While I never met Elizabeth Edwards in person (the line was so long at BlogHer ’07, I never made it to the front), I did have a chance to interview her by telephone shortly after that.  I’ve long been an admirer, even when those guys who claim to be journalists who wrote Game Change smeared her as a political she-devil and others mocked and criticized her for the life choices she made.

But I admired her for the choices — even the ones that I might not have made if I had been in her shoes — because she was honest about them.  Plus she was one outspoken, warm, intelligent and politically savvy gal.

We all knew that she would not, in the end, be able to vanquish the breast cancer that had taken over her body, but I think we all hoped she would somehow pull it off, in the same way she pulled off her late in life second motherhood.  Because she was an amazingly strong voice for the things she believed in.  And when she believed in something, she didn’t back down — whether it was championing health care for everyone or, yes, standing by her man even if he didn’t deserve it.

And she was the kind of woman we all wanted to be gal pals with — you could talk with her about public policy, as well as hearing about her love of meatloaf and jammies she bought at Target.

Elizabeth was a great friend to the MOMocrats, a group to which I’ve belonged since it’s inception.  She often told us via E-mails or notes that we needed to keep up the good fight to get more women involved in the political process.  As we mourn the loss of such an amazing woman, I think the best tribute we could make to her is to keep the promise to have more women speak out, run for office and take charge of this crazy, messed up political world.

I have a feeling her daughter, Cate, might just step into those shoes.

Image via People magazine.

]]> http://www.punditmom.com/2010/12/elizabeth-edwards-knew-what-was-important/feed 8 http://www.punditmom.com/2008/08/now-elizabeth-edwards-is-to-blame http://www.punditmom.com/2008/08/now-elizabeth-edwards-is-to-blame#comments Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:10:00 +0000 PunditMom http://www.punditmom.com/2008/08/now-elizabeth-edwards-is-to-blame
As an early adopter of the John Edwards presidential campaign, I’m still smarting over the news of his affair. Not because I think his personal life, or personal mistakes, are any of my GD business, but because of how this …

As an early adopter of the John Edwards presidential campaign, I’m still smarting over the news of his affair. Not because I think his personal life, or personal mistakes, are any of my GD business, but because of how this could have truly messed things up for the Democrats if he had become the nominee.

Because of how this distracts from reducing poverty in America, Edwards’ pet issue.

Because of what he’s said in the past about character and commitment to family and their importance for politicians.

It never occurred to me to hold Elizabeth Edwards responsible for what might have happened to an Edwards candidacy this late in the game. But apparently, Sally Quinn had a lot of extra time on her hands, because in her Washington Post column, “On Faith,” she blames Elizabeth Edwards for encouraging her husband to run for president even though she knew about the liaison. And then smacked a really ugly and loaded label on Elizabeth — “enabler.”

In Political Wives Enabling Immoral Behavior, Quinn claims to respect Elizabeth Edwards, but then attacks her as someone who “allowed” her husband to lie and lays the decision of Edwards to run for president at her feet, launching into a diatribe about political wives enabling the dalliances of their husbands. But if we start going down that road, then don’t we have to hold all wives of cheating husbands responsible for those actions? Sally, I’m sure you have friends who have found themselves in the same situation. Are you ready to hold their feet to that moral fire, too?

While Elizabeth supported her husband’s decision to run for president, I have a hard time believing that she could have stopped him or that any reasonable journalist would find a backhanded way of holding the wife responsible for the sins of the husband. Really … wasn’t she just a little bit busy fighting cancer, taking care of two small children and, I’m guessing, still being a big support system for her older daughter?

As Diane raised in her blog post over at The WomensDISH, I’m also uncomfortable with one woman trying to toss another under the bus after viewing the situation through a lens of righteousness that I’m pretty sure she bought in the 1950s. The funny thing about judging others too harshly, though, is even if you think politicians are fair targets, that game can come back to bite you, especially if you live in a similar spotlight.

Sally, if you want to take on the issue of infidelity and politics, try putting the blame where it belongs. Or better yet, let’s leave this one where it should stay — back in the 1950s.

]]>

Yes, John, I’m talking to you.

How could you be that stupid?

You know, as a general matter, whatever politicians do in their private lives is their business. I don’t want them poking into my personal matters or anyone else’s, so I think that’s only fair. Have extramarital affairs or don’t, but keep CNN and the networks at bay.

In our day of 24/7 news coverage and cable news that feeds on stories about sex or anything even coming close, you have to be a fool not to believe that if you fool around, you are going to get caught eventually.

I really didn’t think you were a fool, John.

Whether it’s our business or not, when you get caught (and people always get caught), it will pretty much be the end of your career, unless you are an uber-politician like Bill Clinton.

John, how could you not know that? The only way I would be more ticked off right now, is if you HAD become the Democratic nominee and this news was coming out 2 1/2 weeks before the convention. In any event, the GOP is still going to find a way to make hay with this. I know they are working on the ad even as I am typing this post.

Perhaps an even bigger problem for you, John, is that those of us who were your most ardent supporters, were also equally enamored of your wife Elizabeth. As a matter of fact, some of us thought she should be the one running for president. So, it’s sort of a betrayal two-fer — we don’t care about the affair other than how it impacts your important messages on poverty and health care, and how it impacts your amazing wife.

If you or other politicians are going to find ways to mess up your political careers, and disenfranchise those of us who supported you the most, can you find some new way to do it?

At least surprise us next time.

I know I said I thought we’d be able to breathe today, but I was wrong. Yeah, that happens from time to time.

I’m not entirely surprised that Hillary Clinton was able to pull out the double-digit victory in Pennsylvania. Having grown up in the Keystone State, I have a pretty good feel for how people are feeling there these days and which way things might break.

In a way, Hillary’s win is a good thing. She’s a fighter and at least her tenaciousness can be seen as a good quality in a woman running for president.

But why the big surge in Pennsylvania as opposed to another state? Everyone is spinning this today — it was the women, it was the “working class.”

The double-digit factor in Pennsylvania is because of the economy.

While many have been focused on the race and gender aspects of this contest, there has been less focus on economic bias in our country, which is definitely there. Hillary has been doing better, as a general matter, with voters like my parents, who wonder from week to week whether their grocery budgets are going to reach because the price of cupboard staples have gone up so much.

The media are so busy focusing on divisions over race and gender, that we’re forgetting the one thing so many of us loved about John Edwards’ candidacy — a commitment to those who aren’t shopping at Whole Foods. But my parents aren’t. I hear about it weekly. As a semi-retired couple, how they’re going to get through the month is always topic number one.

Since we’re going to have more talk anyway since the race is moving forward, how about if the

candidates shift their focus to the economy in a meaningful way. Don’t do the John McCain pander thing about a summertime gas price respite. Barack and Hillary, focus on the economic divide and why, in 2008, my parents have to be worrying about the price of frozen waffles. I know neither of you do.

My parents, who are farmers, and their neighbors aren’t going to be contributing to your campaigns — they’ can’t afford to — but can you take a little more time to listen to their voices and talk about what you’re going to do so that fewer people go to bed hungry in this country, not more?

Because whoever can come up with a real plan for that is the person who should be our next president. Maybe that’s how the super delegates should decide.

Cross-posted from MOMocrats.

Just one more day.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Primary will be over tomorrow and maybe then, to quote Gerald Ford’s speech writer who passed away this weekend, “Our long national nightmare will be over.“

Wishful thinking you say? Maybe. But I’m sensing that even though there are many who believe this will play out until the convention in Denver, my gut says something is going to happen in Pennsylvania that will change all that. Maybe we’re all just too tired to keep listening. Maybe each candidates’ supporters are beating each other down and we’re just too weary to continue. But I’m sensing there will soon be a shift in this campaign.

While some have not believed me when I’ve written that my farming parents in Pennsylvania still are on the fence about who to vote for, I spoke with them this weekend and they are still undecided about whether they’re going for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

I realized after a quick yoga class this morning, though, that no matter what happens tomorrow, we can all get through it if we just breathe.

Go ahead. Take a minute. A nice in and out. A delicious cleansing breath. And not just for us voters, but for the candidates, too.

Barack and Hillary — breathe. I know things are going to be crazy today and you’re not going to get much sleep tonight, but a little “Om” and a few deep breaths could not only give you some extra energy, but maybe it would also help you both find that electoral center you’re going to need for one of you to take on John McCain.

Because did you see him on This Week with George Stephanopoulos? He is honing and owning the calm John demeanor. He’s not letting go of the ‘my friends’ routine, and even if some of his policies are way to the right, the friendly John McCain is going to go far in winning over some Democrats if the Democratic party can’t pull it together ASAP.

I haven’t minded the rigorous debate among the candidates so far. In some ways, I think it’s good for the country that the Hillary candidacy, or any candidacy for that matter, was not a fait accompli as so many had predicted.

But my little time out for yoga made me wonder if it isn’t time for the candidates and all of us Democrats to find our center and focus on the thing that matters most — US! Not the candidates’ political careers and not their ability to jab at each other, but the voters and what we need.

Don’t need anymore Jay-Z. Don’t need to hear about Xerox. Don’t need anymore spouses bad-mouthing the candidates.

We’re at a point where many of us aren’t even able to talk to our friends because we’ve become so divided when we all started on the same page.

Maybe a little lotus pose and a few minutes of meditation can bring us back to the place we need to be at the end of the day tomorrow when everyone packs up to leave Pennsylvania and head to North Carolina.

OM.

Instead of sitting here at my computer doing it, I had to actually put on some nice clothes and make-up and talk to a room of about 25 women about the burning question of the blogosphere:

WHY?

Not just why we do it, but why they should do it. Is it worth the time of women who work for non-profit agencies to spend some time blogging, and networking with bloggers, to get the message out about their missions?

I was specifically asked to talk a little bit about what bloggers are saying online about issues facing low-income women and families and how those issues are being addressed by the remaining presidential candidates.

I thought, easy-peasy! A few quick bloggy searches and I was sure I’d come up with a variety of posts.

You know what, I didn’t find that much.

Yes, I have friends who are dedicated to talking about issues like these, but many of us focus on the things that impact our own lives and those of our friends. And while we’re not a bunch of gazillionaires, many of us are lucky enough not to fall into the category of families who would be seeking out their services.

I told these women that I had not really been able to come up with any conversations about these issues. Sure, we’ve got MomsRising and some other organizational blogs that address some related issues, but I was shocked that we’re not talking more about how we can help low-income women and families get a higher profile for their issues — Head Start programs, school lunch programs, access to reproductive health services, home instruction for preschoolers — especially in an election year. One presidential candidate was, but remaining ones don’t get around to that topic much.

Cooper Monroe and Emily McKhann were on top of helping after Hurricane Katrina. But I wasn’t coming up with much more.

So I told these women, who were mulling over the power of the blogopshere, that they should reach out to us. Not in the way that some for-profit entities have done, sometimes with less skill than you might expect, but in a thoughtful and informed way.

I could see the twinkle in some of their eyes, thinking about how they could enhance the way they help women and children with a little assist from us bloggers. I invited them to all send me information about their programs and I’m hoping they’ll take me up on it.

I suggested they poke around our blogs and see who was talking generally about the things they feel are important for helping families and children, and send us E-mails about their programs. You don’t mind that I’m sending them your way, right?

But I know there must already be some others who are talking about how we can all advance the causes of low-income families. Who am I missing?

I was really hoping that John Edwards would hang in there long enough for me to cast my ballot for him, even though things weren’t looking good for his campaign for a while. Turns out I’m not the only one who feels that way.

Edwards had a vision of America that was consistent with my own — that we are a country divided, particularly in terms of the haves and have-nots, and that isn’t OK for many of us, especially if you grew up poor and now have a little something in the bank account.

While Oprah may proclaim at Barack Obama rallies that our nation has arrived in terms of gender and race because we have a woman and an African-American on the ballot as true contenders for the White House, we clearly are still traveling on the poverty issue.

As Barbara Ehrenreich of Nickel and Dimed fame pointed out in her Washington Post opinion column entitled The Boom Was a Bust For Ordinary People, we hear a lot of talk about how good the economy was in the 1990s and, even though things have slowed down, that for many of the George W. Bush years, the economy was growing and people were prospering.

For the millions of people who work at hourly jobs that don’t have health care or benefits, it just didn’t matter what the economists said. Their reality was one of a $5.85 minumum wage and Ramen noodles.

As good as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on the issues of health care, the war, and the economy, John Edwards was the only who realized that unless we can get millions out of poverty in our country, making the economy better only for the middle and upper class won’t really do much good for those who keep trying to climb up the ladder, but keep slipping off the bottom rungs.

Many of us turn our heads and pretend that we don’t see the people sleeping under overpasses, pretend that there aren’t hungry and undernourished children in this country and pretend that those we euphemistically call “the working poor” aren’t right in front of us every day.

If Oprah and others like her really want an “America that’s about unity,” then we need to ask the remaining candidates what they’re really going to do about small family farmers struggling to put food on the table, workers who get laid off and can’t get back into the job market, and older professionals with graduate degrees who can’t find a job anyplace other than Home Depot.

Clinton and Obama pledged to Edwards that they would continue his fight. If either of them really want my vote, they have to convince me they’re not going to leave my parents, small family farmers on the brink of retirement, to scrape by while benefits from a new administration get funneled to businesses and the already well-off.

Make me believe you’re not going to forget about the Americans who struggle to make ends meet every single day, and you will have my vote.

On a lighter note, if the men all have muscle men coming out in support of their campaigns, Hillary needs a superhero, too! Check out my column at PunditMom’s Spin Cycle on the front-runners for Hillary’s Superhero!

“She,” of course, is Hillary Clinton.

Being a member of our family, there’s no doubt that if my eight-year-old daughter could vote, she’d be casting a ballot in the upcoming Democratic, not the Republican, primary.

And she knows that Mommy LOVES her some politics! But she’s confused over my support for John Edwards. Not because of any lengthy discussions on issues or policy statements we’ve had after school. There’s only one thing on her mind that matters — girl power!

So, her logic goes, since Edwards isn’t a girl (at least not that we know of!), “girls” shouldn’t be voting for him — we should be voting for the “girl” candidate. Granted, the political sphere of an eight-year-old girl is somewhat limited by definition, though if Hannah Montana or Ashley Tisdale were running for office in 2008, I have no doubt that PunditGirl would be completely up to speed on the issues of concert tour dates and long hair!

A perfectly reasonable political philosophy when you’re in second grade.

I know it’s confusing for her that the mommy who tells her she can do anything she wants and be anything she wants to be isn’t on the forefront of supporting the first viable woman candidate for President of the United States. I have assured her that if HRC is the Democratic nominee I will obviously vote for her. But it’s hard to explain subtle policy differences to my mini-PunditMe when in her experience the equations are:

Girls = good
Boys = bad (with the exception of her dad, of course!)

I know she is going to keep lobbying me on this one, just as I’ve been lobbying Mr. PunditMom for my personal choice.

Whoever I end up voting for when our primary is held (I am keeping my fingers crossed that there will be more than two choices on the primary ballot), I’m taking PunditGirl out of school for the time it takes me to vote.

Even if I don’t check the box for her candidate, I want her to see the “girl” candidate on the ballot in the voting booth for herself.

At least my Jayhawks won.

Seriously, I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am an ardent John Edwards supporter and am still keeping my fingers crossed that he can win the Democratic presidential nomination, especially since many polls show that he has the best chance to beat a Republican candidate for the White House in the fall.

But I have to admit that last night’s winner Barack Obama does have a powerful message. I just worry that it’s a bit naive.

Calling for hope and unity in a country that is so divided over issues like the war in Iraq, health care for uninsured children and education is a breath of fresh air. I just don’t think it’s enough.

It’s a message that I understand resonates with his biggest demographic — first-time voters and young voters. If I was voting for the first time as a high school senior or college co-ed, I’d probably be on his bandwagon, as well.

I remember being wide-eyed and enthusiastic when I was able to vote for the first time, trying to find someone I could trust and believe in. Being able to participate in the process and express my feelings through my vote was exciting and empowering.

As I got older, it didn’t take me long to realize that I wanted more in a leader than a desire for peace, love and understanding and that the first excited rush of supporting a candidate’s ideals can leave us disappointed later on.

While a positive message is a good start, we’re going to need a lot more in 2009 than a president who wants to focus on a hopeful message in the White House. There will also need to be a sea change in the make up of Congress, which isn’t likely. Without that, the next president is going to have an uphill battle to make any sort of headway in the direction of change.

Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience in these unpredictable and scary times also gives me pause. With certain areas of the world teetering on the brink of implosion, I feel the need to have someone at the helm who can make the big decisions on Pakistan and who knows where the next hot spot will be. There is bound to be one. Or more.

The recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a stark reminder that there are many places on earth that we think we can manage, but are clearly out of our control. We’ll need much more than hope and unity to manage those crises.

So I was interested to see her article called Poll: Electability becoming more important to Dems.

Clearly, for a lot of us Democrats, we’ll be happy to have one of our own in the White House, even if it’s not the candidate we feel the most strongly about. So I was really disappointed that the article, which shows the results of their own most recent USA Today/Gallup poll comparing how Hillary Clinton would fare against six of the GOP candidates and how Barack Obama would compare, if the election was held today, left out the third front-runner, John Edwards.

Essentially, the Dems would win, though some contests would be closer than others.

But the poll doesn’t take into account how Edwards would do if running against each of those Republicans. This surprises me, not only because pretty much everything I read and hear concedes that there is a tight, three-way race in Iowa at the moment.

I’m also a bit shocked because other polls indicate that when looking at these three Democrats, Edwards consistently has a wider margin of victory against the Republicans than do either Hillary or Obama.

For example, while the USA Today poll shows Clinton beating Romney by six percentage points, and Obama besting Romney by 18 points, Edwards beats Romney, according to the December 11 CNN poll, by whopping 21 points!

These Dems against Giuliani? Clinton by one point, Obama by six points and Edwards by nine percent.

See the trend here? If electability is what we want to know about, where are the figures on Edwards and the other candidates? It is just striking to me that even before the Iowa caucuses a newspaper that is truly a national newspaper and is available everywhere has excluded Edwards, and the others in this way. Why?

Maybe it’s column space. But I think the fact that Edwards, as a true front-runner, was excluded sends a message to readers and voters that is a dangerous one to send — that Edwards is already out of the contest.

Am I being to cynical? I know Newsweek just dubbed Edwards the “sleeper” candidate, but if the polls show him doing better against the Republicans than his fellow Democrats, no matter who the GOP candidate is, and many of us are concerned about electability, I think we ought to get the results from the rest of the poll and see how Edwards stacks up, especially when you start talking margins of error.

On a lighter note, if you’re not done with your holiday shopping for the ‘tween member of your family who’s itching to get into digital photography, take a look at my review of the Discovery Channel Slide and Shoot Digital Camera over at PunditMom Reviews, courtesy of Parent Bloggers Network!