Female blogger reaches “breaking point” with Edwards
By NoQuarter on January 8, 2008 at 4:38 PM in John Edwards
Until today, Amanda Marcotte has been an influential and famously passionate supporter of John Edwards’ candidacy. As the media reported last year, she threw herself under a bus to avoid harming his candidacy. When she breaks with Edwards’ campaign over his sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton yesterday, we need to pay attention. Here’s what Edwards said via ABC News:
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., … reacted to rival Sen. Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment Monday.
Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.
“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters in Laconia, New Hampshire.
Earlier in the day, Clinton became emotional when speaking to a group of voters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Marcotte writes today at Pandagon blog:
Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much.
Here’s the video of Sen. Clinton’s “emotional” moment:
About that moment, Taylor Marsh eloquently writes in “Emotional Clinton on the Trail”:
[P]eople know when something is contrived. There is no doubt that she’s exhausted and the wall politicians usually erect completely falls in this exchange. She shared her honest feelings with the voters, revealing the Hillary people who’ve known her for years says is behind the politician we see every day. It’s a continuation of the “That hurts my feelings,” likability moment during the debate on Saturday, which was delivered so flawlessly. There’s a part of Hillary Clinton that has not been revealed to the public. It’s who she is and people need to meet that part of her. It was a very real moment. … (Read all.)
Taylor added this update:
UPDATE: More from the WSJ:
Allison Hampton, a retired teacher who was leaning toward voting for Barack Obama, says she’ll now go with Clinton. “When she broke up at the end, that came from the heart,” Hampton said. “She’s genuine and extremely intelligent.” (Read all.)
It is clear that Marcotte reacted as did Allison Hampton. So would anyone. It was a genuine moment, and powerful in that it exposed her humanity — but not her fragility, as John Edwards wrongly attempted to convey. That was a huge mistake by him. He worked with her for four years in the U.S. Senate and knows her well from the campaign trail. He knows what she’s made of, and shouldn’t spin false perceptions.
Like I’ve said, I have liked Edwards a lot. He has been my STRONG second choice.
I hope he apologizes. He has to apologize.
::::::::::::::::::
ABOUT AMANDA MARCOTTE: If you weren’t closely watching political news last year — or you weren’t attached with an umbilical cord to Daily Kos, where this was huge news — you may have missed what Marcotte did to avoid damage to Edwards’ campaign (via the National Journal):
Amanda Marcotte has resigned as the blogger for the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards. She blamed her decision on Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League who last week demanded that Edwards fire her for anti-Catholic statements at the blog Pandagon.
The Journal reports that Marcotte wrote in her letter of resignation:
[The campaign by Donohue] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.
Some bloggers felt that Marcotte felt “encumbered by the campaign and unable to effectively defend herself from the right-wing.” I don’t know the intimate details. But she has been a strong defender of John Edwards.
Today, she broke with Edwards’ campaign. She may support Obama, she says, but is watching him carefully for any signs of sexism.
Now laughing friends deride
Tears I can not hide
Oh, so I smile and say
When a lovely flame dies
Smoke gets in your eyes
Smoke gets in your eyes
“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters in Laconia, New Hampshire.
No doubt he said that. But, the selection is taken out of context, and a different meaning can easily be ascribed when the selection is literally framed by the rest of the sentences he uttered, preceding and following the selection.
Classic ‘mainstream media’ moment. Take a look at the ‘transcript’ regarding his response to the question posed by a reporter regarding the matter.
Yes, it was taken out of context, of course! I saw a clip of his comments and he prefaced what is written here with (paraphrased): “I’m not familiar with what happened….” and then went on to give his sales pitch about what a President needs, obviously trying to boost himself.
I’m so sick of stupid, kneee-jerk reactions based on incorrect info….
Expect it regularly. Election madness is running rampant through the population.
How can she even think of supporting Obama? Silence=Collusion. Obama has been silent during all of this, and when someone doesn’t speak up, they are really speaking out loudly with their silence. Or perhaps Obama is just playing his “present” leadership style again.
Edward’s reaction to Hillary’s difficult moment showed him to be the mean spirited trial lawyer in him going for the jugular.
He has positioned every attack on Hillary with his noxious attack dog persona useful in cross examination.
His blowhard promises are foolish to the point of absurdity. His promises are clearly a purely political impossibility, and the nasty stuff is an added fillip to the highly coiffed man of the people whose father we have endlessly learned worked for 37 years in the mill.
Politics is rough, and Hillary knows this if she didn’t quite know before, but Edwards and his impossible wife are a pair I would take pains to avoid. The toxicity seeps through their extravanza of populist message opportunism.
I think we need to get back to basics. All these negative statements made are only a portion what the true facts are. Everybody takes the portion out they want to hear and then repeat it. Learn to listen.
I guess calling Hillary ’scheming’ (e.g. 20 year plan to take over the White House) and ‘unprincipled’ or ‘polarizing/divisive’ had no origins in the misogynistic Hillary narrative. So it goes.
Experience is an objective description. “Scheming” and “unprincipled” are projections. I’ll never donate a dime or a single volunteer hour for Obama. Probably vote for him, but won’t get anything else.
This Oprah created Chicago pol is someone who will never get a penny from me. He now shrieks that he will change the world. Literally. Talk is cheap.
As for obnoxious and nasty Edwards he is so patenly phony I could throw up. His main reason for staying in this race is to stop Hillary.
The well coiffed Prosecuting Attorney and his extravagant and totally disingenuous claims for the liberation of the working class has worn completely thin. He tells us that without anything but the help from “the people” he will [without] lobbyists of any kind, fight everyone in sight and change America. Sure. I’m done with Edwards.
What’s in this for him?
Just who does Edwards win over by being focused on extreme poverty (they do not vote). Just who does Edwards win over by focusing on corporate greed? Hell he has isolated most of the corporate media as well as the so called “progressive” media. (go listen to Democracy Now from today and Mark Greens Air America program 7 days in America from this past Saturday). Both of these so called “progressive” media outlets are basically ignoring Edwards just like the MSM.
This is the first time I have ever criticized Amy Goodman for anything. For me Amy walks on water..but by leaving Edwards out of the debate does her listeners and ultimately our voting process a huge dis-service. Mark Green left out Edwards purposely (you could hear it in his voice)
Also just who does Edwards win over by not taking Pac Money? Hell the MSM ignores him and his stances on issues.
Something is up and that is that the corporate world is terrified by what Edwards has been saying.
Pardon me, but in what possible way is Edwards’ remark sexist? Where does he even HINT at attributing Hillary’s emotional moment to her gender? Have I missed something somewhere?
I don’t think you missed something, I think you found the absence of something.
Personally, I don’t think Edward’s was characterizing Clinton as a wimpy girl per se. I think it’s more likely he was resorting to a technique he learned as a lawyer - wearing down the witness.
If he can increase anxiety by adding to stress when it’s already high, he might break her down enough to trip her up later.
Consider the source. He’s a highly experienced and successful trial lawyer. He’d probably do the same for Obama or McCain.
“He’d probably do the same for Obama or McCain.”
Thanks, YB. I don’t know whether he was using trial lawyer techniques or not, but that was just my point. There is not even a scintilla of a hint of sexism in that answer. And it is more than a little bit possible that Hillary would have made a similar comment if one of her opponents - male OR female - were to show the same sort of emotion.
I don’t understand at all what people are getting so hysterical about. Hillary has been subjected to some genuinely ugly sexist attacks. This was not one of them.
Green tea time out.
The dems are not demons out to destroy Hill. That’s the republican’s job.
Let’s not batter and bruise ourselves too much early in the game Sue.
I cross-posted this at MyDD.com — which (sorry but I won’t shut up about it) is a damn fine political blog in that it is more cerebral and far more grown-up than the orange place.
It’s the #1 recommended diary at MyDD. Several Edwards supporters have posted. The better of them have said they contacted Edwards’ campaign to express their disapproval of his comments about his female opponent. It was heartening to see their remarks. I respect that deeply about them.
Overall, I’ve far more liked the Edwards supporters whose diaries and comments I’ve read than the Obama supporters. Particularly at Daily Kos (aka “the orange place”). There, the Obama supporters are thugs.
I do not use the term “thugs” lightly. Every time I wrote a criticism of Sen. Obama, their responses were “lies,” “all lies,” and — most infamously — “racism!”
There’s a phenomenon associated with the support for Sen. Obama, particularly among his young advocates, that is irrational, unreasonable, and frankly medieval. In longtime diarists at Daily Kos who’ve gotten on the Obama bandwagon, whose writings I’ve enjoyed so much over the years, I’ve seen a personality change. One diarist, in particular, disappoints me: He was one of the funniest, sharpest, most clever writers at Daily Kos. Now he’s consumed by anger, and spends most of his waking moments attacking anyone who criticizes Obama. The rest of the time, he writes about how criticism of Obama amounts to racism. It reminds me more than anything else of that great book I read a long time ago about “true believers” by Eric Hoffer.
Stay tuned. I have something very short I’m going to post later about this phenomenon.
This irrational commitment to Obama is frightening. The Obamarama spin machine has recruited young folks that do not seem to be digging very deep. This “agent of change, bold, anti-war candidate” rhetoric has no foundation. Most Obama devotees are not asking questions. Too fundamental for me.
Amen,they seem to be American Idol voters more than anything else. Probably voted for Sanjaya.
It reminds me more than anything else of that great book I read a long time ago about “true believers” by Eric Hoffer.
I’m thinking that his applies to all true believers. Hillary supporters included.
Let me say that I’m unmoved by this hysteria. This is a street fight. Hillary is throwing spit balls and losing.
She needs to take a few days off to fire some folks.
If she fires some people won’t the media then endlessly speculate about how her campaign is in big trouble? Political junkies know that most campaigns need a shakedown and a shake up every now and then. But the Hillary Hating Media will make it seem like a train wreck won’t they? Look what they did with a tear.
This was undoubtedly in bad taste by Edwards, I hope he turns that go for the jugular with the corporate lobbyist. Hillary has been picked on more than any other candidate and this is complete and utter bullshit. He apologized for his 2002 war resolution vote (Hillary did not). Maybe Edwards could be gracious and humble and apologize to Hillary.
But I will not be getting off Edwards bus anytime soon. His stance on diplomacy with Iran, his lessons learned from his idiotic and bloody vote for the 2002 war resolution, not taking Pac Money, his announcements that there will be no lobbyist in his administration, and no individuals who have lobbied for a foreign nation sealed the deal for me.
Anyone else notice the Obamarama campaign has taken on Edwards lobbyist focus. This is new for Obama.
this video clip took me over the top with Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM
It may have been in poor taste, but it was not in any way sexist based on any reasonable criteria.
I suspect Edwards and Obama have a you’ll-be-my-VP agreement in place. At least it sure looks that way with Edwards going on the offensive against Clinton and saying that both he and Obama are agents “of change.” Makes sense if you think about it, as they both view Clinton as the mountain to be overcome, so an alliance makes sense politically.
That might not be so bad provided Edwards will play Unca Cheney to Obama’s GWB.
Would that be a fact or an opinion, Shirin?
Taters, I would love it if someone could demonstrate exactly where the sexism is contained in what Edwards said because I don’t see it. And there are a few things my antennae are very sensitive to, and that I often pick up on even when they are very subtle - Arabophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism (believe it or not), homophobia, and sexism (I have great gaydar, too, for some bizarre reason, which has been very helpful on occasion to both gay and straight friends).
My gaydar sucks. Wish I had a friend who was good at it.
Thanks Susan..
Good article..I agree with your reactions and impressions..I think some Dems..like Obama and Edwards are making a big mistake with thier attacks on Hillary and are playing right into the Main stream Medias Hand..and the Talking Heads who ARE enjoying fueling the fires and creating all the controversy..no matter what unfair or sexist extremes they are will to go to..
I related to Hiullary at that moment…and understood what she was saying..with genuine emotion and feelings…It wasn’t a breakdown or overdone..in fact I thought Hillary was very dignified at that moment..Honest and Caring..Her Compassion..Her Work..and her Record all speak for themself..She showed great Dignity and Lady like composure all during the attacks on her by the Republicans and the Media..and all during the exposure of the Bill..Monica episode..She was a great National role Model as a Strong Woman and Wife..
She has demonstrated more Mental Stability and Dignity and Strength of character and Honesty than some Male Presidents like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush..
She has my Support because she EARNED it..and because I believe she is well Qualified for the job..Her policys are Realisitic..Her Compassion and Love for the American people is Genuine.. but then..
I have never liked Bullys..or .. Jerks…
This is as good a time as any;
Shouldn’t there be greater focus on candidate’s ability to select other people?
What does the president actually do all day? Does he write all the speeches, analyze all the budgets in excel spreadsheets, collect all the foreign intelligence? Does he go on the road to debate with opponents of his policies?
The White House staff alone is in the hundreds; not counting all the staffs in all the agencies reporting to the president.
It seems like a really big qualification is the expertise to pick the right people, and also keep them on track.
We don’t need to repeat what in my view is the over-arching failure of George W. Bush, which is that he’s there to be used by those he chooses.
I regret that I ever defended that declasse one term sen from SC. When are you going to return Feiger’s money, Mr. Edwards?
Only when he’s convicted, huh?
Character does count and so does Edwards’ lack of it.
Gonna have to say two things:
1) I don’t think the comment is sexist at all, but rather a desperate attempt by someone who is behind to get ahead (which Clinton herself can and would do to Obama if she weren’t going to win tonight… yes I think she will).
2) I think everyone here (including Larry) will one day regret supporting Clinton. What was more important to the Clintons in ‘00 and ‘04? Preventing Shrub from getting elected or helping him in (by neither supporting Gore nor Kerry) so that Hillary could sweep in in ‘08? I have been (and still am over many issues) a strong supporter and defender of the Clintons when I think the attackes are unmerited. But there is often a kernel of truth to what one’s enemies have to say. In this case it is that they are opportunists. Remember Black Hawk Down? You heard it here first, President Clinton 44 will have a bigger one in her term. Would it were not so, but this triangulation (which Obama is guilty of as well) needs to go. Results, not hype please.
Sorry if this offends anyone, not my intention, but I gotta speak my heart. God bless.
No question that Hillary is an ambitious and calculating politician, and Bill right along with her. But what disturbs me most is her record and her statements on foreign policy, international law, human rights, and military policy.
And those she has hired as her foreign policy advisers are not exactly sterling in that regard either. Madeleine “the price is worth it” Albright, who felt quite all right about starving millions of Iraqi children, many of them to death (and did so with the full support of Hillary “her heart is in women’s and children’s human rights” Clinton. Richard Holbrooke, who made sure Suharto got all the weapons he needed to kill 30% of the population of East Timor. General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon(!) and other enthusiastic backers of the Iraq debacle, and The Surge™. And I know I will be crucified here for this, but Wesley Clark, who, when he was in charge of bombing the crap out of Serbia, publicly announced that he was going to go after civilian targets.
Neither her record nor those of her top advisors bodes well for a positive change in foreign policy.
re being crucified here.
keep speaking your truth shirin. i find you of great value.
I’d like to know where she really stands on pardoning Libby. Not that she could do much about it, but we already know where Obama is, “let’s kiss the neocons and buy them some flowers.” This is why I’m left with Edwards as the only viable option.
I think everyone here (including Larry) will one day regret supporting Clinton.
The GOP does want her as the nominee.
He predicts it:
Bush: Hillary Clinton Will Be Democratic Nominee
Monday, September 24, 2007
Earlier polling (they were right) indicated that Obama was the only one who could beat ALL FIVE of the GOP nominees.
Think about it. They are fucking with the voting machines AGAIN!!!
Lao Tsu?
someone who is behind to get ahead
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
I wrote about this issue late yesterday, pointing out what is, to me, a pretty obvious case of people taking a quote out of context. Not one of the supposed major blogs seems to have taken the time to ask themselves the simplest of questions, which is “What do we really know?”
As one reader mentioned earlier (thank you Micheal Lafferty, for confirming that there are still people left who know how to read a story and discern what the facts are), the question Edwards asked, and for that matter any other contexutal information was omitted. All the report said was the Edwards wasn’t sympathetic.
Please show me the video that contains both the question and the answer, or show me some corroboration from other reporters. Maybe then I’ll take this seriously. In the meantime, you, FDL, Taylor Marsh, Tom Watson, Matt Stoller, and Amanda Marcotte should all be ashamed of yourselves for taking a bullshit story and turning it into a slag-fest.
Cujo, it doesn’t even matter what the context was. There is nothing - NOTHING - sexist in that remark of Edwards’. There is not a scintilla of a suggestion of a HINT that it had anything at all to do with gender.
I just don’t get the irrational way people have been behaving in the last few weeks. It’s as if some brain fever has overtaken them turning them from intelligent, sophisticated, thinking beings into raging knee-jerk hysterics.
What I am seeing here is that there is very little rational thinking or logical analysis in this election process. It’s as if the American people have lost their minds, and that scares me more even than who might be president in 2009.
It’s as if the American people have lost their minds,
And you thought it was just a bad dream.
You have ever seen such a clash of Stereotypes?
Yeah - I guess I’m not gonna wake up from this any time soon, am I?
No kidding, Shirin. It’s almost like folks are looking for an excuse to change their minds or something. Anyhow, the title of my article was “Take A Deep Breath and THINK For A Second”, which is what these folks really need to do. Most of them are smarter than this.
Anyway, the next time someone refers to the “reality based community”, I’ll be chuckling inside.
A lot.
“…Take A Deep Breath and THINK For A Second…
Really! And one of the things that has struck me as I have watched this Obama as Antichrist fever take them over is that they should step back and look at themselves side by side with the mindless Obamaniacs, ’cause I don’t see a whole lot of difference in behaviour between the two. None of it’s rational.
And don’t the “I hate Obama” crowd see that with all their bashing and smashing they might actually be helping the Republicans to undermine the Democratic candidate? We don’t know for sure yet who that candidate is going to be. Is that what “the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican” crowd really wants to do? Do they really want to help pave the way to the White House for a Bible-thumping, Armageddon-loving, xenophobic religious fanatic, or an uber-hawk who thinks the U.S. ought to stay in Iraq for a century, or a corrupt hyper-neocon lying crook who makes W look moderate? They bitch and rant and rave about all the Hillary bashing and how it is helping the Republicans while doing exactly the same thing to another top candidate. Talk about Democrats eating their own!
I don’t get American electoral politics, I never have, and I never will.
Who were the top two candidates in the Jerusalem Post article?
Sorry, Cee, I must have missed something. What Jerusalem Post article?
it’s real simple. hillary was in the fight of her life and the work of she and bill was in danger of going down the drain, (if she lost n.h.)
therefore, whatever either edwards or obama said would be attacked.
i’m reminded of the story of lbj saying to an aide. i want you to accuse our opponent of f*cking pigs.
but sir, he doesn’t f*ck pigs.
i know that. but i wanna see him deny it.
~~
politics is a contact sport.
i don’t know if this will clarify things or not. my take is
larry has stated that he favors edwards over hillary. he dislikes obama in large measure because of the foreign policy team around b.o. namely tony lake and company. there is a scene in one of robert baer’s books where tony lake is being discussed for some promotion by the white house aide with key dem. leaders and staff on the hill. aide gets pulled aside and told lake is d.o.a. on the hill. dead on arrival. nomination not put forth.
don’t know why, but that is extraordinary.
larry worked with some/many of these folks in his govt. days.
susan. well, we know she loves hillary. part of it, imj, is a generational cohort thing. both women are about 60 years old. she also thinks obama’s inexperience and never been vetted in a nat’l cmpgn. are major drawbacks.
I’m a 60+ woman too, can I be a cohort?
/he says with a smile/
kenoshamarge, from your posts i suspect you can be anything you want.
best.
Age “cohortism”, gender, race - should these things even enter INTO a decision like this? Seems terribly superficial to me.
shirin, see my comments below.
and i respectfully submit that this is reality. i’m not making a value judgement. good, bad. i’m just saying it is.
best.
Hillary’s foreign policy team is hardly anything to be thrilled with either from my point of view.
Oh! Right! 60-year old women are evil cohorts! Like a band of terrorists, right? What, you didn’t ever have a mather?
Oh! Right! 60-year old women are evil cohorts! Like a band of terrorists, right? What, you didn’t ever have a mother?
luigidaman. if you choose to distort my words that is your choice.
susan herself has said that she identifies with hillary because as a woman the same age they went thru similiar experiences. kind of like how people who survived the depression are formed by their experiences and those who were not there did not.
susan has spoken in frustration of her daughters, and young women today, of their own cohort, who simply don’t realize what life was like for herself, and her generational cohort “back in the day.”
you wanna argue with her…i’ll be glad to hold your coat.
cont’d.
because the word cohort stomped all over your buttons, and because i’m a nice guy
1) i first heard the evil word cohort when i went into the army. my unit was a cohort. radical dudes those army types.
2) there’s a thing called dictionary.com for words you don’t understand. here’s what they say about the evil word cohort.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1475–85;
luigidaman, here is exit poll information. i call your attention to the first 4-5 categories.
note that hillary gets her highest percentages from women not men. note that the highest percentage of people voting for her are women over 65. cohort.
note that the age group voting the highest percentage for obama is the 18-24 age group. cohort.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225995/
That was sexist… Jesus H. Christ some of you people got some delicate sensibilities. Grow a pair.
Ummmmm - I was right with you until that last remark, which was, you have to admit, sexist.