Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elizabeth on Hillary: "She's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:01 AM
Original message
Elizabeth on Hillary: "She's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is."
The Salon Interview: Elizabeth Edwards
On her confrontation with Ann Coulter, why she backs gay marriage -- and why Edwards is a better choice for women than Hillary Clinton.

By Joan Walsh

Jul. 17, 2007 | Elizabeth Edwards is not wasting time. She cut through the fog of sympathy and second-guessing about her decision to continue campaigning for her husband, John Edwards, despite learning in March she had incurable breast cancer, simply by hitting the campaign trail hard. By most accounts she has always been the campaign's leading strategist and still is. But lately she has emerged as its leading risk taker, too. At the end of June she won the nation's attention -- and the gratitude of many -- for confronting right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter live on MSNBC's "Hardball," after Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" at a conservative conference in January, and joked in June about wishing he'd be assassinated. Since then she has been in San Francisco twice campaigning for gay rights, keynoting before the annual gay pride march in June and addressing the Human Rights Campaign's awards dinner on July 14. And where her husband, like the other leading Democrats in the presidential race, supports civil unions but balks at gay marriage, Elizabeth Edwards has come out behind full marriage rights.

Another famous spouse has been in the headlines in recent days, of course. But while former President Bill Clinton was busy telling Iowa and New Hampshire audiences that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has the experience to be president, Elizabeth Edwards' pitch seems to be that her husband has the guts to make the radical changes a president should be ready to make in 2009, after eight years of the Bush debacle. On Saturday night, at the end of a long day of campaigning, she curled up in light-blue pajamas made of environmentally friendly bamboo for an hourlong interview in her hotel room. She hit Hillary Clinton particularly hard, arguing that John Edwards is, in fact, the better candidate for women: "She's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is."

Edwards was getting ready to join her husband on his three-day "poverty tour" that kicked off Monday in New Orleans -- he called from Iowa during our interview to say good night -- and she talked candidly about why she confronted Ann Coulter, the frustrations of the couple's being attacked for their wealth while fighting poverty, whether her husband is colluding with Hillary Clinton to limit future debates to major Democratic candidates (she says no), and her shock at being criticized for going on with the campaign despite her illness.

You're here in San Francisco again for another gay rights event. Why do you support gay marriage? Why not civil unions?

I remember hearing Santorum ranting about how homosexual marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. I could be wrong, but I think heterosexual marriage is threatened more by heterosexuals. I don't know why gay marriage challenges my marriage in any way.

<SNIP>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/17/elizabeth_edwards/print.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. Frankly John Edwards portrays himself as a populous candidate for the less fortunate
however, his life style is pure excess, whether it is his house, haircut or other items which are inconsequential, however, apperance definitely makes one wonder how genuine he really is

Frankly, the top three candidates for the Democrats are quite a dissapointment to me. Yes, I will vote for who they nominate in 2008, but right now I am not impressed

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh, fiddlesticks. FDR was a populist candidate and he was wealthy "old money".
Some thought he was a "traitor to his class".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. And white people can be for Civil Rights for others. Men can be for voting rights for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Edwards is no FDR, and never flaunted his money, while saying he is for the poor
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 10:23 AM by still_one
Whether you like it or not, perception affects many people, and this is one reason why Edwards will not be the nominee in my view

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. RFK was one of our nation's most vehemently consistent and true voices
for the poor and disenfranchised.

Yet he came from a family of dazzling privilege.

A great majority of Democrats in the race are wealthy. That doesn't disqualify them for the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. again Edwards is no RFK. Perception is everything, and John Edwards
has conveyed the wrong impression. If you think a 28000 SF house, and 1200 dollar hair cut do not affect perception, right or wrong, it will be one of the reason why he doesn't get the nomination




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Please remember that RFK was no RFK when he began. Political careers
can be principle-driven. RFK's certainly was.

We have no glimpse of the the future, but there's no good reason at all to suggest that any candidate advancing a cause now could not realize that cause were he or she nominated and elected.

I admire Edwards for many reasons, but one of them is he believes what he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. We are a superficial society, at least today, and I don't see that being in Edward's favor
As an example, nader bills himself as someone defending the working person from corporate America, yet his investments in corporate America portray a contradiction. Does that mean he is not a consumer advocate? No, but it definitely does not convey a good perception

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Perhaps you are superficial
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 10:44 AM by edwardsguy
and it is you "concern" but do not claim that "society" is superficial...

Now...beyond haircuts and houses...care to debate John's stand on important things...like...oh...say...poverty or the economy, or healthcare, or Iraq, or the environment...that is after you get your hair done of course...you know...that "superficial" stuff you are so concerned about...

edit for sp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. LOL, I state an opinion, and you call me superficial, that's good
Perhaps I should point out to you that this "superficial" society is more interested in paris hilton than what happens in Iraq

Perhaps I should point out to you that this "superficial" society thought that they would rather have a beer with bush than spend time with Kerry

Perhaps I should point out to you that this "superficial" society allowed bush to get elected twice, because they believed the lies.

You want to talk issues? I do have a problem with his vote on the IWR. Yes he appologized, but that reflects judgement in my view. Right now he is talking the talk, and walking the walk, but the only LEADING candidate running who actually saw the error of violating the War Powers Acts was Obama. Funny, it was pretty obvious to other Democratic Senators also that this was a mistake. Those that voted for it, did so for what they thought was political considerations. However, Edwards never voted for the funding of this war which does reflect that he recognized pretty quickly the error in the IWR, which is more than I can say for some of the others

You think superficial issues don't affect the American public, wait until the primaries




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. If the IWR is all you have
Then how is the view from the cheapseats?

I am so sick of the Obamites and there "holier-than-thou" attitude on this issue.

Obama was not even in a position to cast a vote! Love the Monday morning QB approach though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Obamite? come on, where did I say I am an "Obamite". It is usually not a good thing to assume
If you read my complete reply to you, I also mentioned, that Edwards obviously recognized his error in judgement rather quickly since he is one of the few candidates who did not vote for funding the Iraq war.

My main point was that perception is a big thing in people's minds, and yes many people are superficial, you want to ignore that fact, then in my view your candiate will not come out on top in the primaries. Even the Edwards camp is concerned about perception.

Remember 2004, Kerry ignored the swift boating, and it hurt him. When he finally responded, the wrong perception had already been planted in peoples minds

You say it is the issues that count, and even though you are correct, it still doesn't mean you win.

There is plenty of time to recover from this, but there is no question that his opponents will use the perception against him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'm sorry but your examples are not really analogous.
I don't do Ralph Nader. I think he's a bright guy, certainly, and for years an effective voice in consumer advocacy.

I have no comment on his private holdings because I don't know specifically what they are. My objection to him is not issues-related. I think he's a poor communicator and for some reason, one of the coldest fish who ever slithered ashore. Intelligent but not very warm and welcoming. I've never seen Ralph Nader laugh.

That U.S. society is superficial is not new. And it's never been admirable. "Old Europe" distrusts us in part because we're hyper-materialistic nitwits.

That doesn't mean we are not possessed of great literature and the potential for great public policy. RFK is gone now, but Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel (hope I didn't omit anyone) are all in one degree or another post-Kennedy-era men and women, and their campaigns are principle-driven. We may differ on who's is best or truest to our own hearts but I think it's stingy to subtract from those candidates based on the flaws and conceits of the society around them.

Faulkner believed the writer's privilege was to lift hearts. I would assert the same privilege for political leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I am not a Nader fan, I was just using that as an example, though I admit it isn't the same
Much of the problem that exists today is the media. Is the media a reflection of us, are we a reflection of the media, or instead is the media a tool of a corporate America agenda?

I don't know, maybe all of the above.

I don't disagree with any of your points, and as I said before I will without hesitation vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2008. Right now I am undecided who I will vote for in the primaries. I will say that of the 3 leading candidates Edwards offers the best healthcare plan, for whatever that is worth


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
39. I think you are right about the media. It holds a mirror up to our
society and the image is oddly distorted.

And many parts of the image are disproportionate.

I think the Democratic Party is the team to back against the Republicans. When I see a Republican, I assume he or she is out to pick my pocket, snoop on my house, tap my telephone, and sell my reputation as a peace-loving citizen down the river. They're a shifty bunch, bordering on chaotic evil.

One of our people will likely have the nomination in hand by the middle of February or so. I look forward to that day. There are a lot of Republicans at all levels of state ballots who need to be replaced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Only if you're a complete doofus.

My dad voted for Carter when all his neighbors voted for Reagan.

My dad let his fields lie fallow after the election while all his neighbors planted fencerow-to-fencerow after Reagan "removed the restrictions" on planting crops.

My dad used the money he saved by not planting crops that earned less than they cost to plant -- meaning the more you planted, the more money you lost -- to purchase his neighbors' properties after they went bankrupt.

So by your logic my dad did not really oppose Voodoo Economics because he then turned around and took advantage of those economic policies to enrich himself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. There are quite a lot of people in this country who could care less about the world around them
Their lives revolve around gossip and rummors. The voting turnout in 2000 and 2004 is a reflection of this, people didn't care

Incidently, it isn't my logic, it is much of American society. The Clinton/Lewinsky affair demonstrated the superficial mind set of many, while they didn't even realize how well they had it, and 29% of the people still think things are going good



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. The "less fortunate" don't view wealth puritanically
Their heroes (sports stars, pop stars) are flashy, high-living people. White liberals, with their Puritan traditions, may bridle up at Edwards' lifestyle. But poor people think the rich who have it but don't enjoy it are crazy and stupid. If he wants the vote of the actual poor, rather than the vote of advocates from the poor, he's going about it correctly. It worked for Bill Clinton and it could work for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. Elizabeth, what else would you have her do?
...and as a Senator's and VP candidate's wife, what did you do?

Here's some of Clinton's record from NOW:

Saving the Courts

Hillary Clinton recognizes the importance of the federal judiciary and opposed the nominations of both of the recent Bush appointees to the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and joined in the filibuster of Alito. As president, Clinton would nominate judges who respect women's rights.

Preserving Birth Control/Abortion Rights/Reproductive Justice

Senator Clinton has a strong record protecting and advancing a woman's right to control her body and to plan her family as she sees fit.

Birth Control: Clinton co-sponsored the Prevention First legislation in the senate and has long advocated for strengthening access to contraception, identifying realistic solutions to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and improving access to women's health care. Clinton continues to champion increased funding for Title X family planning services, and insuring equitable insurance coverage for contraception, and has introduced new legislation to ensure Medicaid coverage of contraception for low-income women.

Emergency Contraception (EC): Clinton led the fight, along with Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to force the Food and Drug Administration to allow emergency contraception to be sold in pharmacies without a doctor's prescription, increasing its accessibility for emergency use. Senator Clinton also supported legislation to create, expand and fund teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs that would include access to emergency contraceptives.

Abortion: Senator Clinton's votes have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to a woman's right to safe, legal abortion, while at the same time working on programs to reduce the number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion Procedures Ban: Clinton voted both times against the federal abortion procedures ban; the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of that ban because of Alito's confirmation.

Young Women's Access: Clinton opposed a bill that would have made sisters, aunts, grandmothers, counselors, religious advisors -- indeed anyone who assists a minor in crossing the state line for an abortion without parental consent -- a felon. She actively campaigned against requiring parental notification for teen abortion, saying it would "put our most vulnerable teens at risk — teens who may already be endangered by negligent or even abusive homes."

Advancing Economic Justice

On every issue that affects the economic status of women and girls, Senator Clinton has advocated for a safer and more secure future.

Pay Equity: Clinton has supported and is the lead sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. She has a robust track record promoting women's educational advancement and equality in the workplace.

Minimum Wage: Clinton has supported raising the minimum wage every time it has come up in Congress and understands that it is a fairness, anti-poverty and women's rights issue.

Overtime: Clinton was a leader in our fight to prevent the Department of Labor from undermining overtime protections for low-income workers, mostly women.

Work/Family Balance: Clinton supports early childhood education, universal availability of childcare for all, paid sick and family leave and policies that recognize the dual roles of workers who are parents and caregivers.

Social Security: Clinton opposes privatizing Social Security and recognizes that this social program is essential to economic security and livelihood of women and families.

Domestic Partner Benefits: Clinton supports the extension of job benefits, and indeed all of the federal benefits available to married couples, to committed same-sex partners, "nothing left out."

Immigration: Clinton supports allowing undocumented immigrants and guest workers a path to citizenship and participation in Social Security. She is promoting healthcare for immigrant children as part of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Budget and Taxes: Clinton supports funding for human needs programs that are vital to struggling families and opposes billion dollar tax giveaways to the wealthy. She opposes making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and has proposed that they be rolled back.
Promoting Civil Rights and Ending Racism

Affirmative Action: Clinton hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in June 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan law school. Clinton noted that "for millions of Americans, affirmative action has knocked down the barriers of the past that prevented them from attending college, law school, serving in the military, or working in our country's leading companies..."

Hurricane Katrina: In a recent speech Clinton said: "And how do we say that everything is fine, Bloody Sunday is for the history books, when over 96,000 of our citizens, the victims of Hurricane Katrina, are still living in trailers and mobile homes, which is a national disgrace to everything we stand for in America?" She has also proposed rolling back Bush's tax cuts and using the money for reconstruction efforts in the city of New Orleans.

Voting Rights: Clinton is strongly committed to making sure that every person in the U.S. has the right to vote in fair, accessible and credible elections. Senator Clinton introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to ensure better protection of votes and to ensure that every vote is counted.

Advancing Health Care for All

Universal Healthcare: Campaigning in Iowa, Clinton declared that "We're going to have universal health care when I'm president — there is no doubt about that. We're going to get it done."

Health Care Access: Clinton has worked for decades to improve our nation's health care delivery system and to provide everyone with access to health coverage. Clinton's efforts have been public, focused and determined, making her the object of the insurance industry's smear campaign.

Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to strengthen Medicaid coverage for family planning services for low-income women. The legislation requires states to extend coverage for family planning services and supplies to women who would be entitled to Medicaid funded prenatal, labor, delivery and postpartum care.

She also introduced the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, to allow the Food and Drug Administration's to continue requiring that drugs marketed for pediatric use are actually safe and effective for children.

Stem Cell Research: Clinton supports expansion of the current federal policy, so that more lines of stem cells will be available for lifesaving embryonic stem cell research.
Ending Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Discrimination/Hate Crimes: Senator Clinton has long been a supporter of laws to protect the LGBTQ community from crimes based on hate, and ending the ability of employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. She supports efforts to expand hate crimes violations to include gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation.

Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children: Clinton supports the rights of lesbian and gay couples to adopt children. "I have seen the sadness and the hope in the eyes of children desperate for a family to call their own," Clinton said when speaking of gay adoption. "We have a fundamental obligation to make sure these children have a loving home and a chance to succeed." Clinton affirmed: "We are going to make sure that nothing stands in the way of loving couples — gay or straight — who want to adopt children,"


HIV/AIDS Program Funding: Clinton has urged increased funding to help people living with HIV/AIDS. Although she objected to New York's funding allocation, she has urged that instead of arguing over allocation that we strengthen the overall funding to meet the growing challenge and crisis of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. "That is the real debate we should be having on the floor of the Senate," said Senator Clinton.
Stopping Violence Against Women

Domestic Violence: As a law student, Clinton represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. As an attorney, Clinton was an outspoken advocate for children and families, including representing victims of sexual assault and rape. Her Little Rock, Ark. home was near the local domestic violence shelter, where she spent hours talking to the women and children, listening to their stories and helping them access needed resources.

Violence Against Women Act: As First Lady, Clinton was out front in urging Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. As a U.S. senator she has fought to fully fund VAWA, arguing that the programs of the act are critical to women being able to establish lives free from violence and its ensuing problems.

Global Protections: At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, Clinton proclaimed to the world that women's rights are human rights. She stated that "it is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide (of women) is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes and it is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broke Dad Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hillary "supports" this and that but takes money from the other side
Hillary can "support" all she wants, but as a United States Senate and presidential candidate, she has taken millions of dollars from the people on the other side. Hillary the First Lady and Hillary the politician walk on opposite sides of the political divide. Watch "Sicko." Read Woodward's book. If Hillary was ever an idealist, it all went out the window when she ran for office.

Hillary is Richard Nixon in drag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. such a vague and meaningless reply
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 10:41 AM by wyldwolf
Hillary "supports" this and that

Yep, she's been vocal about women's issues - contrary to Eliz Edwards words.

but as a United States Senate and presidential candidate, she has taken millions of dollars from the people on the other side.

Like... what and who?

Hillary the First Lady and Hillary the politician walk on opposite sides of the political divide. Watch "Sicko."

I have. :shrug:

Read Woodward's book.

No thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Link?
What money has she taken from the other side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. I have two questions: who or what can possibly
persuade John Edwards to be for homosexual marriage, if his own wife, who has a stronger voice than anyone, still hasn't changed his mind?

John Edwards voted to the right of Hillary Clinton on Iraq when he was in the senate, why should I believe he'll use better judgment as President, just because he and his wife tell me so?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconocrastic Donating Member (627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
16. That's nice but Edwards is toast
... after Hillary does to him what he joined with her to do to Kucinich. Hillary-Barak will be the ticket. Get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I predict Edwards-Harkin. No, make that Biden-Richardson.
Then again, maybe Kucinich-Graham.

Definitely Dodd-Murray.

And I feel extremely confident in the prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconocrastic Donating Member (627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
41. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
18. I must have missed Edwards long time vocal advocacy for women. Can someone fill me in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Heh
No :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. It's part of his anti-poverty, anti-war, progressive
voting record in the Senate . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. His progressive anti-war voting record in the Senate? LOL.
He voted to the right of Hillary on the war except for the single appropriations bill (the famous $87B one) then he missed most of his Senate votes to close out the year.

Even poverty, his bread and butter issue, doesn't look so rosy with his Senate voting record (see the bankruptcy bill).

And none of that makes him a specific advocate for women.

I appreciate his voting record on choice but the claim that he is the bigger feminist than Hillary (other than being bad PR for a candidate derided as a pretty boy) is simpyl not true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
24. Hillary is a “ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."
Jane Fonda says that Hillary is a “ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina. It may be that a feminist, progressive man would do better in the White House.”

For Fonda, the big disappointment was Hillary’s 2002 Congressional vote giving George Bush the green light to go to war on Iraq. It turns out that Hillary didn’t bother to read the top-secret intelligence report, that she as a senator was given access to before the vote. The six senators who did read it all voted against, because the still-secret report seems to have persuaded them that the case for war was flimsy.

“Women sometimes bend the wrong way just to prove themselves to men,” remarked Fonda. “But when we learn to listen to ourselves, that will be revolutionary.”

Americans might well ask who is the real Hillary Clinton? Her potential supporters are certainly having trouble working it out. Is Hillary a liberal who has been victimized by a “vast right-wing conspiracy”, or a scheming political control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs President?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/15/2545/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. John Edwards didn't read the NIE report
and he was on the Senate Intel Committee, Clinton wasn't. He co-sponsored the IWR, Clinton didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Last year Hillary joined Lieberman in opposing Kerry's troop withdrawal resolution
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 11:45 AM by IndianaGreen
Hillary's latter day "conversion" on the Iraq War took place after polls showed that 60-percent of Americans thought the war was a mistake.

Dennis Kucinich has been right all along!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Edwards' conversion came after a large
percentage of the population was against the war too, but I agree that Dennis has been right all along. No argument on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kat 333 Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. I don't think that poster, ever, responded ...
To the point that you were making. Which I think is an important one. He co-sponsored the IWR, Clinton didn't.

At least I'm not seeing one there.
And the bit about Kucinich ...
Well No Shit ?

"Last year Hillary joined Lieberman in opposing Kerry's troop withdrawal resolution
Hillary's latter day "conversion" on the Iraq War took place after polls showed that 60-percent of Americans thought the war was a mistake.

Dennis Kucinich has been right all along!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Yeah, I get my talking points from Jane Fonda... not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Jane Fonda is right about Hillary
and Hillary is a whore for corporate America. She loves that Rupert Murdoch money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I wonder why people get slammed for using
"whore" against Cindy Sheehan, yet the same word used against Clinton doesn't bat an eyelash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. because it's a true word to describe about Hillary
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 05:10 PM by Larkspur
Unlike Hillary, Cindy has not sold her soul to the corporate war machine to obtain power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. no, it's true about Cindy. She gets used. And Probably likes it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. Hillary is the #2 recipient of healthcare insurance contributions
and she is addicted to corporate cash. Every corporate donation must give her an orgasm.

Cindy is the living incarnation of that old woman in Jesus' parable who nagged the corrupt judge for justice. The corrupt judge today is a metaphor for Bush and our timid Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. How much corporate cash did your Lord and Savior Howard Dean get?
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 11:34 AM by wyldwolf
How far back on that healthcare insurance contributions is Obama?

What vile things have they done with that money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Howard Dean is NOT my Lord and Savior
I'm Pagan and worship the Divine Lord and Lady.

I don't support Obama nor any of the other Dem Prez candidates. None of them have inspired me to volunteer my spare $$ and time for them.

The problem with Hillary is that she is a triangulator. That means she tells people vaguely what they want to hear instead of standing for core Democratic principles and having a vision to help make the lives of the poor and Middle Class better. Hillary is a corporatist, not a populist.

Howard Dean was willing to recognize that his past support of free trade had to change. While it worked for Vermont because it did not have a manufacturing base, free trade devastated the Midwest. Unlike Hillary, Howard was willing to change if he was presented with a rational explanation for why his past support of a controversial policy was wrong, and he was honest about why he had to change. Dean was also willing to blast Bush and the Dem Establishment that was more willing to appease Bush than stand up to him. Hillary is an appeaser and a craven hussy for power just like her fellow DLC buddies, including Joe Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Jane Fonda makes excellent points here...
None of these top-tier leaders are TRUE BLUE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ~ there's plenty of room for someone else to step forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
48. "ventriloquist for the patriarchy ..."
Do you think Jane knows that the "ventriloquist" is the one with the brains in those acts? :eyes:

And Jane is one to talk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
37. And, of course, we have to believe her on her good word.
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 06:15 PM by Mass
I do not like Hillary, but the Edwards are really starting to tire me. Her darling is no better than Hillary on these issues, and she cannot even give one example where Edwards is better than Hillary on these issues.

While I do not agree on a lot with her, at least, she has been fighting for these issues for a lot longer and more strongly than he has ever done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Elizabeth Edwards is starting to eat up the political GoodWill she has earned.....
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 06:12 PM by FrenchieCat
and at the end of the day, it become just that more obvious that she is a political wife attempting to boost her husband's campaign for the highest office in the land. She may inavertently end up lending credence to the imagery that John Edwards is not the strong one in this family. Certainly one can look at it as the "She" of the Edwards team being selected to attack the woman candidate (guess Edwards doesn't think that he can), while he smiles and waves. There is a thin line between love and hate, and Elizabeth needs to chill on this front for just a tinch and a minute or two, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #38
49. IMO she comes across more like ...
A mother defending her child than a wife backing her spouse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Elizabeth Edwards- Johnny's attack dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
46. Does John ever speak for himself? (nm)
...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC