Elizabeth Edwards Pulls No Punches and is John Edwards the most feminist candidate?

draft_mario_cuomo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-30-07 01:12 AM
Original message

Elizabeth Edwards Pulls No Punches and is John Edwards the most feminist candidate?

Edited on Wed May-30-07 01:13 AM by draft_mario_cuomo

==Between Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, and Bill Clinton, the Democratic frontrunners have quite a powerful collection of political spouses on the campaign trail this primary season. None more so than Edwards, who is wowing audiences as she campaigns for her husband as hard as ever, even after the bad news about her breast cancer returning. Edwards spoke to reporters in Madison, Wisconsin, recently, before delivering a speech to a bipartisan group of women in politics. Looking sharp, healthy, and relaxed in a black pants suit, she paused to comment wryly to a photographer crouched in front of her, "That is the worst possible angle for a woman, you know. You may take those pictures, but you may not run them."==

==Aside from questions about her health, the topic she was pressed to address most was Hillary. Edwards talks a lot about breaking barriers as part of a generation of female attorneys who had to prove that women could do as well as the guys in previously all-male law firms. So now the delicate job of explaining why women should vote against her fellow barrier-breaking female attorney falls to her. As an advocate for women's issues and women's equal rights, how can she justify seeking votes for her husband, instead of the first likely female nominee for President? Her strongest answer: "In my opinion the candidate who's best for women in this race is my husband," she said. His universal health care plan, his plan to address poverty (a predominantly female problem, she reminded reporters) as well as equal pay, make him the most feminist candidate. Weakest answer: "I consider myself a feminist and as a feminist my goal is that no decision be made because of gender . . . that women don't vote for a woman because she's a woman. . . . It's really important to remove gender as a factor." This is the equivalent arguing against affirmative action on the grounds that we have already reached a level playing field. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Still, Edwards may be right that her husband is the most progressive, and the best for women, of the three front-runners. He is, as his wife points out, the most outspoken opponent of the Iraq War (she noted how disappointed they were in the Democrats' cave-in on funding for the war), an advocate for the most comprehensive health care reform, and the only one whose focus is ending poverty in the United States.

As for Hillary's "conversation" about health care: "We need to move forward," says Edwards. "We do not need to continue talking about it."==

==With Hillary's failure to support comprehensive, universal health care, the lack of serious anti-poverty measures in her platform, her qualifying statements on abortion rights, not to mention her hawkishness, she may be the least likely to usher in an era of feminist government.==

http://www.progressive.org/mag_rcb052907