Elizabeth Edwards on Clinton bumped
Matt Drudge didn’t waste much time moving on this
interview on Salon with Elizabeth Edwards: “Gender
Bender: Wife Edwards Says Hillary ‘Behaving Like a Man.’” Nice, but
it’s obvious he didn’t take the time to read the interview before blasting the
headline.
Elizabeth Edwards is a strong and forceful advocate for her husband, as well
as everything the Democratic Party stands for, including policies. Joan Walsh
was on the mark asking her about Clinton, but this question was just silly.
Do you ever have twinges about, well, you’re supporting this great
guy, your husband, but against the first credible woman candidate and the
first credible African-American candidate in the race?
Why in the world would Edwards have “twinges” about supporting John
Edwards? It assumes a stereotypical viewpoint that Hillary Clinton is owed the
women’s vote, which is patently absurd and something Clinton has never assumed.
In fact, there is nothing about any of the Democratic campaigns that assumes
anything as far as I can tell. However, Elizabeth does fall into Walsh’s trap
by suggesting that her husband is “keeping that door open to women,”
which is “more a policy of John’s than Hillary’s.” There’s no evidence
of that anywhere. Certainly, John Edwards’ passion to solve poverty in America
is laudible, even groundbreaking these days, but Hillary Clinton has been working
for women and especially children her entire career, which has been written
about often enough. It also seems that Elizabeth Edwards’ statement is akin to a statement she criticizes Clinton for making in the next question from Walsh.
How do you see that?
On the issues that are important to women, she has not … well, healthcare,
that’s enormously important to women, all the polls say, and what she says
now is, we’re going to have a national conversation about healthcare. And
then she describes some cost-saving things, which John also supports, but
she acts like that’s going to make healthcare affordable to everyone. And
she knows it won’t. She’s not really talking about poverty, when the face
of poverty is a woman’s face, often a single mother. She gave that speech
on abortion a few years ago [saying abortion should be "safe, legal and
rare"].Look, I’m sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only
woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you’re as good as
a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about
women’s issues. I’m sympathetic — she wants to be commander in chief. But
she’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see. John is. And
then she says, or maybe her supporters say, “Support me because I’m a
woman,” and I want to say to her, “Well, then support me because
I’m a woman.” The question is not so much how she campaigns — that’s
theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she’ll
govern? And I’m not convinced she’d be as good an advocate for women. She
needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I’ve heard. When she announced
her candidacy she said, “I’m in it to win it.” What is that? That’s
not a rationale. Same with Senator Obama — I’ve yet to hear a rationale.
John is extremely clear about what he can accomplish and why he’s the one
to do it.
Clinton’s rationale, as far as I’ve heard and seen first hand, is on display
when she talks about the issues. She came out ahead in the health care forum
in Las Vegas, as well as in the debate, where her answers on national security
were much better than her peers. Edwards certainly deserves credit for calling
out Bush’s “global war on terror,” but he’s got much more work to
do to make his point understandable to the average voter. Clinton’s “In it to win it” is a campaign slogan,
nothing more. I’m sure Mrs. Edwards understands that. It’s the same with her
declaratory statements that John Edwards has a “door open to women”
more than Hillary. Criticizing Clinton for a speech saying abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” is silly, I think.
There was also one obvious omission in Elizabeth Edwards interview that
stands out to me. The gracious move would have been to acknowledge the importance of Clinton’s campaign to all women.
It’s not about supporting Clinton because she’s a woman, and it certainly
matters how she will govern. But it is ignoring reality to dismiss this historic
moment in time where the first viable female candidate is also making a case
for her presidency that has the majority of Democratic primary voters leaning
her way, at least in the polls. You simply cannot, or rather, should not discount the importance of Clinton’s candidacy on simple gender bias arguments. Women
may have a chance to vote for a woman for president for the first time in American
history. Elizabeth Edwards should
have acknowledged that simple fact. It would have been a confident and true
observation, as well as the generous thing to do; then she could have offered
up all the wonderful things John Edwards offers, which are plenty. Give credit to Clinton first, then pivot of explain why her husband would be a better candidate.
However, the interview did leave me to wondering why Elizabeth Edwards decided to go this route with her answers. Is Edwards losing his grip on Iowa?
Comments are closed.