Edwards Tells Supporters, 'Vote for Me Because I'm a White Man.'

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.

Comments

[MamaBear2008]

Francis,

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.

[timber]

Post like this by the diarist got him banned in DailyKos and MyDD--for race baiting and unsubstantiated posts.

[francislholland]

The problem with all of the above critical comments is that John Edwards continues to criss-cross the state of Iowa telling voters to vote for him because only he can go to states where other candidates cannot. And what is the basis for this claim? John Edwards would obviously like Democratic voters to believe that there are people in "Columbus, Kentucky" and "Oklahoma" who would vote for a white man but would not vote for a Black man or a white woman.

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.

[LiberalBeliever]

Actually I tend to agree with Francis Holland. I have received two emails over the past few months from the Edwards' campaign and both stated clearly that only John Edwards can compete "in the south". I also had the pleasure of hearing Elizabeth Edwards say "We can't turn John into a black man; and we can't make him into a woman. Being black and female tends to help raise a lot of cash." That comment by Elizabeth Edwards basically implied that Barack Obama brings nothing to the table but his skin-color and Hillary Clinton brings nothing to the table but her gender. It was a really despicable thing for Elizabeth Edwards to say.
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.

[Chesapeake]

Elizabeth Edwards is right, John Edwards has to overcome the rock star status of Clinton and Obama to get his message across. That doesn't mean "vote for me because I'm a white man." It does mean "don't be distracted by the overwhelming headlines that overwhelmingly report on Obama and Clinton (their race and gender, respectively, makes them more attractive stories), but be sure to listen to and read all of the candidates, especially John Edwards', messages, policies, and platforms."

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.

[Chesapeake]

Mr. Holland, I am a black voter, and I support John Edwards. Among many good reasons, one of them is the Covenant with Black America. (other reasons include announcing his candidacy in the Lower 9th, taking money out of investments related to sub-prime mortgages and donating some of it to relief in the Gulf region, providing legal representation to oppressed people, commitment to address and eradicate poverty and lack of health care for all people, refusal to take lobby money, etc.)

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!

[Kenshin]

i'm a woman and i'm asian (okay, i'm not black, but it's a minority group) and i'm NOT tired of getting emails from the edwards campaign. in fact, it really gives me hope.

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.

[Karita]

The fact is that John Edwards is popular in all states because he is a Populist. I call him Johnny Populist!!! He stands for One America, wants to end corruption in Washington and the end of big money buying elections - and K-Street better start running. We always knew that if a real populist would only run a real populist campaign, he or she, black or white, could gather people to themselves from every corner of the Country. Rasmussen proves time and again that it is Edwards who does best against the Republicans, believe it or not.

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!!

[OldManOnFire]

I've put forth an interest in Edwards but it just won't stick! He's smart but many times also a bit naive or stupid? He's got some experience, but not really the experience I desire in a president. And I question the capabilities of his handlers which indicates to me how he might appoint high-level positions.

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...

[mlkonhuffington]

This is a gross distortion of Edward's message and comments! I don't think that H. Clinton is unelectable because she is a female, but because she has her own baggage. I am a very progressive, proudly liberal democrat and I have serious problems with H. Clinton, with her pro-business stance, her relationship with lobbyists, her ethical problems in the Whitewater investigation and her campaign contributions from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I can't believe a progressive would spin Edwards comments to be supportive of prejudice. This is totally distorted and unfair and far too Fox-like.

[pmorlan]

This guy is obviously a Fox news devotee. Fox news has been trying to push the idea that Edwards is racist. They tried to twist his words from the MTV debate to offset O'Reilly's troublesome comments about Harlem. Most people see through their scam and ignore them. Evidently this writer has either been duped by this nonsensical storyline or he is conciously trying to spread a story he knows is untrue.

[NoDrama]

We can rule out being duped by a storyline on Fox since Holland's reporting based on his own direct experience - the campaign sent him message under Edward's name, and he's assuredly entitled to his own thoughts in reaction. As to being a "Fox devotee," one suggests you check at least the Bio before making such unlikely assertions. Holland has given a great deal of thought to color-based generalizations, as a quick investigation of his recent posts here might have revealed to you. Just what do you think Edward's message meant by the phrase, "A candidate who can connect with people in Columbus [Kentucky] and put states like Oklahoma in play?"

[Purple Girl]

Not voting for awhite male, a white female, a black male, a Hispanic male- I'm voting for the person who can guide and inspire our country back to the ideals we were founded on. A patriot to the USA- not a relgion, not a industry,nor another countries gov't wishes. In fact I'm looking for a team of specialist in their field to help US upright ourselves- quickly and efficiently.The Pres & VP are the Chairs/spo­kes/Coorid­nators. the Executive Branch can no longe be left to be directed by the agenda of 1 (2) person. It should be an eclectric group with no 'party ' affiliations. I could care less who the Repugs AND the Dems vote in for the primaries. Or least it's just a hop skip & a passport to Canada.

[LeoMarvin]

Francis -

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.

[LeoMarvin]

I happen to support Obama, and I disagree that Edwards is more electable than Barak or Hillary, but I don't believe for a minute he's making a covert appeal to race or gender. First of all, it defies reason, given everything he stands for. But even as applied to a candidate who deserves less benefit of the doubt than Edwards, the general proposition would be unreasonable without evidence of bad intentions that's not present here.

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.

[ihavenobias]

I strongly disagree with Obama's plan to reverse the Bush tax cuts and use a lot of that money to provide tax cuts for the lower/middle class.

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.

[CyberCitizen]

Edwards does NOT send any such e-mails. I read a comment that this author have been disinvited from other blogs because of misrepresentations and the like. I receive dozens upon dozens of e-mails from the Edwards campaign (and Obama's and Clinton's, Biden's and Richardson's) and have NEVER received anything like what the author is describing. You do your own candidate a disservice if you misrepresent others' candidates.

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.

[grannyhelen]

Mr. Holland...you have quoted one of my diaries out of context, and you have added words in there I did not write in order to make a broader, general point about the "racism" of the Edwards campaign.

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.

[MarkWAdams]

Holland's a hater, looking for the worst traits he sees in the mirror in everyone else so his own bigotry can be justified.

Ignore him, except ponder who let him post here in the first place. It's not just KOS that banned him.