever claimed to be the only poor person here, but she is among the few who continually and strongly speak out for the poor.

[bobbolink]

119. please, then, make both of us happier and put me on ignore.

I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Two Americas]

74. hear hear

Agree completely.

[MonteLukast]

83. Amen to you.

I, for one, am not throwing John away either.

[Donnachaidh]

118. this is so true.

Both Hillary and Obama had to change their strategies BECAUSE of John and his willingness to speak for the poor and overlooked. He gets props for that.

[Darth_Kitten]

120. Shillary? Oh, that's respectful.

:eyes:

[cali]

161. nonsense. Obama has done far more for the poor and oppressed

than Johny Hedge Fund EVER fucking did. And he was more complicit in the fucking Iraq war than Hillary. How many poor people do you think that War murdered? Or do only the poor in this country matter. Edwards never did anything but talk, and he only started that after 2004.

One of the worst and most disgusting sham candidates ever. I pity those who fell for his crap.

I found him despicable long before his dirty little affair.

[Two Americas]

73. oh give it a rest

Edwards badly betrayed us. That doesn't invalidate the contribution he made, nor the legitimacy of those of us who supported him nor the importance of his message.

His political aspirations are dead and buried. Enough with the pissing on the grave.

[Pastiche423]

80. I will not give it a rest

johnnyboy conned a lot of people into believing he was simple boy, born of a mill worker and that his life journey was to help the poor.

The only person he helped was himself, while hurting many others along the way. He contributed nothing, well besides co-sponsoring the IWR and voting us into an illegal war.

He has not changed in the last three decades. He's always been about himself.

[Two Americas]

81. don't then

No one is arguing with you. Why stir up bad feelings?

[Pastiche423]

97. I din't "stir up bad feelings"

I responded to another poster, who brought his name into the discussion.

[Two Americas]

100. ok

What are you doing then? You haven't said anything that we all don't already know, and you must be aware of the bad feelings from the primary season and also how most of us have put those behind us.

What is an ongoing attack on Edwards if not an attempt at stirring up bad feelings?

[karynnj]

35. Both Hillary and Obama had long histories doing that

long before Edwards took it up. HRC worked with the Children's defense Fund and Obama worked as a community organizer when they left college. There is NONE of this in JRE's background. I do give him credit for articulating the needs well - but there were times he verged into near demagoguery. Read one of 2004 primary books, JRE ran on a pretty conservative Democratic platform - he ended his primary run claiming that Kerry's health care plan was too ambitious and expensive - his covered kids only.

What JRE did have was an exceptional ability to speak and to charm. He did use that in 2008 to push the issue of poverty and that was a contribution. I do see why some people followed him and believed in him. Had he won, they would have been the force that would have made him keep promises made as best he could. When he lost, it bothered me that he and his media supporters acted as though he had the standing to judge Obama's or Clinton's sincerity and commitment on this issue. Their records supported them far better than Edwards' did him.

[bobbolink]

46. Really? What is Obama saying about poverty now?

Where were we in his last speech.. the wrap-up speech?

...
...

...


.......


......



.......


c-r-i-c-k-e-t-s

[karynnj]

58. What do you think his economic plans were designed to address?

He doesn't speak the way Edwards does, but the legislation he wrote in Illinois did more for the poor than anything Edwards pushed in the Senate. (Edwards voted for an awful bankruptcy bill.)

[bobbolink]

60. The muddleclass. He was very clear about that.

We poor folk remain invisible.

We may be poor, but we aren't stooopid.

[MonteLukast]

87. I think he lied in large part for his ideas.

He lied to protect their viability. He knew what the MSM thought of him. He knew that a weak moment on his part-- which I believe the affair was-- would be blown up into a giant moral failing. And for many of us that was, in fact, what his weak moment became. :(
Because it does none of us any good to have only one response to every person who cheats-- condemnation. It kills discussion dead about the mental processes involved in an affair, and therefore how to truly prevent cheating; and especially how to deal with one of our deepest fears-- that our life partner will abandon us once we become sickly, old, poor or all three. Avoiding discussion about these things will not solve ANYONE'S problems-- the Edwardses' or ours.

They both are handling this beautifully. He's staying out of sight until after the election, and hopefully doing work behind-the-scenes; she's putting herself out there, as she should for health care.

I'm particularly impressed by her laying down the law with the press: stick only to the topic at hand. No personal interviews.

[cali]

163. oh, fucking please.

anyone who actually thinks Johny Hedge Fund actually did anything for the poor and disenfranchised is either deluding themselves or actually stupid- whatever their financial situation.

[bobbolink]

44. Very well put.

Interesting that we don't much hear the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" anymore.

People like me lost everything... he was the only voice.

We are now completely alone.

:cry:

[karynnj]

59. Are you really?

What about Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, both of whom are as progressive in what they do as Edwards was in what he said.

Look at Kennedy, hard at work with his staff on a Healthcare plan as he battles a malignant brain tumor. Look at his years of great progressive legislation. Look at Tom Harkin. Look at Webb.

Read Kerry's economics speech http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7643891 , his legislation, or the youthbuild organization that he has fought to fund for over two decades.

These are all people, who have worked harder on poverty than Edwards - and they are all still working for you in the Senate.

[bobbolink]

61. Are you trailing me around now?

You know, if you would put a little more effort into understanding rather than just trying to attack and belittle, you might accomplish a lot more for your candidate.

Just a thought.

And, yes, ALONE.

What we face, more than anything, is tremendous prejudice. Having a champion who speaks out, and brings real issues to light is extremely important in making any real "change".

You don't like Edwards. You've made that abundantly clear. That gives you NO RIGHT to follow me around and try to intimidate me.

Try listening and compassion.

It used to work for the Dems.

Maybe it could again, if given a chance.

[karynnj]

69. I didn't follow you around - i am responding on one thread

I was certainly not trying to intimidate you. Reread what I wrote. There are people that you could take as champions. I didn't add Obama - as you had already indicated that you didn't care for him.

You are the one who was not ready to hear. It is never the case that there is just one person who is working to make the world better. I tried to list some who were progressives and who were likely to be important in what might be the most progressive Congress since FDR was in power. This is our best chance for change in decades.

You are still in mourning for the loss of the "golden boy" Edwards who would lead the poverty effort. If he were really what you thought, he still could lead such a movement as an activist. (it might be the only way he could become viable again.)

I do know how it must feel. All of us at some time had someone we built up to be more than he/she was and more than anyone could be and then were hurt to learn that they had major flaws. What I was trying to say was that a week before we might begin to turn the tide, it might be good to look at people working on things you think are good. There may be no one who inspires you like Edwards did - but there are people you could support as moving the country in the right direction.

[bobbolink]

71. I will repeat.... IT TAKES A LEADER WHO SPEAKS UP!

While some of those you mention may have proposed legislation, NONE OF THEM IS MAKING AN ISSUE OF POVERTY IN A STRONG AND PUBLIC WAY.

It's not really that hard to understand. We poor folks need leaders to make a lot of noise, like Martin Luther King, etc.

There is so much ignorance among "progressives" (and yes, I know of that first-hand, as I meet it on a daily basis)and without a strong leader to SPEAK UP AND STATE THE REALITY, that ignorance continues.

And before you argue that "progressives" are so much better than the RW (goddess, I'm so very tired of that old, worn junk!), a grass-roots homeless organization did a very good study of the "left" media, and found that in rating all the various issues, homelessness was covered hardly at all. Even the corporate media did a better job than the "progressive" media.

Where is AirAmerica? Where is The Nation? ETc, etc., etc.

If you do know "how it must feel", then instead of trying to change me, how bout putting that energy into changing the disgraceful ignorance?

[karynnj]

77. I see more value in legislation

or the promulgation of possible solutions to problems which is what the people I listed - who are all very different did. I know Sanders, Kennedy and Kerry have spoken of homelessness - and I suspect that the others have too. No one has done as much as Kennedy in actually getting some improvements.

None of them are running Presidential campaigns - so they don't get the visibility. Did you read the Kerry speech I gave the link to or consider that Youthbuild has better the lives of many under privileged kids?

At this point, lobbying Obama or one of your Senators, who is making these efforts seems the way to help. Just as you thought supporting Edwards was a way out, I think that Senator Kerry is one of the most positive forces in DC - so I am a Kerry supporter. Poverty is just one issue that concerns me.

[bobbolink]

79. Maybe that's because you don't have the eyes of a poor person.

If you faced the discrimination and prejudice *I* do, maybe it would affect your vision.

And, to be honest, what you think isn't something I will spend a lot of time on, because *I'M* the one facing this, and so are those who I know. To dismiss OUR experience is paternalistic to the max.

And telling ONE PERSOn to lobby a legislator.... don't you think that's a bit naive????? Why aren't you oFFERING to help with that, instead of telling ONE PERSON to make lots of phone calls (with what money???) on her own???? You really don't see holes in that????


Legislation doesn't do much without changing hearts and minds.

Liberals should know that by now.

I don't see you as a person who is willing to hear the pain of another, so I can't see any use in continuing this unless you decide that maybe you could learn from another. Preaching to me isn't going to change one damned thing.

[karynnj]

88. You know nothing about me

You don't know if my dad was a milk man or a CEO. You don't know if I went to private or public schools or what my jobs were or are.
As to lobbying a legislator, you can email offices as easily as posting here. Legislation DOES determine how money is spent and what services are available.

As to changing hearts and minds, on what do you want them changed on? I doubt there is ANYONE on this board that does not thing that homelessness or lack of food, clothes, and medical care is not a bad thing and that there should be some basic standard of living for everyone. I can't imagine a President Edwards would be able to communicate that better than a President Obama - who was a community organizer in a neighborhood of Chicago many of us would not drive through.

I'm sorry that I responded to begin with - you seemed genuinely unhappy that no one was working on these issues except Edwards. I thought you might want to know that others in the Senate are working on these things. I don't see how whining about Edwards "changes one damned thing" either.

[bobbolink]

91. Exactly the point. You know NOTHING about me or other poor folk,

yet you made plenty of assumptions and wrote out useless prescriptions that you KNEW were time and energy wasters.

If you all think that homelessness is a "bad thing", then WHY isn't it a priority to change it?

And now that we've come full circle with this discussion, maybe you could open your heart just a bit?

I'm going to edit this to say.... you condemn me as being "unhappy", as if that's somehow beneath your notice.

tell me.... if YOU were living in your car, and saw that it wasn't of interest to "progressives", would you go around pasting a big smile on your face, and pretend that all is well, just to get accepted?

Geeee... it seems to me that there have been a number of "unhappy" people in the history of the US who complained and complained until REAL CHANGE was made.

[karynnj]

95. Who said it is not a priority to change homelessness?

If I remember right - that is the type of thing Obama directly addressed as a community organizer. I still stand by my point that every person I named did at least as much against poverty as Edwards. I did not "condemn" you as anything. There are many people with open hearts who did not believe in Edwards - and I suspect that my negative opinion of him is the sole basis for all your insinuations.

If you are living in a car, I wish it were not so - that is wrong in a country as wealthy as this one. I also did not know that and do not know why you think I should have - if it was of yourself that you were speaking in that sentence.

[MonteLukast]

96. I will say to both of you: I don't believe in throwing ANYONE away who is truly on our side.

My final word.

[karynnj]

98. I agree - no one should throw away any one really on their side

It would be a waste

[bobbolink]

112. and yet......

[bobbolink]

110. I've been thrown away so many times by "progressives" that my address should be a dumpster.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that statement, but I would hope it means that you are willing to care and listen to those of us who have no standing in this party.

[bobbolink]

114. That's some digging... how long ago was he a community organizer?

And somehow that is supposed to make me have "hope" that he's still going to do whatever he did then?

Kinda like McBush being a "war hero" two generations ago?

I don't know why you have so much pride that you can't understand that having someone speaking up and bringing issues and INFORMATION to the foreground that breaks through ignorance is IMPORTANT. I can't for the life of me understand why you continue to argue that my need for that is ... unimportant. Thanks.... you have really made me feel like a nothing with your looking down your nose the way you have.

You can "suspect" all you want... it doesn't mean that you have any talent for mind-reading, does it?

I HURT... I'M IN PAIN BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU CAN'T HEAR AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT YOU!!!!

NOW.... YOU show me lists of priorities by ANY "progressive" group that puts homelessness even ON the list.. let alone at or near the top. Go ahead... SHOW ME.

How hard would it have been to respond way up thread with: "It must be really hard to feel on the margins and need a champion, and feel like nobody is speaking up for you. That must be painful. I will do this: I'll do what I can to write to my Reps and ask others to do the same. What ideas do you have for ending poverty that you'd like brought to the foreground?"

Would that REALLY have put you out so very much?

Good bye..... it's really clear that your only agenda is to triumph over me, and let me know you're superior to me.

You win.

I'm just a loser.

congratulations to you.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[karynnj]

129. It's more than edwards did out of college

As to the rest, had I initially said I loved JRE and thought he was the greatest statesman since Abraham Lincoln, you would not have made the same assumptions - which is what all your attacks are. Way up thread, I knew nothing of your situation. There is no reason I should have been expected to. From your first response to me, you attacked me personally - not my opinion of Edwards, but me - just because my opinion of him is negative - and not just because of his infidelity. Had I responded then as you suggested - though it implies more knowledge than I had of you - you would have called that patronizing.

You are an equal here. No one looks down on you because you are poor. I did not even know you were when I responded. But, here, you are in a manipulative way are using the fact that you are poor, to avoid the real argument that both HRC and Obama have histories where they did help people who were helpless. With Obama, it was not just when he was a community organizer, it was his years as a civil rights lawyer and his years in the Illonois Senate, where he negotiated a bill that was Illinois' version of the Children's Health Insurance Plan. That was what my first post was about.

Where is Edwards? He still has the ability to be out there leading the movement that he declared his campaign was in addition to a normal campaign. He might be doing stuff quietly - in which case I will admit I am wrong about him. From the moment he was losing the race, he had very little chance of a political career. He had moved too much to the left to run in NC for a statewide position and a there was no way he could get much backing for a third Presidential race having won just one primary in two election years. He had no real background as an activist, few politicians do - but he could and can still use his skills in that area. It might be the way to rehabilitate his reputation and prove that he really does care.

[Two Americas]

139. Edwards sucks

So what? The primaries are over. His career is dead and buried. People here are talking about his message, not his celebrity status or qualifications for sainthood.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

101. How poor can you be?

You're using a computer to post on the internet. That doesn't make you rich by any means, but it certainly doesn't make you homeless.

[Two Americas]

104. good grief

Despicable.

It takes a much bigger effort for some of us to get online, and rather than being appreciative and understanding about that, you question a person's "credibility" as a poor person - an absurd idea to begin with. It would be safer and easier for bobbolink to NOT reveal any personal details, and the message would not change. It is courageous and generous of her that we do hear personal information. It is a gesture of supreme self-sacrifice. This reminds me of the vicious right wing idea that poverty is a lifestyle choice and that poor people are somehow pulling a scam on the rest of us. I hold that attitude beneath contempt and reject it utterly.

Have you heard of public libraries? Have you been alone and isolated, where the Internet is your only connection to people, the only way to reach them with your message? Have you been around people who continue to speak out on behalf of the downtrodden despite their own difficult circumstances?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

106. Supreme self-sacrifice?

:rofl:

I remember a thread where she was posting while under a tent. Unless she pitched the tent in the library, she has a computer of her own.

Oh, and billions of poor people have NO access to computers of any sort.

[Two Americas]

107. yes

That is what I said.

Let's say that a person is faking being poor. What could they possibly gain? Your ridicule? How would that harm you? Or perhaps a person is delusional. Why would you mock them under those circumstances. And without you to ridicule people, what would be the great harm done? What are you protecting us from? What do you imagine you are contributing that is of any value here?

I am talking about you, by the way, not about the person you are attacking.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

111. I didn't say she was faking it.

I'm saying that she makes it seem like she's *totally* destitute.

If she has a computer of her own, that obviously doesn't disqualify her from being poor, but it certainly sheds light on the extent of her personal poverty.

And I also factored in the global definition of poor, considering billions (not a typo) of people around the world have no access to basic essentials, let alone a computer or access to a public computer, like she does.

[bobbolink]

122. Yes, you're a good guy.

Like those who insisted that a DU hero who worked hard for election integrity wasn't really ill with cancer.

That was such a high point on DU that you've decided to do your own version.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

123. Do you buy strawmen in bulk?

[bobbolink]

125. goodbye... what a day... two people on my ignore list on one day...

must be a record...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

126. Try to find your sense of logic to make a valid point.

[Two Americas]

132. where was the failure to make a point?

Where was the lack of logic?

Show me where these are, and I will straighten out any confusion you may have.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

136. She edited the post after I responded.

But she did compare me to the people who questioned Andy Stephenson upthread, so I'm not the one flying off the handle for no valid reason.

[bobbolink]

109. You should be KO's "worst person" tonight.

That kind of hatred is worthy of the RW.

congrats

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. I don't hate you -- I just hate your strawman.

[bobbolink]

116. And you would accuse a gay person of lying about being gay, or a black person of lying about being

black.

What a humanitarian.

And we're supposed to then get the nation to believe that "progressive" hate is superior to RW hate?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

121. What in the sweet holy hell are you talking about?

I never accused you of lying about being poor.

I simply stated that the fact that you have (or at least have access to) a computer makes you not quite as poor as you make yourself out to be, particularly compared with the global scale of poverty.

[bobbolink]

124. You're the one who has decided that you're so much smarter...

So I'm sure you can figure out what it's about.

[maryf]

128. Clarification please?

"I never accused you of lying about being poor."

What did you mean when you said you didn't like her strawman for?

"I simply stated that the fact that you have (or at least have access to) a computer makes you not quite as poor as you make yourself out to be, particularly compared with the global scale of poverty."

Have you any clue how many public computers are available for free use? Of course countries without many computers are on a different poverty level than here if you want to talk about the global scale of poverty, (and the people in those countries are probably kinder to their poor) but to question the degree of someone's suffering or hardship when she has the courage to open herself up to incredulity and worse makes no sense to me. It was said elsewhere in this thread, why would someone lie about that? To make a point? Points can be made with cases from elsewhere, would you make up a story to make a point?

[Two Americas]

131. same thing

Who are you trying to kid?

What on earth is the difference between "not quite as poor as you make yourself out to be" and questioning whether or not a person is poor?

People in very poor countries and horrendous conditions are able to get Internet access, so your "global scale of poverty" argument is nonsensical. We do have public libraries here.

In any case, poverty is a symptom of social injustice, which is supported and defended by people with attitudes such as yours. Comparing people here to people in other countries, and in essence saying "quit your complaining, you have it good compared to others" is a common right wing argument and has no place in a discussion about poverty among Democrats.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

135. I never told her to stop complaining.

I told her to stop acting like she was *so far gone* in terms of poverty since she previously (in a long-ago post) said she was posting on DU from a tent, which means she actually did have her own computer, at least at the time.

People in very poor countries and horrendous conditions are able to get Internet access, so your "global scale of poverty" argument is nonsensical. We do have public libraries here.

Really? All of them? :eyes:

In any case, poverty is a symptom of social injustice, which is supported and defended by people with attitudes such as yours. Comparing people here to people in other countries, and in essence saying "quit your complaining, you have it good compared to others" is a common right wing argument and has no place in a discussion about poverty among Democrats.

Don't EVER accuse me of right-wing thought and sentiment. Just because I dared to question someone so emotionally unbalanced as to declare herself beyond the pale in terms of poverty, despite some evidence to the contrary, has no relationship whatsoever to how I view the world.

[Two Americas]

137. easy to solve

Don't express ideas that the right wingers express, and I won't accuse you of it. Can you show how your views expressed here differ from the views of poverty expressed by the right wingers? As with racism, it is racism itself that harms people, not being accused of expressing racist ideas. Your tender self-image does not trump the real suffering of real people, and we err on the side of supporting them and not you since you have nothing at stake here. So I will ALWAYS point out right wing points of view when I see them, regardless of who is expressing them. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Telling a person to "stop acting like she was so far gone" is close enough to telling a poor person to stop complaining, don't you think? Not much of a defense of the way you are "acting."

No, not all of the people in the world have Internet access. I didn't say that. However, access to the Internet is not "evidence" that a person is therefore not poor.

You keep changing your line in defense of your remarks.

Now you defend yourself by saying it is OK to attack people if they are, in your view, mentally unbalanced. I think that very much is related to how you view the world, as much as anything possibly could.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

143. Hilarious.

Don't express ideas that the right wingers express, and I won't accuse you of it. Can you show how your views expressed here differ from the views of poverty expressed by the right wingers?

For one, I think we obviously should tackle poverty. Unlike you, I don't believe that one particular person's repeated non sequiturs in response to me is the same as not caring about the issue itself.

And my earlier comments about global poverty is not a zero-sum game vis-a-vis bobbolink's situation, but it does put her situation into perspective a little bit.

Your tender self-image does not trump the real suffering of real people, and we err on the side of supporting them and not you since you have nothing at stake here. So I will ALWAYS point out right wing points of view when I see them, regardless of who is expressing them. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

How do you know I'm not suffering? I know bobbolink is suffering, though the particular *extent* of her suffering is what I'm questioning. I'm not homeless, but I'm one paycheck away from it, like many people.

And my feelings aren't hurt -- I'm an adult. My sides hurt from your heroic effort to nail yourself to the cross and your assumption that only people like you and bobbolink know what it's like to suffer under poverty.

No, not all of the people in the world have Internet access. I didn't say that. However, access to the Internet is not "evidence" that a person is therefore not poor.

You said upthread:

People in very poor countries and horrendous conditions are able to get Internet access

And no, access to the internet is not evidence that a person is not poor, but in the grand scale of things, it is certainly an advantage over the truly poor.

Now you defend yourself by saying it is OK to attack people if they are, in your view, mentally unbalanced. I think that very much is related to how you view the world, as much as anything possibly could.

If someone can't make their point in a clear, logical manner, particularly if they lash out at anyone with even an ounce of doubt, then they lose from the start. Bobbolink's increasingly bizarre attacks against me only hurt her own argument.

[Two Americas]

150. walk away then

Why not just walk away from the discussion if you have so many problems with it?

[Naturyl]

172. Wow, thanks for adding the Hannity perspective to this discussion.

Were you serious with that? Have you ever heard of a library?

Oh well, it's expected. Poverty can't be discussed anywhere (including leftist websites) without someone saying something like this. Reagan's greatest victory was erasing poverty as a viable issue on both sides of the ideological aisle. You don't have to listen to Limbaugh to hear his views on poverty trotted out anymore. It comes from anywhere and everywhere.

[cali]

164. try keeping up. Bernie has been agressively speaking up on

issues concerning the poor for fucking decades/.

[Two Americas]

102. the message

People assume that Edwards was some kind of "champion" or "hero" to his supporters, and that it is Edwards the man they are defending. That is always the case to some extent with any politician, but it is the message of Edwards that people supported and are defending.

It is not a matter of Edwards "inspiring" people. That may be true for those who need inspiration to care about poverty, I don't know. He was speaking for people who have not had a voice. A voice is what people need. This is separate from what he or anyone else has done, and separate from Edwards as a personality.

[karynnj]

146. True - but he was not uniquely speaking this message, which was the point I was attacked for

It is one of the standard Democratic messages. I'm sure it predates my watching campaigns, but others who have spoken of it since the mid-1960s include:

- LBJ, with all the Great Society programs that were created to help. Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps etc

- George McGovern - he was the Senator who pushed the Food Stamps legislation. I remember him speaking of a series (I think in Life magazine) showing the poverty in the South. He spoke of the number of children going to bed hungry every night

- RFK - (no need to give examples)

- Hubert Humphrey - he was a MN populist all his career and fought for things like this

- Ted Kennedy - the liberal lion, who has been a key player in tons of legislation that added to the safety net.

- Jesse Jackson Jr - Do you remember his keynote speech for Clinton?

- Mario Cuomo - his Clinton keynote speech was incredible and had the same themes that Edwards did in his 2 Americas speech)

-John Kerry - he wrote the precursor bill of SCHIP with Kennedy, backed Youthbuild, and had speeches as far back as the early 1990s speaking of how the richest people are doing better and the people at the bottom doing worse - and some of his Small business legislation helped people at the bottom

- Bernie Sanders - he is proudly a socialist. More than anyone on this list he has spoken eloquently on these issues and has constantly pushed legislation to help

- Sherrod Brown - another , newer, younger populist. I don't know enough about him, but he seems to speak the same message.

Now, I am sure I missed many people who deserve to be on this list- so this is not intended to be a comprehensive list. The point I was trying to make originally is that if the election goes as we hope, we will be in a period when we might have the type of systemic change that we had with FDR. This is a time to work as hard as we can to give Obama the biggest margin possible and elect as many House and Senate Democrats as we can.

I suspect that part of the problem is that the emotionalism of Edwards is in contrast to the cooler Obama. I really don't see that the platforms they ran on are all that different.In the primaries, the differences are magnified - to a point where the candidates look to be very different - what is ignored is that they agree on probably 90 to 95% of everything. Obama has seen poverty. That is why I mentioned his community organizing. It is rare for someone who earned a degree at the prestigious Columbia University to take a job working on the South side of Chicago. He then left to get a law degree at Harvard and was editor of the Harvard Review AND returned to the South side of Chicago to work at a different level. ANY editor of the Harvard Review has his choice of really incredible jobs. Those choices show who he is - and his Illinois legislation is consistent with this. This background should be reason to have at least guarded hope that he will work to help people who have nothing.

In other posts, you speak of getting past primary wars - I did it poorly, but I was attempting to say the same. Much is said in the primaries - by all the candidates - that is not completely justified and afterwards it is hard to put those things back into the bottle.

[Two Americas]

151. agreed

There are others.

At issue here, however, is not Edwards. He is dead politically, finished. But when people invalidate the people who responded to Edwards message, as you are doing, that is being met with resistance by us.

I completely agree with you about Edwards, so that isn't a cause for argument or a disagreement, is it?

When people hear you say in effect that "anyone supporting Edwards was a fool" that is not about Edwards. See the difference? People are saying they heard something different from Edwards. You say "no you didn't." That will always cause resistance from me and from others. You would, and have, objected to people criticizing politicians you like let alone criticizing you for supporting them. Grant the same privilege to others and there will be no cause for arguments about this.

[karynnj]

155. I did not invalidate anyone here

She was the one who made it personal, not me. I never said anyone supporting Edwards was a fool - so your use of quotes is absolutely wrong. I never said or meant that - that is you reading something not there. I responded to a post where she was saying that there was now no one. Of course no one is IDENTICAL to Edwards - but his message is a core Democratic one. My comment was a suggestion that she look into others - because it seemed she WANTED someone to believe in.

I have objected to what I perceive as unfair attacks on politicians I like - and some I dislike. I defended HRC, who I didn't support when Obama (who I did support) supporters were over the top. I have tried to use facts when defending them. If people heard something different from Edwards - why not respond with what he did or said that made him different. Make a case for it.

Instead, her immediate reaction was to 1) attack me (and others)and 2) to state that she is poor. Look back through my comments and hers - count the number of attacks in each. The fact is that she attacked in blind fury where none was warranted - I was at worst wrong. If so, she could state that and say why she thought so.

I don't see you calling her, on attacks on others (here's one I don't even understand - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4327788&mesg_id=4330185) or rude comments on people like Hillary - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4327788&mesg_id=4330211

[Two Americas]

157. the miscommunication

You are seeing this as a matter of politicians people like or don't like, and then seeing attacks on politicians as attacks on you. Some of us are critical of all of the politicians, and we have that right. I do not see why any politician should be immune from criticism, nor why anyone should take that personally and be offended. You assume that people are looking to "someone to believe in" and that this is what Edwards supporters are talking about. You are projecting the way that you see politics onto the rest of us. That is, I think, what is causing this miscommunication.

No one is pushing Edwards here as a hero or a savior or a celebrity or even as a politician, yet you keep responding as though they were. If Edwards message is not unique, and if in fact you support it, then you are in agreement with the rest of us. What then are you arguing with us about? Which politicians we should or should not "believe in" as a matter of personal need to do so? Some of us have no interest in that. You are welcome to see things that way. Forcing that onto others is going to be met with resistance.

[karynnj]

158. I assumed NOTHING - she SAID she had no one speaking for her

Did you read my posts? I was the one speaking of the issues. Nor was I, in any way, suggesting that any politician is immune to criticism. She was saying, explicitly, that there was no one else speaking of these issues - I gave examples of others who have or are. The post was bemoaning the lack of people speaking on those issues - giving a list of some that were seems one positive response to that. The later posts were me then defending myself from her attacks, which apparently were ok by you.

Miscommunication is a two way street and the fault can be in the reader - as I think it is in your case. I never said most of the things you are saying. I suspect that your last comment quoting me as saying, which I didn't, even though you put it in quotes, "anyone supporting Edwards was a fool" reflects your own anger because you believed and were let down. I have always felt the Edwards supporters supported him for all the right reasons. His words were good and in 2004, I trusted him as the VP nominee because of Elizabeth, even though I though he was too much a centrist.

The fact is that I was NOT the one who was the aggressor - she was. That is the simple truth even if she is your friend, if she was in the Edwards group and if she is poor - none of those mean no one can respond to her attacks. Furthermore, YOU have yet to admit that you were wrong attributing to me words I never said - and that in fact I never thought. You need to think where your anger is really coming from.

[Two Americas]

159. I agree with her

There is for all practical purposes "no one" speaking for the poor - or close enough to "no one" to have the same effect.

I am not angry. I think you are doing a lot of projection here.

You weren't being attacked, your ideas were.

[karynnj]

165. Still no comment on putting in quotes something you completely made up

The fact is that because you agree with her contention that there is no one else speaking for the poor, you do not care that she responded in a rage rather than simply diagreeing.

I personally was attacked in several of her posts - not my views. Anyone can read the record and she did.

It was you projecting in that quote, what may be your real belief or fear, as my words. The problem for you is that I didn't write them.

[Two Americas]

166. fair enough

I said that "in essence" you were saying that. If you were not, I was wrong and I apologize. In that case, I am still not clear what your point is exactly.

The two examples you cited as personal attacks did not seem to me to be personal attacks. I may have missed something.

[karynnj]

167. Thank you

What I was saying in many posts was that there were many who were working on poverty issues - adding that we are likely on the verge of a progressive era with a Democratic President, who as a young man took jobs that should mean he gets it and that he cares about it with a very Democratic Congress. There will be many people working to put this country right again - and that clearly includes dealing with poverty much better.

The examples I took were a response to first a very pro Elizabeth Edwards post that I suspect was from someone she already disliked. I took a post to someone other than me because it is easier to be fair in evaluating something I was not a party too. The other example was relevant to attacking Democrats she doesn't like in inappropriate ways - Senator Clinton's first name is NOT Shillary. The attacks against me were in her many comments that I don't care about the poor, homeless, etc. I will not dignify that by countering it with anything I or my family has done. The point is that she had no basis or reason to make those comments.

[Two Americas]

168. don't take that personally

Just my advice for what it is worth.

I think we have a greed problem, not a poverty problem, myself. Let's work on economic justice. Poverty is a symptom of that. Few politicians are talking about that, but the public is undergoing a radical transformation and if the politicians respond to that we will see some possibility for change. It won't come automatically just by having Dems in office.

We can't blame people for being suspicious and less than enthusiastic about "within the system" approaches, I don't think, given the history over the last 50 years or so.

Obama may grow as a leader and become something exceptional. The Democratic party politicians may start actually fighting for the working people rather than rolling over to corporate interests. I won't completely rule out the possibility that those things could happen. Both of those are made more likely by pressuring them and criticizing them, not less likely.

[karynnj]

170. I agree with you that since LBJ left office, the Democrats

have been represented by the Southern conservative wing. Clinton, in particular spoke of moving from those LBJ or FDR Democratic ideas as needed for the party to succeed. One group of Democrats for whom it has been an issue - even if they spoke of differently were the many "social justice" Catholics. (think Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Durbin etc) All of them have spoke - many eloquently of the responsibility to the poor - and it goes well beyond just keeping them from starvation etc. Threads based on these values run through speeches by all of them going back decades. Note that they all went for Obama (Dodd of course only months are dropping out). This may mean that that wing of the party may have more say given their links to the Democratic President.

There is also Bernie Sanders, who has always spoken for the workers and is proud to say he is a socialist. In addition there is Lautenberg, I heard him speak to a small crowd of Democrats a few years ago reminiscing about why he got into politics - the story was about his immigrant dad who died young from working in the silk mills in Patterson, NJ. He pushed his kids not to work there. Those are the ones I know anything about. these issues are real for them. (I'm sure I've missed other people or groups of people.)

The economics speech ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7643891 ) that Kerry gave to college students in MA was calling for an FDR type plan for fundamental change. Since the financial crisis started, I've heard Obama say things (less detailed than Kerry's - which was NOT a stump speech) that speak in FDR terms. Passing the type of efforts needed will take getting people to demand them. There will be people who will argue that there is no money for them - they will be the same people who are fighting to keep the Bush tax cuts. But, the financial crisis, on top of our other crises, may make the changes needed possible. (In less drastic times, most people don't see the need.)

[Two Americas]

171. yep

There are some good signs out there. Things are changing.

For whatever reasons others have about supporting Edwards, you may not agree but how about we leave it alone? There are so many big important things on the horizon, and the poor, homeless and working poor have been abused and neglected. We can't know now who will and who will not step up to the plate oin the coming months.

[Geek_Girl]

115. She posted on here after the 2004 election I hope she posts here again

The Thomas Jefferson, quote that she posted on DU, after the 2004 really lifted my spirits. I went on to forward it to my favorite Fantasy Author (who was also dismayed after the election) who posted it on his blog.

She really has a beautiful heart and is a beautiful inspirational woman.

[liberalla]

25. Oh Elizabeth Edwards, my heart ached for you then...

and now I wish you love, light, healing and peace.

May the pain you experienced in your marriage be overcome by other passions, causes, loves, and interests. Thank you for fighting for proper health care for all of us. :hug:

[bobbolink]

47. Well said. She is a national treasure.

And one of the very few true role models.

[malaise]

26. Bravo Elizabeth

:yourock:

[Olney Blue]

30. I hope Barack taps her for a role in his administration.

[bobbolink]

48. Suggestion... start a movement to that effect!

Raise voices and be heard on this!

[PA Democrat]

31. Thanks for posting. I was just wondering about her.

She had been scheduled to make an appearance at a women's conference last month in Pittsburgh and cancelled due to illness.

I am so glad to hear that she is still out there fighting for the cause! Love you Elizabeth!

[Irishonly]

40. She's My Hero

Her decisions are private and should be respected. Her inner strength is inspiring and her dedication to helping everyone get insurance is wonderful. If her health permits, I hope President Obama utilizes her knowledge and dedication to help right the wrong of our miserable insurance woes.

[Marrah_G]

50. I love Elizabeth- She struck a cord with me in 2004

I would vote for HER for president in a second.

Smart, strong, beautiful, classy and wise.

I wish the best for her, John and their family.

[Fla Dem]

52. I always liked and admired Elizabeth more than John, but......

I was somewhat disappointed in her regarding the scandal. My understanding is she knew of the scandal either BEFORE he announced he was running as a presidential candidate, or early on in the primary contest. And yet once she knew, she did not stop him from running even though, looking down the road, had he become our candidate, and then the news broke, the Democratic party AND America would have been up shits creek. I feel they put their own self interests above the party and country.

Some will say she was trying to protect their privacy and her family.
Wrong. Please don't try to convince me she was too naive to think this would not have come out and hurt her family more. Did they learn nothing from the Clinton fiasco? Or Gary Hart?

Some will say there was nothing she could do to stop him from running. I say BS. She is an independent woman in her own right. All she had to say to John was, "If you run, I am kicking you out of the house and divorcing you." He lagged behind Hillary and Barack throughout, he could have withdrawn from the primary, and no one would have thought anything about it.

I still admire and like her and wish her nothing but a good, happy and full life for however long that life may be. But some dsappointment in her judgement remains.

[bobbolink]

57. "no one would have thought anything about it. "

NObody?

Except the millions of poor people who need a champion?

Oh, that's right... we ARE nobodys.

[Fla Dem]

82. Unfortunately the champion of the poor had feet of clay.

I applaud John Edwards for his fight for the down trodden. My point was he was not going to overtake Clinton or Obama. If he was staying in the race to keep his issues in the forefront, under normal circumstances that would have been a noble fight. But given the circumstances, his infidelity, had he stayed in longer he would have been a major distraction and and caused critical damage to all of the Democratic candidates. He stayed in on a wing and a prayer, hoping his tryst was not found out, never thinking ahead to the consequences. Yes, some might have questioned an early withdrawal, and yes some of his followers would have been disappointed for the promises unfulfilled. But in the grand scheme of things it would hardly have caused a ripple compared to the tsunami that would have occurred had he become the party's nominee and then the news broke. That is where I question their judgment, whether they ever thought that far ahead and the the damage they could have inflicted.

[karynnj]

62. It may be that she didn't really know until after the campaign launch

The fact that there are photos of Hunter attending the New Orleans kick off that Elizabeth Edwards was not at and she was sitting next to Edwards seems to contradict that she knew when Edwards said she did. I would assume that the FIRST thing that would have happened is that Hunter would have been quietly told to stay far away from the campaign. Even without considering the hurt in seeing her, it would have been risky keeping her there.

I suspect that she didn't know the extent of it until he was exposed. It is hard otherwise to explain her obvious hurt and anger then. I am glad that she is moving forward.

[MonteLukast]

89. I still sense something different about John's affair versus Clinton's or Hart's

Cheating is not a pattern on JE's part, like it was with Clinton (and maybe Hart). His affair looks like a genuine weak moment, in the face of overwhelming sense of comfort and escape the other woman offered, temporarily.

Why was he able to resist the pull until now? You would think, for instance, that he would've cheated on Elizabeth after their son died-- bar none, the greatest strain on their marriage.

And you'd think he would've been used to women throwing themselves at him-- they probably have for all his life. He'd been able till now to resist the charms of all those women-- what was different about this time, besides the cancer?

[blm]

108. I agree - an aberrant weakness rather than a known proclivity for whoring around because he 'could'

BIG difference. Still ENORMOUSLY stupid, though.

[shimmergal]

169. I too have had moments

of thinking it was irresponsible on both their parts to go on with a campaign.

But no, she couldn't necessarily have stopped him. If he said, "I'm doing it with your support or without," what choice did she have? Maybe she wasn't ready to leave or divorce him, and remember, divorce is no longer a disqualifying condition for the presidency.

Actually, I feel we all lost when this scandal came out. While there may be others in public life working against poverty, who else is outright stating that corporate power needs to be reined in? Maybe Bernie Sanders, but he isn't nearly as high-profile as Edwards was as a former VP-candidate, let alone a contender for the Oval Office. With his experience fighting them (greedy corporations) he would have made a terrific Attorney General. Which is probably why he had to be taken down.

I must say though, his behavior during and after the "revelation" of his affair has been sort of puzzling. Why hasn't he done the whole public penitence thing, which would enable him to make a comeback? Why hasn't the woman been pressured to allow a DNA test, which would definitely reveal
the baby's paternity? (My answer is that if it's negative, she'd lose whatever hold she has on JRE for money; but others argue that he surreptitiously told her to refuse.) Sorry to bring up this story again, but by simply saying "he's dead politically" I think we're supporting whatever thugs (probably REthugs) want to utterly destroy his influence, and that of his causes. Ackkk!

[adigal]

53. I always admired her, but she put John and her own ambition

ahead of the good of the nation. She knew all along he had an affair, yet still they pursued the presidency, together. What would have happened if he had won and the affair was uncovered? God, I shudder to think about McCain/Palin for four years, which is what would have happened.

Elizabeth Edwards disappointed me more than any other public figure has in a long, long time. It was all about their ambition.

[Generator]

90. I don't know when he told her but I'm pretty damn sure he lied

about when he told her.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/12/1261045.aspx

*** Time for another sit-down interview? WashingtonPost.com reports that Rielle Hunter was WITH Edwards on his presidential announcement tour in late December 2006 -- and it has photos to prove it -- even though Edwards said the affair had ended before he made his presidential announced. Are we really expected to believe that if Elizabeth Edwards knew about her husband’s affair in 2006, she'd allow Hunter to be on the campaign trail?

[Two Americas]

105. casting stones

Too many are willing to put the party and winning above the good of the nation. None of us are so without blame that we can be casting the first stone.

The public is moving so quickly and dramatically away from the clutches of the right wingers, and there is such a tidal wave of support developing for the Democratic party now, that I think we should stop the "what ifs" and the hair-splitting analysis and projections. They are no longer useful. What we do with the political capital we now have is what is important. If the message Edwards was bringing to the debate is excluded, we will have squandered that capital and opened the door again for the right wingers rather than putting them away and burying them.

[question everything]

55. How is her voice?

Several weeks ago she was on Colbert, and then someone posted an audio video of an interview with a radio station, in Detroit, I think, and her voice was hoarse. I was worrying that this could be related to her cancer.

I hope that she is better now.

[Mabus]

78. She's a beautiful and strong woman

There's a lot to admire and respect about her. She's been through a lot and she's coming out fighting. :patriot:

K&R

[EFerrari]

85. I love Elizabeth Edwards and I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.

She is the best of us.

[Lifetimedem]

92. I hope Obama will have her as a consultant for heath care

[MonteLukast]

103. I was thinking HHS Secretary...

... but what about the kids?

Maybe John could stay home with the kids...

[Lifetimedem]

133. I was thinking she might be too fragile for that

[Tektonik]

117. I try not to think of the Edwards, the whole thing is too upsetting

[upi402]

130. i like them both

john is just a guy a screwed up, but he's not evil and done so much good. i hope they both continue to grace the American scene.

...we get another day

[blue_onyx]

140. I'm a big fan of hers

I was never a big John Edwards supporter but I always enjoyed her. I liked the fact that was was willing to publicly disagree with her husband. She said she supported gay marriage, while he husband did not. It's nice to hear someone willing to say publicly that they support gay marriage, something most Democrats won't do. Also, most people wouldn't disagree with their significant other if they would running for public office. She's great, brave lady :)

[Haole Girl]

144. I really kind of wish I hadn't read this

It made me pretty sad.

:cry:

[bobbolink]

152. Reality is sad.

Homeless people die in this country.

That is sad.

Does that mean we shouldn't read/hear about it?

I'm thinking that's why we are ignored...it's too sad to contemplate, so we ignore it and make it sadder still.

[maryf]

156. Sadness

Cannot be avoided, though many try to bury it and avoid it. If people would stop ignoring things that make them sad, stop sticking their heads in the sand, maybe, by living through the sadness and truly looking at the source of the sadness, such as homelessness, they may be able to truly understand the dilemma. They may learn to feel compassion, sadness with a purpose, and do something about the problem rather than just be sad. The only way to solve a problem is to look at it, analyze it, then fix it. If people can't tolerate looking at a problem because it makes them sad, they are leaving the problem to fester and grow until it gets to the point that its that much harder to resolve. Its a sin. Reality bites, but avoiding it is deadly to too many people.

[Ilsa]

145. God bless her. She's out fighting for others when she has been so ill

herself. Not too many people would have the strength and courage for that.

[bobbolink]

153. She's definitely a she-roe.

Yet, she gets blasted here in democrat-land.

:cry:

[deaniac21]

147. Her husband no longer has a shadow.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

162. The "husband," ...

Good for her.