Comments on: Why is nobody calling the Edwards Campaign on their recent racial ploys?

By: MU Dem

MU Dem — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:54:00 +0000

Edwards being kept around ha, yeah that is why he is leading the polls in Iowa, that is why he has some of the greatest political strategists working for him, and that is why the MSM and bloggers are giving him plenty of attention, just to “keep him around”. I think it may be his plan for one America, to help end poverty and to give universal health care. I believe the use of the word racism us used to freely in this instance.

By: Juan Vasquez

Juan Vasquez — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:17:00 +0000

You post doesn't make sense. I'm confused is your issue with the title of the article?

"Fast forward to now. You have the Esquire Magazine cover with Edwards, talking about if this country is ready to elect a White Male?"

The Edward's campaign did not pick the Title.

or is it with Elizabeth's remarks which suggest there is something exciting about having a female or black candidate that spurs fundraising.

or os it the very existence of the Edwards Campaign

I've believed from the beginning that the reason Edwards is being 'kept around' is so that, if the voters just can't bring themselves to 'vote for history', they won't look absolutely absurd in voting for the Closest White Male they could find. They will try to say with a straight face: ' We've been thinking about John Edwards all along'

By: natthedem

natthedem — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:00:00 +0000

I can relate, rikyrah.

When I first read the quote, I posted a short vignette about it on my blog and had to force myself not to post more because I was so pissed off about it.

I'm working on a longer post about it now.

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:37:00 +0000

Thanks dna, I am heading over there now.

I sat on my comments for awhile. I had to cool down because, quite frankly, it just pissed me off.

By: dnA

dnA — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:13:00 +0000

Rikyrah,

I been on it, I just generally try to avoid criticizing other candidates on this blog since I’m the new kid. But if you’re interested in my perspective it’s here.

http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-not-diss-post-its-just-real-post.html

By: metricpenny

metricpenny — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:00:00 +0000

Directed to this post from a link in a post by Matt Stoller on the blog Open Left:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E61447CFA5BB68FCA5F4BD5093C9DA31?diaryId=719

I agree with you rikyrah.

Mrs. Edwards makes it seem as if the non-white male presidential hopefuls are receiving a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and thus more supporters, only because they are non-white males.

She should get back to me once she completes her assessment on Governor Richardson’s coverage.

By: acanthus

acanthus — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:11:00 +0000

Is that what she’s doing? It seems to me that she’s referring to her husband’s race and gender in terms of attracting fundraising dollars. Whether you agree with her or not, that is what she seems to be saying. I don’t think she’s going back on what she (and her husband) intimated in the recent past, which is this: no matter what the polls or fundraising totals say at this point, Edwards stands the best chance of any Democratic candidate of being elected in the general election because he’s most popular white male. As Gilliard said many times, white folks often say they intend to vote for a black person, then get into the voting booth, and “forget”.

By: fafnir

fafnir — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:55:00 +0000

Oops, I messed up. I meant: “…because of his race and sex.”

By: fafnir

fafnir — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:53:00 +0000

Wow. Since white males have had a historical lock on the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, it is insulting for Elizabeth Edwards to express doubt about whether her husband can be elected president because he is a race and sex.

By: Acanthus

Acanthus — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:41:00 +0000

I wonder what Steve Gilliard would have had to say about this?