Rwanda’s Women Are Leading the Way

I have recently returned from Rwanda. I was last there in 1994, at the height of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 Rwandans. The memories of what I saw haunt me still.

I wasn’t sure what to expect all these years later, but I found a country that has found in its deep scars the will to move on and rebuild a civil society. And the renaissance is being led by women.

Women are at the forefront of the physical, emotional and spiritual healing that is moving Rwandan society forward. One of them, from eastern Rwanda, told me her story — a violent, tragic and heartbreaking testimony of courage. She spoke of surviving multiple gang rapes, running at night in fear of losing her life, going days without food or water and witnessing the death of her entire family — one person at a time, before her eyes.

The injuries she sustained left her unable to bear children. Illness, isolation and an utter lack of hope left her in abject despair.

And yet the day I met her, she wasn’t consumed by hatred or resentment. She sat, talking with me and a few others, beside a man who had killed people guilty of nothing more than seeking shelter in a church. She forgave him. She forgave the perpetrators of her tragedy, and she explained her story with hope that such cruelty would never be repeated.

It is a humbling experience to be in the presence of those who have such a capacity for forgiveness and care. It is also instructive. If wealthy nations want their assistance programs to be effective, they should look to the women who form the backbone of every society. With some education, training, basic rights and empowerment, women will transform a society — and the world.

Women today make up a disproportionate percentage of the Rwandan population. In the aftermath of the genocide, they had to head households bereft of fathers. They had to take over farms, and take jobs previously done by men. But there were opportunities, too: Today, 41% of Rwandan businesses are owned by women.

I saw their impact first hand at a coffee project in the city of Nyandungu. All the washing and coffee-bean selection is done by hand, by women there. Women for Women International1, a remarkably active and innovative nongovernmental organization, has already helped over 15,000 Rwandan women through a year-long program of direct aid, job-skills training and education.

The organization is launching a project to train 3,000 women in organic agriculture, and is reaching out to females across the country. The women who instruct their fellow war survivors in economic development are an inspiration to those who cherish the essential benevolence of humanity.

But that is just the beginning. A new constitution ratified in 2003 required that women occupy at least 30% of the seats in parliament. (In our House and Senate only about 17% of the seats are filled by women.) Some wondered at the time whether it was feasible to meet this target. Now, nearly half of parliament and a third of the president’s cabinet posts are held by women. Rwanda today has the world’s highest percentage of female legislators.

Rwanda has a dark past but a bright future. It has a long way to go — the country remains one of the world’s poorest, and the social reverberations of the genocide are evident everywhere. Yet in the midst of tragedy, the women are building something genuinely new. Perhaps it is fitting that a nation so wracked by death could give birth to a vibrant new age. I know that one thing is clear: Through their bold and courageous actions, these women should inspire not only their fellow Africans, but all individuals — men and women — across the globe.

Mrs. McCain, the wife of Sen. John McCain and mother of four, founded the American Voluntary Medical Team, which helps bring doctors to war-torn countries.

Now that’s some solidarity. Something in which we have been sorely lacking in this campaign season, if you ask me. Moreover, Mrs. McCain makes a GREAT point in her piece - the importance of supporting women because they are typically the backbone of the community.

I admit, I had no idea Mrs. McCain was involved in so many humanitarian efforts (and I found out yesterday on the Rachel Ray Show that Mrs. McCain was a Special Ed teacher before she got married to John McCain - who knew??).

Not only does she work with this group, but she works with the Smile Train (their adopted daughter had a cleft palate) and The Halo Trust, an anti-landmine organization. And I have to admit, learning this about her made me see Senator McCain in a new light. Not unlike Elizabeth Edwards did for John Edwards (let’s face it - she was the more compelling person, and is totally awesome in her politics. Without her John was just okay. Which makes his cheating on her all the more offensive, the putz).

figure if he is married to someone like Cindy, he’s a pretty decent fellow (I have said before that I have always thought of him as honorable, and this confirmed it). Cindy McCain seems to have internalized the biblical mandate which basically says, to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48).

You know who else is like this? Hillary and Bill Clinton. Yep - they care a lot about others, and spend millions helping them out. Bill Clinton’s Foundation is an amazing organization, with extremely low Administrative costs - most of the money goes to doing the actual work. And we all remember Hillary’s brilliant speech on Women’s Rights as Human Rights, along with her efforts on behalf of women and other disenfranchised people before and after, that speech.

Frankly, this country is lucky as hell to have these two dedicated public servants, a fact at least John McCain acknowledges, certainly in terms of Hillary Clinton and her work in the US Senate. Know who else thinks so? Senator Joe Biden! Yes, I am sure we have all seen the YouTube video of him claiming Senator Clinton is certainly qualified enough to be President, and as qualified as he, if not more, to be vice president (if you did not see it, here is the LINK).

All that is to say, the hearts of the ones in the White House matter. How they see others, and treat them, matters.

I think there is a world of difference between how the McCains and the Obamas see other people. I cannot imagine for the life of me, Senator McCain flipping off Senator Clinton or Obama. I cannot imagine Cindy McCain saying she is just now proud of her country. What I have seen in both McCains is humility, and the desire to serve.

What I have seen in the Obamas is arrogance, and the desire for power (I might add, this perception is borne out in fact by the Citizens Against Government Waste who said McCain voted 100% FOR the taxpayers in 2007, and Obama voted only 10% of the time for the taxpayers. WOW.). I’ll take a servant’s heart any day (I don’t mean this with a specifically Christian connotation, but in terms of being a true public servant, one who cares about the people whom one serves, who takes THEIR concerns to heart and works to ease their trials and tribulations, who wants to make their lives better, to raise up the disenfranchised, who works for equality for all people, who fights the good fight because it is the right thing to do, not because of the accolades it will bestow. Like that.).

Hillary has it, Bill has it, and so it seems, do John, Cindy, and Sarah Palin, too. I don’t agree with a lot of their politics, but I cannot deny their dedication, commitment, and humility. I think I can live with that for four years. I cannot live with arrogance, condescension, and bullying for four years. Just sayin’.

Susan Nieman had an Op-Ed in the New York Times, of all places (what us be sycophants?), telling the REAL deal in her piece, “Change Germans Can’t Believe In.”

In her very good piece Ms. Nieman had this to say:

Barack Obama’s speech in Independence, Mo. (6/30/08)WITH gestures that ranged from a wink to a sneer, most anyone you met here this week volunteered the view that Barack Obama’s visit to Europe caused unprecedented frenzy. But it’s been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement — not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words “Germany Meets the Superstar” — but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking. When Der Spiegel featured Mr. Obama on its cover in March, the cover line was “The Messiah Factor.” Must one add that this, too, was not meant to be taken at face value?

Europeans will be as relieved as 72 percent of Americans to see the end of the Bush administration, but their attitudes toward the Democratic candidate are far from being the same as the ones he arouses at home. Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable.

Well, yes - of course Europeans, and the REST Of the planet, will be relieved when Bush is out of office. One little problem with that - Congress. Most of those Bush Enablers will still be IN office once he is gone. And heaven knows, they have done BLESSED little to rein him in. Nope - rather, they have gone along with just about every single thing he has requested, including shredding the Constitution, and I don’t just mean with the recent FISA debacle. Anywho, more than Bush need to leave office before there is REAL change: Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Dodd, Kerry, Leahy, to name just a very, very few, but I digress…

From our media, would you have ever gotten that the Berliners were anything less than thrilled, or that the Der Spiegel cover was a SATIRE?? Um, no. No, you wouldn’t. I don’t know about you, but I am pretty damn sick and tired of the media manipulating us to promote Obama. Sick of it. And I am not overstating the Berlin case. Here’s a little more:

In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated. But genuine worries about demagoguery are not all that’s at issue. The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams.

There’s more, particularly about Obama’s speech and from where he drew his “inspiration, ” but you can go read about it if you wish. The point is that it was not all a bed of roses for Obama, despite the attempts to paint it otherwise (remember how when Obama went to Iraq, all of the newspapers were blaring how the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supported his plan?? Then come to find out, not so much, but they did not blare THAT correction, oh no…).

And to address this whole US Military Hospital in Landstuhl that Obama did not visit, since I am talking about Germany. He is now claiming that it was the Department of Defense that derailed his big plan to go visit our wounded soldiers there. I guess in a sense, they did - they said that he could go as a SENATOR, but not as a CANDIDATE. He could take a few of his staff, but not his entire entourage of staff and press. That is to say, he could not use a visit to the wounded warriors as a freakin’ PHOTO OP for his campaign. How DARE they!!! So, instead of going to see them, as a US Senator, he went and worked out in the Ritz Carlton hotel where he was staying. Oh, if I was in the military, that would sure make ME want him as my Commander in Chief - NOT!!!!

And now, for more smoke and mirrors. By now, you have probably heard that Obama is considering yet another Republican to be his running mate. Before I get to that, allow me to digress - again - by bringing up Chuck Hagel, whose name was ALSO floated as a potential Obama VP choice. Hagel, the one who accompanied Obama on his “fact-finding” tour and demurred to him all along the way, even though HAGEL has actually been in the Senate for a while. But wait, there’s more - Hagel is one of the owners of Diebold. You know, as in the Diebold VOTING MACHINES. As in he won re-election in 2002 with a whopping 83% of the vote. It was unprecedented. Care to take a guess what kinds of voting machines they use in Nebraska?? Well, I imagine it came as a surprise to Ol’ Chuck that the Obama people are looking at another Republican, this time, a woman. Someone who served in BUSH’S administration. Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, is the person at whom they are currently looking. Amie Parnes and Ben Smith have written a comprehensive article on her, and the Democrats reaction to this news, in this article, “Obama Considers GOP Running Mate“. Thanks to my buddy, Diamond Tiger, for sending this to me this morning. She warned me to not be drinking anything when I read it - I suggest that to you as well. (There will be more posts on this, to be sure!)

See, here’s the thing. I have long thought that Obama was more Republican than Democratic anyway. When he started praising Ronald Reagan as a “transformative” president, a president who did VERY little for the African American community, and DISSED Bill Clinton’s two-term presidency, I became very suspicious indeed. When he went further and said that he wanted to return to the Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush, i.e., Donald Rumsfeld’s policies, I knew, just KNEW, that he was a closet Republican (and if rumors can be believed, that is not the ONLY thing about which he is in the closet, if you know what I mean!). And of course, choosing a WOMAN is supposed to both appease all of us Hillary supporters (as if that is the ONLY reason we want her - it’s all about her being a woman, not that she is far more qualified) and to prove that they aren’t a bunch of misogynistic pigs. Oh, yes - choosing a Republican woman just covers ALL of those bases - they get cross over votes, and appease all of us PUMA people mad that the woman in the race was treated like pure-T crap. Yes, we ARE mad that Senator Clinton, and by extension, all women were treated horribly in this election season by the DNC and the MSM, but just picking any ol’ woman, especially a REPUBLICAN woman, is not going to change the fact that they trashed the most qualified candidate in the field. And it does not give Obama any more experience, or integrity, or honesty.

Wow - they must really think we are stupid.

One last little smoke and mirror for your entertainment. And by entertainment, I mean another way a SD was arm-twisted to support Obama. That would be John Edwards. Yes, this is about John, his mistress, and his love child. Apparently, this has been known for some time in DC circles. Had it been anyone else (whose name happened to be Bill or Hillary), it would have been screamed all over the media 24/7/365. But the Obama/R/DNC could use this to their advantage, and boy, did they ever!! I trust that now the cat’s out of the bag, it might make it to the MSM, but there again, I’m not holding my breath on that. You know we cannot cast any aspersions on Obamessiah, without being damned for all eternity, that is. I always liked Elizabeth way more than John anyway, but especially now - it makes her disappearance from the public eye that much more telling. I guess she knew this was coming down the pike. I hate it for her, though. She doesn’t deserve this. Frankly, John was lucky to have her. She was what made him seem more believable. Well, that mirror is broken, and the smoke cleared now.

Holy cow - talk about your hoodwinking bamboozling. Please, please, PLEASE tell me why all of these so-called progressives (and I consider myself very progressive - and I make my own cappuccinos every single day. Oh, and I am highly “educated” too!) are supporting this Republican Lite?!?! I sure don’t get it. His version of “change” is looking more and more like the Same-o Same-O to me, especially if you are a REPUBLICAN. Way to go R/DNC!! We now have ONE party in this country (nod to you, WorkingClassArtist and rosieriter)!! Wait, that isn’t a good thing, is it?? Yikes.

As noted by many here, the meaningless endorsement of Obama by John “Pretty Boy” Edwards was designed to bury Hillary’s “devastating defeat by 41 points” of Barack Obama in West Virginia, a defeat “that should be EXTREMELY ALARMING” to ALL Democrats (even those in the DNC). Byron York covers how ABC News let itself be used to that end, even on its national newscast which never ordinarily covers live events.

BUT! This group of grizzled veterans (thank god for Fox News) know how little Johnny’s showboating yesterday really means — NEXT TO NOTHING! — compared to Hillary’s crushing defeat of BO on Tuesday:

Yesterday was quite a day. There was Bill Richardson on Fox, with drool running down and coagulating in his chin whiskers, dodging the question that Obama had offered him the vice presidency. It was so obvious that Richardson is consumed by the prospect. (Hey, Bill, he’s offered the VP slot to at least three other people!)

Then, when I told a very smart political wisegirl that Johnny had sold out for access to Obama’s mailing list (SEE BELOW), she told me WHY, she is certain, that Elizabeth Edwards had endorsed Hillary’s heath care plan a few weeks ago. It was to get herself a gig “as a fellow at the Center for American Progress to advocate on health care issues.” As the AP points out, “the Washington-based think tank was founded by John Podesta, President Clinton’s former chief of staff.” To think that others here, and I, wrote articles praising Elizabeth for pointing out the superiority of Hillary’s health plan compared to Barack’s. I was thunderstruck by how I’d been used. And how Hillary’s longtime allies were also used. UPDATE: To those who insist Elizabeth has stayed “pure” through this sad tale, I give you (thanks to Andy) this: “She also said [on Olbermann's Countdown that] while she prefers Hillary’s health plan to Obama’s, she’s glad that both provide for universal coverage.” — Jeralyn, “Elizabeth Edwards on Endorsements,” Talkleft blog, April 29, 2008. (In the past, Elizabeth has repeatedly said that Obama’s plan did NOT cover universal coverage, and she previously decried his ads that lied not only about HIS weaker plan but also about John and Hillary’s much stronger plans.] SEE ALSO (thanks again, Andy): Elizabeth on MSNBC, April 29 and the Countdown transcript (towards the end).

And of course — shock! — there was money involved:

(Thanks to John B. for sending me this — it is OBVIOUS that Obama gave Edwards his mailing list.)

RE: Help me in North Carolina

BUT! As Larry Johnson admonished us all last night:

My advice? Patience. Let Barack have his codpiece, “Mission Accomplished” moment. Like George Bush, he will rue his strutting and preening and declaring premature victory. Reality will intrude.

As Uppity Woman would say, “OOOOPPPPS! How did that get in here?”

A fortunate blogger was given the opportunity to interview Elizabeth Edwards, and has written a remarkably readable and cohesive piece, published April 14, about the interview and the woman who we’ve all come to admire. (For the record, I always considered John Edwards my strong second choice for president. I wish it were he remaining the race against Hillary Clinton because, then, I would have far fewer concerns about the eventual victor in the Democration nomination process.)

The blogger is Morra Aarons at BlogHer blog. Here are some excerpts:

… When [Elizabeth Edwards] spoke at Harvard’s Kennedy School last week the thrust of her public address was this: campaign coverage focuses less on substance and more on personality. In a race dominated by two “mega-celebrities,” she used Senator Joe Biden as an example of media slight that created an avalanche of negative effects on one “by any measure a serious candidate.” Biden had but one appearance on the front page of the New York Times. There were more news articles about Elizabeth than about ten of the presidential candidates! The “narrative template” of the media’s choosing was an African American man and a woman. And the media went there, and the result was sky-high ratings for election news.

I remember those days well. It was indeed odd to see such highly experienced men like Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Chris Dodd in the debates, barely getting a chance to speak but, when they were allowed, contributing much to the discussion.

Those were the days when we had an embarrassment of riches in our candidate choices. Now, not so much.

More Elizabeth and Morra:

“Who got to decide this?” she asked about the media’s anointment of certain candidates over others. “Whoever decided this probably also decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate for president.” She pleaded for less Britney Spears, who even graced the Atlantic Monthly’s cover, and more dissection of critical issues like health policy. Instead we get “strobe light” journalism to make the sound bite. You have to craft a “zinger,” she noted. Mrs. Edwards can master the zinger but she is a truly thoughtful person and I wish she were running for president. So much for journalistic objectivity, there, but I’m no journalist.

The Atlantic Monthly’s editors put Britney on their cover? Then I’m glad I didn’t renew my subscription.

But the real issue of that paragraph is that the media grab “hot” subjects for the sake of entertainment — believing their readers and viewers prefer to be entertained than informed. Is that true? Do the media have us pegged?

In our (readers’ and viewers’) defense, I do believe that incidents such as the brouhaha over Barack Obama’s remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians are important in that they reveal the real attitudes and character of the candidate. I.e., Obama’s attitude about small-town residents was revealed. So how did he react? It was that phase that tested his character. And it was a test he failed, in my opinion.

::::::::

Lastly, although there’s much more to the interview, I’d like to conclude with this section about the ideas that John and Elizabeth Edwards came up with during their campaign, and which they would like to see realized — so much so that they are willing to contribute to that realization:

One of the things that John and I tried…OneCorps. As you’re working, you’re out there, meeting with the other volunteers. We need to think about this post-Election period and where will people turn their energies. Our hope was that people would turn their energies to their communities. We hoped people would turn towards a potential candidate, great potential candidate… say “how can we help them” In particular try thinking about it outside the progressive community- thinking, ‘I’m gonna do an anti-poverty project and I’m gonna go to that Baptist Church and see if they want to do it with us and build the bonds there’…and maybe doing something else that would appeal to another group. People get used to working with one another to make the communities better and stronger.

We try to do it through OneCorps, it helps, people feel like they’re part of a bigger network if we have something [formal]. Whoever is the candidate, win or lose, one of the things they should do is build that operation into something that’s more civic-minded. The problem is that the way you do that is you use your email list, and the email list is a commodity that civic organizations are unable to afford. One of the things I want us to be able to do is to donate the list to OneCorps…

Politicians have a political agenda, so it’s important to incorporate those who aren’t running again. But “if people understood their own power and their own ability to change their communities…. It’s especially important if McCain wins the election because he’s against government activity that supports the work of organizations like OneCorps. …

It is a fine idea. One that could foster not only community involvement and spirit but also a sense of purpose that brings the nation together.

And I’m appalled to learn that John McCain opposes the creation of a networking community group.

Read all of the interview.

Interviewed by the television program “Good Morning America”, Mrs. Edwards said:

“You need that universality in order to get the cost savings,” Edwards said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I just have more confidence in Senator Clinton’s policy than Senator Obama’s on this particular issue.”

But Elizabeth Edwards, an outspoken advocate on healthcare issues, did say she prefers Clinton’s reform plan to reach the estimated 47 million American without healthcare coverage.

Late last month, Senator Kerry spoke about the politics of universal health care:

“Let me just tell you that Hillary Clinton’s plan in the United States Senate is a nonstarter, because it starts with a mandate that is unachievable in the Senate in what we need to do”

Kerry’s statements confirm what Hillary has been saying for months: Obama does not support universal health care.

Hillary’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson responded to Kerry by saying:

“We don’t believe that health care legislation that covers every American is a nonstarter; in fact, we believe it is essential to ensuring that every American gets the health care they need.”

For the last several weeks, Mrs. Edwards has become increasingly vocal in the health care debate:

“Sen. Clinton’s plan is a great plan” that closely resembles John Edwards’ proposal, she said. Clinton’s plan mandates that every American be insured. Elizabeth Edwards said only universal healthcare would resolve one of the problems plaguing the healthcare system — its soaring cost.

Elizabeth Edwards praise of Hillary’s healthcare plan and the fact that Mrs. Edwards “said that she wouldn’t be upset if the nomination battle went all the way to the August national convention and that Clinton and Obama would be a great joint ticket,” has Hillary supporters wondering if an endorsement by John or Elizabeth could happen before the critical May 6 Democratic primary in North Carolina. Regardless of what the Edwards do in Democratic nomination fight, Mrs. Edwards statements demonstrate that Hillary is the true progressive choice for president.

:::::::::::

Originally posted at Bud White’s World.

[Elizabeth] Edwards said she favored Hillary Rodham Clinton’s healthcare plan over Barack Obama’s.

“Sen. Clinton’s plan is a great plan” that closely resembles John Edwards’ proposal, she said. Clinton’s plan mandates that every American be insured. Elizabeth Edwards said only universal healthcare would resolve one of the problems plaguing the healthcare system — its soaring cost.

“Until we get rid of the need for hospitals and other providers to cover the costs of people who are not covered . . . the overall cost is not going to go down,” she said. “The only real cost savings comes when you have universality.”

Here’s the top of the article:

McCain’s health plan fails her test

Neither Elizabeth Edwards, whose cancer is incurable, nor the presumptive Republican presidential nominee would be covered by his policy, she asserts.

By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 30, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA. — Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, said she and John McCain have one thing in common: “Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy.”

Edwards lodged her criticism of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s proposal Saturday at the annual meeting of the Assn. of Health Care Journalists. …

We have written innumerable articles here at No Quarter on the quality of the health care plans proposed by both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (how I wish it were he remaining in the race*). Obama’s plan falls far short of either Clinton’s or Edwards’s. Paul Krugman concurs.

:::::::::

*Just a simple statement: If Hillary Clinton were facing off against John Edwards, I would be at ease about the general election contest — because, if he came out victorious over Hillary, I know that Edwards could take on the GOP. More importantly, I would also be at ease about the presidency. I can see John Edwards in the Oval Office. He is a born leader. He has a “buck-stops-here” mentality. (And he has Elizabeth, an exceptionally able mate.) Obama is too much of an appeaser, and he doesn’t work as hard.

Oh, and lest anyone here still think that Obama’s an angel — that he’s your messiah come to save the United States of Amerikkka and the entire globe — let me inform you that it wasn’t some anonymous DNC official who invented and then whispered the line about Tonya Harding last week to ABC’s Jake Tapper. It was Obama himself who first exploited the Tonya Harding analogy at a campaign rally clear back in December 2007.

You wanna know Barack’s big problem? He can’t close the deal. My daughter said to me months ago, “Mom, if he were really that charismatic, he’d have had this sewn up a long time ago.” As Blake, the character played by Alec Baldwin in the film adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross, says — and I’m saying this to you, Barack Obama:

You can’t close the leads you’re given, you can’t close shit, *you are* shit, hit the bricks pal, and beat it, ’cause you are going *out*.

There’s another reason Obama can’t close the deal (or win the gold). He’s a phony. Regular Americans see through him. They can tell that he’s an Elmer Gantry type. They see that he is full of shit. And so do John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards.

This is from Jeralyn’s terrific post tonight at Talk Left blog, “Why Edwards Didn’t Endorse Obama, Superdelegates and More,” in which she quotes John Heileman at New York Magazine:

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.

Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate. …

Jeralyn notes the takeaway from Heileman’s article:

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner’s diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama’s capacity to close the deal.

Jeralyn has a lot more to say about the state of the primary, and the next couple months. Check it out.

::::::::::::

Special thanks to MassDemm for creating the “Kneecappers” video.