Two thoughts ran through my mind when I saw this news on the MSNBC ticker. First, there will be no V.P. offer to Hillary, and second, he views middle-aged white women as virtually interchangeable. Why bother finding one with extensive public service and/or public policy experience when you can just pick the sweet one that everyone likes? After all, any post-menopausal broad will do. Also implicit in the announcement is the notion that one wife of a political male is as good as the next. It was an artful slam at both Clintons.
Comments on this Entry:
(innerredneckexposed on
Jun 9, 2008 11:04 PM)
I am guessing such an offer was proposed to Hillary or one for her that is much higherup/more likely to achieve something (like making her in charge of universal healthcare in the senate) or something like that.
Kind of doubt that he would intentionally slam HRC like this right after she endorsed him. That is just dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb politics.
(Drew on
Jun 9, 2008 11:07 PM)
“I admire and respect Elizabeth Edwards. This isn’t about her.”
Except it is about her, since however much you say you admire and respect her, you clearly don’t think she was chosen for her “expertise and experience” but rather as a “token.”
Otherwise, the post would be pointless.
(MelGX on
Jun 9, 2008 11:19 PM)
Elizabeth Edwards is an attorney who has never held public office or worked on public policy matters, other than serving on her husband’s campaign team. She is a smart woman, but has no health care experience that I am aware of. She could serve equally well in almost any capacity. Why he (or she) chose health care is puzzling.
(Drew on
Jun 9, 2008 11:33 PM)
Because health care is her policy interest and she’s proven herself an effective, high-profile advocate for universal coverage. It would be puzzling if he or she had chosen anything else.
FWIW, both Paul Krugman and Greg Sargent have a different view of the wisdom of this partnership.
(MelGX on
Jun 9, 2008 11:40 PM)
It’s entirely possible that this just hit me the wrong way today. That said, last I checked, neither Paul Krugman nor Greg Sargent are in the aforementioned target demographic.
(MelGX on
Jun 9, 2008 11:50 PM)
Here’s the problem, from Sargent:
“Late Update: The key political context here, of course, is that back in April, Elizabeth revealed that Obama’s health care plan wasn’t her favorite. Enlisting her as a public voice on health care could obviously help with the Obama camp’s outreach to women and help win over skeptics in general.”
My sense is that this will not help with “outreach to women”, at least not with disaffected Clinton supporters. Most women I know admire Hillary for very different reasons than they admire Elizabeth.
(Amber on
Jun 10, 2008 7:30 AM)
I hear you, Mel.
(odinseye2k on
Jun 10, 2008 8:31 AM)
Except … wasn’t the Edwards plan better than both Hillary’s and Obama’s?
I mean yeah, if Elizabeth Edwards is to be a Hillary replacement, that’s kinda weak, but this happens to be her signature issue just as well as Hillary’s.
Hillary is also super-strong when it comes to women’s health issues and reproductive choice. I’d have her kick ass on those grounds, and probably keep her around as anti-Republican pitbull both on TV and in the Senate.
(Drew on
Jun 10, 2008 8:40 AM)
Not being a member of the target demographic myself, I can’t really judge that reaction.
But I think it’s a bit much to say that his interest in a partnership on health care with Elizabeth Edwards means “he views middle-aged white women as virtually interchangeable.” Elizabeth Edwards isn’t a random white woman; she’s distinguished herself as an effective critic of both McCain’s and Obama’s health plans, and as Krugman and Sargent note, a partnership with Obama would enhance his credibility on the issue.
Obama and others may see the fact that she’s a white woman as a bonus, but I doubt that’s his the only reason even the primary reason for his interest.
(CatherineAtlanta on
Jun 10, 2008 8:44 AM)
Why wait until Senator Clinton suspends her campaign to announce the “partnership” with Mrs Edwards?
(Drew on
Jun 10, 2008 8:46 AM)
Because Edwards preferred Clinton, and would not have agreed to that partnership until she had?
(sndeak on
Jun 10, 2008 9:28 AM)
“I mean yeah, if Elizabeth Edwards is to be a Hillary replacement, that’s kinda weak”
Wwho said she was a replacement? It just seems that you are looking for something that isn’t there.
A new direction means just that. Why would you want to rehash the healthcare fight of ‘93 by appointing Clinton?…to much speculation here. Nobody knows the background of who was or wasn’t asked or what the background is.
(Jen B. on
Jun 10, 2008 9:33 AM)
I find it interesting that there seems to be a divide between the men and women (no matter who they voted for).
(odinseye2k on
Jun 10, 2008 10:11 AM)
I’ll hold off on the pop psychology.
Deak, I was trying to partial concede the point if it is there because while I don’t see it, it may be possible to see it.
(odinseye2k on
Jun 10, 2008 10:14 AM)
By the way, any thoughts on how to woo women, blacks, and Bubba without mutually turning off the others (with a message all see - no fair using dog whistles)? And yes, I may have just asked for the Holy Grail of Democratic politics.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 10:35 AM)
By the way, any thoughts on how to woo women, blacks, and Bubba without mutually turning off the others (with a message all see - no fair using dog whistles)? And yes, I may have just asked for the Holy Grail of Democratic politics.
Have Hillary as your VP?
(innerredneckexposed on
Jun 10, 2008 10:52 AM)
I doubt Hillary is the only Dem who can woo bubbas, I don’t think she would do better than BHO with the AA vote, and women maybe she has a better chance than BHO (although I tend to view groups as being more intelligent than voting for X candidate because X is a Z and I am a Z too).
And Hilldog said no to VP.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 11:02 AM)
well, first I couldn’t resist, but second, where did you hear her say no?
(MelGX on
Jun 10, 2008 11:16 AM)
There may be too much speculation here sndeak, but news reports are our only means of following the campaign. The message seemed loud and clear to me.
I don’t think Elizabeth is a “replacement” for HRC, but I do think she is part of the “replacement” strategy.
I know he’s supposed to be post-everything, but there’s got to be at least some political calculation behind this appointment.
(innerredneckexposed on
Jun 10, 2008 11:39 AM)
my bad I swore i read somewhere that she said no to being VP (honest mistake). I just searched google news briefly and couldn’t find nothing.
Just throwing it out there but there is also no reason to believe that almost all of HRC supporters have BHO as a 2nd pick unless she is getting support from people because of Kyl-Lieberman and the Iraqi war or authorization vote (which I would have to think is a minuscule portion of the Party).
(jac1975 on
Jun 10, 2008 11:41 AM)
Don’t forget too that part of what people “know” Elizabeth Edwards for is her recurring cancer, and her determination to fight ahead for her husband’s campaign despite it. She’s probably one of the most famous survivors on the political scene where it comes to health.
I hope it wasn’t tokenism too, though.
(Drew on
Jun 10, 2008 11:59 AM)
To me, it read more like an invitation than an appointment - as far as I’ve seen, EE hasn’t said boo about her interest in being an official part of Obama’s campaign.
As for how to woo women, I’d thought it’d be a good idea for him to pledge to appoint a more balanced cabinet, and more women generally; he’d have to start in his campaign first, and it’s be an obvious pander, but given that Bush’s whopping six women cabinet secretaries is a record, not really arguable.
But it sounds as if that’d be dismissed unless one of those women were Hillary.
(CatherineAtlanta on
Jun 10, 2008 12:11 PM)
Of course, Senator Obama is 2nd place for folks who supported Senator Clinton. I don’t think that’s the issue, at least for me.
This is not a shoe-in election, as much as we might like to think it is. I believe Senator Obama is going to need all the help he can get and we can give to prevail in November.
I think Senator Obama recognizes that, but it seems to me that his supporters do not. There seems to be a sense that he already won and that they just have to do more of the same to win in November. Sadly, that’s not the case.
(MelGX on
Jun 10, 2008 12:14 PM)
The way to woo women is the same way to woo any other constiuency. Listen to them.
Obama is actually doing better with women (as a whole) than Kerry did, but he’s not doing as well as he could with working women.
I don’t see this as a huge problem, but it would just be nice to win big for once.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 12:31 PM)
It pains me to admit this, but my mom falls into the category that just might not vote for Obama in the GE. She’s REALLY upset with how women were treated during the primary by him and his supporters, and by the FL debacle, and she just changed her registration from Democrat to Independent last week. My mom is very passionate and she is very passionate about this and she said the only way she might consider it is if he either picks Hillary or Biden as his VP.
(MelGX on
Jun 10, 2008 12:39 PM)
We have a chunk of the electorate vowing to practice “the audacity of nope”, but we shouldn’t give up on them.
(innerredneckexposed on
Jun 10, 2008 12:43 PM)
How were women treated poorly in the primary? I didn’t see anything like that happening. I saw a woman who was at times treated poorly because she made several gaffes, but a lot of criticism came from other women.
(MelGX on
Jun 10, 2008 12:58 PM)
Watching the campaign coverage recaps was interesting last week. I was reminded that the MSM went from declaring HRC the inevitable nominee to shouting her off the stage over the course of the campaign. I was frustrated by the coverage at the end, but feel the pain of the other candidates who were lost in the crossfire early on. It’s not personal, it’s television.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 1:07 PM)
How were women treated poorly in the primary? I didn’t see anything like that happening. I saw a woman who was at times treated poorly because she made several gaffes, but a lot of criticism came from other women.
sigh. There’s been lots written about this; I really don’t want to get into it on here, but I’ll just repeat some things my mom repeated over the weekend as that might be a window into this. I also should have added that some of what she was mad about was the ageism.
“You’re likeable enough Hillary” ~Obama (which my mom kept quoting)
“I hated that I was told over and over that I’m old and uneducated”
and now I’m forgetting some other things she said, but what it boils down to her is that my mom (perhaps unfairly) basically saw this race as a chance to confirm the women’s movement and she sees what happened as what’s happened to women in normal life writ large: the qualified older woman gets passed over for a job (or job promotion) in the workplace by the younger, charismatic, but less qualified, male. My mom’s generation has experienced that phenom over and over all their lives and they feel like they just saw it play out on the national stage with this election.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 1:19 PM)
We have a chunk of the electorate vowing to practice “the audacity of nope”, but we shouldn’t give up on them.
Yep, and they’re also forming PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), but I agree, please don’t give up on them. Have you seen this article?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_now_all_about_respect.html
(Jules on
Jun 10, 2008 1:57 PM)
I guess the obvious question is, who was speaking to your Mom? Was it the campaign or the media? All the rural, and middle income folks those comments were straight from Fox and CNN. I get an e-mail a day from Sen Obama’s campaign and I have yet to be offend, except over the constant beg for money, which seriously duh!
As far as the “you are likeable enough” frankly that was just bad, but my goodness after everything that was said by her husband about AA voters, really it might be time to put that in the “wow” we’re both freaking tired and our our attempts at humor might fall flat category.
As and FYI: my mother also a Equal Rights & NOW chick, ( we were not allowed to watch I Dream of Jeannie cause of the No master yes master”) Who voted for Bill because of Hillary in the day can’t stand the woman now. So go figure.
(odinseye2k on
Jun 10, 2008 2:07 PM)
IRE, you should check out the various re-mixes on sexism in the media during this primary. There is some God-awful stuff out there.
However, most of the worst is from people like Tucker Carson, Joe Scarborough, and such that are very rarely our friends anyways. Chris Matthews is a toss-up, as is Lou Dobbs (they both have this amazing ability to make me go from “right on” to “fuck you” in record time).
But, there’s still a lot of work (perhaps cultural work) to do on the educated v. uneducated thing. There needs to be another category for sophistication to fall into other than “snob” or the guy that comes into your Podunk town to pirate the place and buy up all the land.
(MelGX on
Jun 10, 2008 2:11 PM)
Great link plange. I hadn’t seen that, but it rings true.
(CatherineAtlanta on
Jun 10, 2008 2:40 PM)
“I guess the obvious question is, who was speaking to your Mom? Was it the campaign or the media? All the rural, and middle income folks those comments were straight from Fox and CNN. I get an e-mail a day from Sen Obama’s campaign and I have yet to be offend, except over the constant beg for money, which seriously duh!”
It doesn’t really matter who is speaking, does it? The message is getting through and no one has spoken out specifically against it.
I assume you get an email a day because you signed up. For those of us who haven’t done that yet, when we go looking we find a lot of nastiness.
(innerredneckexposed on
Jun 10, 2008 2:44 PM)
I think people are conflating opposition to Democrats (specifically Hillary) with sexism when it may not be there (ex: Tucker Carlson who opposes Democrats and nothing else needs to be read into his statements IMO).
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 3:01 PM)
I think people are conflating opposition to Democrats (specifically Hillary) with sexism when it may not be there (ex: Tucker Carlson who opposes Democrats and nothing else needs to be read into his statements IMO).
IRE, not really when it comes from the campaign. “When Hillary gets down her claws come out” (Obama) and then several of his campaign surrogates calling her a monster. Really, it goes on and on, and what’s frustrating is that the underlying sexism that was exposed is not recognized and acknowledged. The underlying racism that got exposed was reported by the media and is generally frowned upon (rightly so); but not the sexism.
(plange on
Jun 10, 2008 3:03 PM)
As and FYI: my mother also a Equal Rights & NOW chick, ( we were not allowed to watch I Dream of Jeannie cause of the No master yes master”) Who voted for Bill because of Hillary in the day can’t stand the woman now. So go figure.
Am certainly hoping you’re not saying my mom’s feelings on this aren’t valid?
Share This
Random Posts
