Women and Blacks must be getting tired of John Edwards' e-mails. Here's what Edwards says in the e-mail I received from his campaign today! Edwards says:
"Can you imagine what it would be like to have a Democratic candidate who can compete and win anywhere in the country? A candidate who can connect with people in Columbus [Kentucky] and put states like Oklahoma in play? ( . . . ) that candidate is John Edwards. (Emphasis in the original.)
Now, why would a man who's polling at ten percent among Democrats nonetheless argue that he can put white Southern states in play? In fact, he's saying 'vote for me, because I'm a white man, and some places will only vote for a white man.' If that's not what he's saying then what IS he saying?
Democrats lost five of the last seven presidential elections running with white male candidates, and the only candidate who did not lose was a Clinton (in 1992 and 1996). If Kerry and Edwards' white maleness didn't win Oklahoma in 2004, why should we believe it will be the ticket to success in 2008, as Edwards proposes?
The fact is, the key to winning nationally is to win the Democratic states that John Edwards lost in 2004, like Florida and Ohio. Edwards even lost his own southern state in 2004, North Carolina. So, in 2008 our message will be the key to our success, not our gender and color.
And I've got more news for John Edwards! Fifty-three percent of America is women and 20% of the Democratic electorate is Black. All of the Democratic electorate believes in equal treatment for women and Blacks regardless of gender and color. We are not buying his 'vote for me because I'm a white man' argument. We are tired of Edwards sending e-mails appealing to gender and color-bias. Forty-three consecutive white male presidencies is enough exclusively white male presidencies for the sake of exclusivity.
It's time for fundamental change in the way American does things. It's time to end the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency! And a man who makes arguments like the one Edwards has made today is unfit for the vice presidency as well.
You must have missed times Edwards has stated that he does NOT WANT votes from people who won't vote for Clinton because she's female or Obama because he's African American. Courageous. Fair. Commendable. Especially since some candidates will do practically anything to get a vote--buy, lie....
Polls by Rasmussen Reports since spring show John to be the strongest Democratic contender in head-to-head match-ups with Republicans. THAT is what he's talking about.
If John Edwards had only won his own southern state of North Carolina in 2004, his argument might have some biased truth to it. However, Edwards offers no proof whatsoever that there are people in conservative places who will vote for a white male Democrat instead of voting for a white male Republican. His argument is obviously based on his gender and skin color simply because he offers no other reason why his assertion should be believed.
As the polls show now in basically every state of the Union, anyone who would consider voting ANY Democrat is more likely to support one of the more popular Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And so John Edwards' claims that he is more electable because he is a white man are bound to fail.
Both John and Elizabeth Edwards play the race and gender cards. And bashing their fellow Democrats is also high on their list of priorities these days.
Personally, I humbly submit that only John Edwards has brought the most, of not the only, bold, imaginative, creative, and ingenuous answers to the issues that plague the world. You can set your clock on when and what Obama will address and espouse. Give him a 2 weeks to a month after Edwards answers an issue, and Obama will come out with something similar. The trick is, what Obama says will get more play. No kidding! ... Thus, Elizabeth Edwards' comments you referenced.
I'm not downing anyone's choice of candidates, but I do think that Edwards' message is drowned out by, besides opposition by the powerful mainstream media, the distractions of Obama's race, Clinton's gender, and Bill Clinton's prominence. I can, however, vehemently defend John Edwards against charges that he's injecting, telegraphing, and/or latently communicating a racist agenda.
I took challenge of the editor and writers of the Covenant, and the Covenant itself, to heart because, by and large, I agree with them. One of the reasons I support John Edwards is that he has addressed almost the entire Covenant. Not only has he addressed it, he supports it.
I invite you to compare John Edwards' plans to the Covenant. Then compare his plans and the Covenant to any and all of the other Democrat and Republican candidates, including Obama, and you will see that on issues of health, labor, education, poverty, housing, etc., Edwards is far advanced. Clinton has barely addressed any of the Covenant.
I am not trying to sell books, here; but, I believe that all conscientious voters should read the Covenant and compare the candidates against it. Of course, comparison should not be the only test of the candidates, but the test will definitely give you a feel for the commitment of a candidate to address issues that matter to many black Americans. John Edwards is committed way above and beyond everyone else. I echo the responses to your post ... John Edwards is not a racist. Further, I offer to you the reality that John Edwards is a champion for all of America because the whole country will be better once we fix problems that the country has ignored for so long!
he' not saying "vote for me i'm a white guy", and since you asked, i'll tell you what he IS saying: people in small towns are ready for change, and deserve attention, no matter how much money they have to give to his campaign.
i lived some time in the midwest and in rural areas in the south. i am ready for a candidate who can go to a small town like columbus kentucky (population 229) and get in a great crowd (some 1500 showed up). not just that, but he's on the case when he discusses the poor and revitalizing rural areas.
i think the thing is this is really a helpful platform for the general election, because many of those voters tend to vote republican cuz democrats tend to spend on the large cities. but rural america is in need of change as much as the rest of us, and he is reaching out to them--mostly out of his personal beliefs, but it happens to be a great strategy. (talking to people in rural areas, they really are ready to break with republicans--they're just so fed up like the rest of us)
i've seen edwards speak in public, at a black baptist church in cleveland years ago. this was not in a wealthy neighborhood. he was truly at home there.
don't spin a rather straight up statement into something edwards is not. edwards is a great leader and will win the south, not because he is white, or male, but because HE HAS A FREAKIN CLUE!! i mean, these other candidates act like they are clueless or deaf dumb and blind to the problems of the south. it's about the economics, people!
while i think america is certainly "ready" for a female or black president (or hispanic, richardson is still running), i believe edwards is the best leader of all the candidates.
Not one vote has been cast yet among the Democrats and let me tell you, when Edwards gets known among voters everywhere, his numbers among the Democrats climbs steadily.
His is the best of candidacies and reaches people because it is about ideas that transform America, really transforms it, starting with fair and equal opportunity economics. We waited a long time for such a populist as is John Edwards, and this country desperately needs that kind of person, regardless of gender or race in the white House!!
Taking public financing was surely going to be a negative hit in the media--but he didn't see this coming?! And if he is talking white/black/male/female as in your story, then he also didn't see the potential ramifications!
Either a candidate resonates with a majority of voters or they do not! Edwards for whatever myriad reasons does not!
I think it would be great for this country to have a woman president and a black vice-president in '09, and then after two terms have the VP become the first black president...
I was just checking your blog. So Markos Moulitsas is secretly engineering a Republican win in 2008 so Karl Rove can be Secretary of State? No offense, but that's pretty whacked.
When a candidate says he's electable (and they all do), it implicates the full range of knowledge, values, beliefs and biases, good and bad, that inhabit everyone he hopes will support him. And almost certainly every candidate's supporters include at least a few who hold deplorable views. But it would be an absurd leap to impute tolerance of those views to a candidate just because they probably exist among some of his supporters. And it would be just as irrational and unfair to read an appeal to the darkest nature of one's least sympathetic supporters into an assertion of electability that presumably contemplates those people within its ambit.
Consider that roughly 30% of the population say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Does that mean Mitt Romney is the only Republican who can legitimately claim he's electable without being presumed to really mean, "Vote for me because I'm not Mormon?" Of course not.
Why?
For one thing, it buys into the conservative ideology that tax cuts are always the answer for all that ails us.
And for another, there are FAR more useful ways to spend that much needed money. How about universal healthcare, education, etc, and the list goes on and on.
But I do agree, he's a better candidate than Hillary who really does seem to be the most special-interest dominated candidate. The fact that she's taken more money than ANYONE (regardless of party) from the healthcare industry is enough to make me not support her.
I respect all three top Democratic candidates and the next three or more as well. None of them would use race-baiting tactics. If you are acting as an independent agent, please reconsider your tactics.
Therefore, any emails that you "quote", and references where you "add your emphasis" and any conclusions that you draw from your source material are immediately suspect in my mind.
You, sir, cherry pick your facts. I've seen it first hand and in action. Make any arguments you want, but please, make them honestly.
BTW...I strongly disagree with you on your premise that Edwards is a racist or is running a racist campaign, and I've seen all of the campaign emails that you have. Please, don't insult my intelligence.
Ignore him, except ponder who let him post here in the first place. It's not just KOS that banned him.