Biden, Feinstein.. Actually, I used to like Hillary a lot more-- I think her utter inability to formulate a cogent, morally consistent response on the subject of Iraq is a real problem. A major problem. I also think she's engaged in downright silly pandering on issues from flag burning to video games. I think she's trying to play Bill's "triangulation" game, but the American people are in a vastly different place now than they were 10-15 years ago.
Lots of us were in a different place back then-- I liked Hillary a lot more in 1993. Go figure.
But my point was, actually, in agreement with you- we don't HAVE to like prominent democrats; you don't have to like EE, I don't have to like HRC; although if she is the nominee I will, of course, support her.
Thanks for answering my question. I wasn't aware of Elizabeth Edwards' comments on that. The most noteworthy comments I've read about her making recently had to do with gay marriage and rights, and I thought they were brave and admirable. To the point that I wished she was running, moreso than her husband.
After checking around, I came to the conclusion that these had to be the comments in question: (and I hadn't read them until now)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/18/elizabeth-edwards-offers-sharp-critique-of-hillary/“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,” Edwards said in the Salon interview. “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.”
I don't know, I think it's a little extreme to call that "diarrhea of the mouth". On some of it, I agree with her- I think Edwards is stronger on Health Care (Kucinich is even stronger) and Edwards really is the only one who has spend a solid amount of time talking about poverty. That's the truth. Now, maybe Elizabeth Edwards should have brought up reproductive rights; certainly I think that is a big important issue to women, or to anyone concerned with the right of people to control their own bodies and lives for that matter--- when it comes to positions on reproductive choice, though, I think Edwards v. Hillary is kind of a wash- they're both solidly pro-choice as I understand it; although, again, getting back to the pandering thing, Hillary made some really disturbing noises about the need to "speak to" pro-life voters-- stuff that really contradicted the unapologetically pro-choice speech I saw her give at the 2004 March For Womens' Lives.
If she really wanted to pull the rug out from under the so-called pro-life movement and get the so-called moderates on board, she would be out there every day talking about the one thing that WILL reduce abortion rates- contraception. Unfortunately, the war on contraception is part and parcel of the religious right agenda, and apparently the DLC's brilliant (cough) game plan of "wooing the values voters" involves not mentioning anything that might upset them, like the fact that some folks screw for non-procreative purposes.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
