Edwards' wife talks of Clinton 'hatred'

Source: Associated Press




Edwards' wife talks of Clinton 'hatred'

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 31, 7:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says "hatred" of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election.

"I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified," Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. "I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

Responding to Mrs. Edwards, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said polls show that Clinton will be a strong opponent against the Republicans seeking the presidency.

"Senator Clinton leads all the leading Republicans in national and key swing state polls because Americans know she is the Democrat with the strength and experience to bring real change," Singer said

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_po/elizabeth_edwards_clinton;_ylt=Ag3NGO24TpMCfXf5H0GvT0Mb.3QA

There's no way I can convince my formerly repug voting friends to vote for her. It's irrational, but it's true.

To pretend this isn't the case is just self deception.

and just about everybody I know, dem, ind., and of course repub.

She has disgusted me for years, starting with her bullshit claim to be a Yankees fan and going sharply downhill from there. Her refusal to admit a mistake in the Iraq war vote pisses me off no end, her story about Chelsea after 9/11 almost made me throw up, and it goes on and on. I want someone else, ANYONE else, to win the nomination again so that I can vote without holding my nose. I can't stand Hillary and don't believe a word she says. Every time I see her or hear her voice, I feel like unloading my lunch. Edwards' wife is absolutely right.

you express my sentiments exactly> :puke:

I read a biography of her from 1993 where a guy who grew up with her talks about her being a big Chicago Cubs fan and that the Yankees were her favorite American League team because as a Cubs fan, she couldn't root for the White Sox. I'm pretty sure there was a WASHINGTON POST article from around that time that said the same thing.

this 1999 article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/hillary061199.htm

If you can find one from 1993, I'll retract my statement. If not, I'll stick with my use of the word "bullshit." In the 1999 article, she said "I needed an American League team..." - how many baseball fans do you know who "need" a team in both leagues, much less more than one to begin with? If you know as many as one, you know more of them than I do. Sorry, but this just reeks of bovine fecal matter to me.

If you're a Red Sox fan, and the Yankees make the World Series, you NEED a National League team to root for to crush those bastards and grind them up into sausage.

Some fans follow a team when one of their favorites is traded, and just keep on so doing out of habit. A lot of kids will follow a team because their father does, even if they don't live in the same city anymore. Some people happen to like a particular player for whatever reason, be it religion (Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax got wide support from around the country from the Jewish community) or Jackie Robinson, whose groundbreaking role is well known.

Quite frankly, I could give a shit which team a candidate supports. That kind of nonsense isn't going to intrude in my decision making as to who is the best candidate at all.

And I never knew it to be common practice for a First Lady to be required to "announce" what team they supported--who was Bess Truman's favorite? Has Laura 'thrown down' yet?

Or Senators, for that matter...I mean, really, do I need to know John Edwards' favorite hockey team in order to make my decision as to whether I should cast my vote for him? I wonder, who does Obama like for football? If it's a team I hate, do I cross him off my list? How DAAARE he root for "Da Beee aaaaahs?"

It's just a really silly thing to be hollering "Bullshit!" about--like it matters. The only ones I see getting upset about it are the gotcha GOP book writers--they have PLENTY to say on the subject.

what team a person roots for. However, when I see suspicious-looking claims about a new favorite team that happens to be based where the would-be voters are, it makes me distrust the candidate. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't believe anything she says. She can root for whoever the hell she wants, but if she lies about it - or leaves me with the impression she is, anyway - I do give a shit about that. It's like the Chelsea thing - I don't give a shit where she was on 9/11 as long as she was safe, but when she and her mother come up with different stories and hers looks a lot more believable, that bothers me too.

Republican or Democrat, when a politician speaks my default setting is distrust. However, it bothers me a lot more when a Democrat gives me reason to feel justified in that approach. If Hillary were to tell me the sky was blue, I'd have to look at the sky myself.

--the ones I have seen up close, anyway, and that's more than a few--engage in what I define as "major social bullshit." JFK was a MASTER of it, Ted is to this day, Tip O'Neill had it down to a science, as did Joe Moakley. Yes, your baby (face looks like a monkey's ass) IS beautiful, Danny Boy is THE BEST SONG EVER WRITTEN, and How About Them Red Sox? when the candidate doesn't really even like baseball.

I just don't worry about social hyperbole, or pandering, or bullshit, if you will. They ALL do it. Some do it better than others--frankly, being lousy at it is kind of a backhanded strength.

I do worry about their views on issues that matter. And those folks I named, when the rubber hit the road, on the issues that really made a difference to every American, well, they weren't bullshitting then.

So if it's Edwards' 'crime' of riding in an SUV while forwarding (I believe sincerely) a greener agenda, or Clinton's not knowing precisely where her adult kid was on a day in 2001, or Obama playing the Hyper-Christian Faith-Based card to assuage a bunch of vestigal racists afraid of a guy with some African heritage, or all of them being a bit 'careful' out of fear of alienating a bunch of ignorant voters when it comes to the matter of gay marriage, I just see past all that crap. I won't get pulled into that Republican Gotcha game.

I know what the result could be if any one of them were elected and we had a Democratic Congress--life would be pretty fucking good. I know that the GOP wants to divide, and they flog these totally unimportant matters so that they'll get US talking about them--and I just don't care about them, because they want me to.

I'll have to respectfully voice my disagreement and or failure to share your view on just about everything you wrote.

If I don't trust someone to tell me the truth on minor issues, I don't even pay attention to their views on major ones. I was a Republican until 1992, when I finally couldn't handle their bullshit anymore. Now I do still believe in gun rights and fiscal restraint, but there isn't a single fucking Republican out there who I trust, especially after seeing eight years of what we're enduring now.

Now whether you consider Edwards a hypocrite because of the SUV thing (I do, but I'll still vote for him if he gets the nomination), the bottom line is that it's a stupid thing to do. Actually, I think Edwards is more guilty of a stupid oversight than hypocrisy, but I'll never know for sure. However, in Hillary's case, you refer to her "not knowing precisely where her adult kid was on a day in 2001," whereas I truly believe she just flat-out lied, doing so knowingly. First of all, it wasn't just any day in 2001 - everyone I know remembers pretty much every detail of the day. Second, it's not like she waited until last week to bullshit about it. You may disagree, but I think she lied and lied poorly. This is one of many things that makes me really detest her.

Sure, I think the major issues are more important too - such as her arrogant and stubborn refusal to admit a mistake on the Iraq vote, but I see things the opposite of you - in other words, someone has to get a passing grade on the petty shit from me before I trust them with the bigger stuff. Now in Edwards' case, the SUV thing is the only gaffe I can think of. As for Obama, I hadn't even heard of what you describe. But in when it comes to Hillary, I don't believe a single promise or word she says. The "ignorant voters" you so casually dismiss don't seem to, either, and you can bet lots of them will turn out in spite.

There are plenty of Hillary bashers right here at DU, and there's plenty of reasons she's the most divisive candidate we have. If you believe what she says, more power to you because you'll certainly sleep better over the next 14 months than I will.

--and I was IN DC on that day, and had family IN NYC and DC at the time. AND I have family in the AIRLINE industry, who were hard as hell to get a hold of!! I know there were a lot of phone calls, and a lot of muster taking, but I don't remember where they all were. I just don't. I'd have to go back and ask them all. And if Chelsea were three blocks or three miles from the WTC, so what? It's not like she was in LONDON and they said she was in NYC.

As for Edwards' and the SUV, if the thing is paid for and he uses it to haul manure around his garden, well, so what? If he's taking it on cross-country trips, that's another issue.

If he's riding in an SUV on the campaign trail because he has SS protection, and that's what they use (no choices, not even for Monkey and Cheney for everyday ground hops--that's their new vehicle since BushCo took over, they pull out the limos for state affairs and fancy motercades, but even at that, the SUVs ride shotgun) well, he cannot be blamed for THAT either. They have a protocol, and if he accepts the protection (and who wouldn't--he has a sick wife and he has kids, he doesn't want to die) he accepts it on THEIR terms. If he gets elected, he can argue with them, but not as a candidate.

It's the same deal with Obama and the coal liquefaction people. That's big biz in his home state, so he has to pander to them or they'll crucify him. I'm sure he'd rather have some distance on that issue, but all politics is local. I know why he has to do what he does on that score.

I know I am not going to change your mind, but I just see things from a larger perspective than a candidate saying "Oh, I like that" and others making a federal case over it. It just seems petty to me. A bit targeted, too.

YMMV, and surely does.

Sure, because my real problem is with Hillary, and I've got plenty of reasons to have problems with her. I don't give a shit about Edwards' SUV thing, Obama's coal thing, or whatever, because they haven't given me repeated reasons over the years to distrust them. I'm saying I don't trust or like Hillary - you're the one trying to bring the others into it, and I don't see why. I've tried to steer the conversation to Hillary, you keep wanting to talk about others. Hell, I suppose if I was trying to defend Hillary I'd have to resort to that, too.

Keep trusting Hillary and making excuses for her if you want. If you don't remember the stories told by Hillary and Chelsea and the disparity between the two of them, or if you prefer to simply ignore how blatant of a lie Hillary told, go ahead. It's only the icing on a huge festering cake anyway, and you're clearly ready to give her a pass on whatever she says or does. Her failure to admit a mistake on her Iraq war vote, which I tried to bring to your attention, doesn't bother you? Great. You'd rather focus on Edwards and Obama's alleged trangressions, which I either hadn't heard about or don't really care about, and then you refer to MY stance as petty?

Hillary disgusts me, but you're not willing to talk about her. You'd rather defend actions by others that aren't even a blip on my radar, and then you call what I say "targeted?" Silly me, for trying to steer the discussion to the topic I started with.

Having grown bored of your constant digressions from the "I can't stand Hillary" topic, I quit. Because I found your closing remarks pointless and condescending, I won't be coming back to this thread, but feel free to have the final word if you want.

Unless Gore changes his mind. But way to "ass ume" there.

I think standards should be equally applied to ALL candidates. Sorry I couldn't accomodate your bashfest, there.

Find someone to get that burr out from under your saddle, there, too, why doncha?


So "Hillary disgusts you." Wheeee. It isn't about all those silly things, after all. Whatever.

others? It's not Republicans, that's for sure. According to you, it's also not most Independents and a "large chunk" of Democrats.

Who's left? (no pun intended)

I too dont know anyone who will vote for her. I will of course if she gets the nom....

There.

All I'm saying is that Hill is very polarizing, and there are a lot of Independents and a lot of Dems voters who aren't terribly excited by her candidacy.

There are a few very strong indicators that highlight this fact;

Hill is behind Obama in fund raising, yet she presumably should have this killer fund raising organization, given her husbands runs and the amount of time she's been in the US political spot light. Why is this?

In hypothetical match ups between Dems and Repos, Hill consistantly comes in 3rd behind Edwards and Obama when poll-ees are asked who they would vote for in the general betwen the Dem and the Repo.
Why is this?

The true blue Hill supporters tend to ignore these obvious warning signs. I just think injecting a little objectivity into the campaign is a good thing for Democrats.

There have been national polls showing Hillary besting one or more of the Repub candidates. That shows that country-wide, many people are preferring her.

Now, polls will show other Dem. candidates besting this or that Repub from time to time, also.

But my point is...it is simply not true that "most Independents" and "a large chunk" of Dems don't want to vote for her. The polls indicate the exact opposite.

It's sort of like a friend of mine, who keeps saying that people will not vote for an African American? I tell him...well, SOME people won't, for sure. But the money and the supporters indicate, ipso facto, that MOST people who would vote for a Dem. in the first place are very willing to vote for Obama. He is, after all, leading MOST of the white male candidates. So it's simply not true that Obama's race will hold him back. SOME won't vote for him for that reason...but SOME won't vote for a woman...and SOME won't vote for an elderly person (McCain)....and SOME won't vote for a Mormon.....and SOME won't vote for a minister....and SOME won't vote for a little guy with a high pitched voice. There is something about most of the candidates that SOME people won't vote for. Big deal.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting any one particular candidate at this time. When I do...it's not likely to be Hillary. But I hate to see this unfairness toward her. If someone points out a negative, the positive should also be pointed out, IMO. And only someone with blinders on would think that she doesn't have HUGE support in the country.

"Democrats" will not be able to elect the next President without help from others...

For sure, Hillary's doing better than Edwards.

the pollsters call up people at random --

Most of those people have no idea who else is running.

They CERTAINLY have no idea of HRC's position on the "issues" (hell, neither do I and I have tried to find out)

They just know that they recognize the name...

"Yeah, that one -- 'Clinton' -- yeah..."

The polls are basically meaningless until a couple of weeks before the election...

:shrug:

Talk about HATRED on a mass scale, still he somehow became a two-term President.

John gets Elizabeth to be his attack dog. Why? Does he figure she's less likely to be attacked back?

Hillary should get her spouse to explain to everyone that the Hillary hatred only came about because the Clintons ran against the Republican candidate for president, and that if John actually got the nomination, they would slander him until he was just as hated as she is.

You're better than this crap, John.

There's a fear of being portrayed as a Rick Lazio--who, in his cloddish, stupid fashion, came off as a dumbfuck bully in that debate with Senator Clinton.

There was also the "Mrs. Obama speech" as well--with the business about taking care of family. Now that speech could have been taken either way, but the media chose to run with it "one way" without even getting any commentary from Mrs. O first--they manufactured the controversy, because they LIKE that "catfight" thing.

It says some unfortunate things about our society in general. We still have a long way to go, even though we've "come a long way, baby"--as that stupid cigarette commercial used to say.

interesting strategy.

She could talk about her husband's plan to end poverty in ten years, or put a man on Mars in five, or his plan to ensure full employment and free college for all.... and all you'd get from the media is the two words they're shopping: Clinton Hatred.

See, it's in the headline.

I dunno--the high road is a tougher slog, but it pays dividends over the long haul. IMO.

I think she got roped into an error.

She may be right; she may be wrong. No one can know with any certainty.

It's certainly an opinion shared by many here. But the polls showing Hillary with a commanding lead right now might seem to refute that.

My guess would tend to fall on the side of Hillary hatred being strong enough to interfere with her success. But I'd also only be guessing.

The difference is that I'm neither running against her, or married to someone who is.

There's truth in what she says...but it's the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it. There's no need to call attention to it. Bad form.

Also, because what she DIDN'T say was counterbalance the negative with the positive...and there's usually a positive.

It's TRUE that Hillary will energize the pubs to get out the vote. But it's also TRUE that she will energize many Dems to get out and vote, eager for a repeat of the Bill Clinton years, as well as just to vote to get the goat of the GOP. It's also TRUE that most Democrats apparently have chosen her as the candidate, at this point.

So Liz pointed out only the negative, leaving the positives aside. Typical political speech by an opposing candidate.

Note: I am not a Hillary fan. These are just observations. I'm getting pretty tired of the Dems stabbing ea. other. But I'm not crazy about ANY of the Dem. candidates.

but I also own a very dog-eared copy of "The Prince"
I'm in favor of anything designed to stop the "inevitable" party coronation of DLClinton. And that is indeed the motivation here.

edit: typo

It looks like someone is sending the wife out to fight his battles.

She would have been better off saying, "I want to talk about my husband, not the other contenders."

She ceded the high ground by 'engaging' IMO. YMMV.

Team Edwards works with what they have, just as does Team Clinton.
For the past few decades, the parties have practiced the politics of exclusion where the voters not so much vote for someone, but against someone.
Mrs Edwards is merely speaking the truth.

perspective. I am looking at it OBJECTIVELY.

And as an objective, UNDECIDED voter, who may or may not pull the lever for Edwards, or may go with one of the others, I saw it as a strategic ERROR. It looks like a "girl fight" game. Like Edwards is sending his wife out to beat up Clinton. It doesn't sell, it doesn't reflect well on him OR her, either.

The media pulled the same thing recently with Mrs. Obama. The speech about going home every night to tuck in the girls--the story was framed as slamming Clinton--and Obama sending his WIFE out to do the dirty work.

This story, the way it is presented, makes Elizabeth Edwards look bad. I'm not saying that's accurate, but that IS the way it LOOKS.

And I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

"against" the senator from New York in a negative light. The senator from New York must be the anointed one...and by god...nothing will stand in the way of her coronation. She has so much assistance, she certainly won't miss mine.

every time they try to "compare and contrast." They need to take the lead and do their own framing, not provide the media with a soft headline that is more about an opponent than the campaign that they are supporting.

Otherwise, all they are doing is setting themselves up to be Ladies In Waiting at this so-called coronation you're shopping.

It's a dumb strategy, IMO. It never works.

But some people might view it as her being "mouthy."

Maybe she just doesn't care. She says what she thinks and that's that. It could be that having gone through what she has gone through, and looking at her own mortality, she isn't too concerned about what others might say...

for Hillary. The hatred for her exists among the elite, but my plumber, a guy, loved her and my brother's inlaws, etc, secretaries and pizza shop owners. So she's working an element they don't really understand, I guess.

but I'm informed and self-educated. THAT'S why Hillary is not my first choice.

Her largest demographic of supporters seems to be the least informed and most poorly educated. As they get informed, they move on to other candidates. Her negatives will not diminish much, but her positives will as 1) currently uninvolved dems get better informed, and 2) the media which has been leaving her alone for the most part unloads on her (but mostly that won't happen until after the annointed one is nominated).

Care to share some data to back up your classist drivel?

makes Hillary look bad...even if it's made up out of thin air.

no. No data.

But look at the evidence. She is DLC, through and through. Do the uninformed know that? Do they even know what the DLC stands for? NAFTA, which has sent millions of jobs overseas - do you think the millions of unemployed/underemployed really want to support someone who has given away their jobs? Would they support such DLC policies if they knew what they were?

I've heard over and over that women of her demographic - educated, middle-class boomers - are rejecting her wholesale; her strongest single demographic is young women with less than a college degree. So the strongest support (among women), it can be inferred, is from inexperienced, underinformed persons who are busy trying to find their place in the world, voting for the first or second time, who were impressionable children when Bill and Hillary were in the White House; while her weakest is from experienced women who have the background and the time to be informed on issues as well as make sound judgements based on decades of watching people and politics.

Why is that?

But there are still lots of well educated women who back Hillary and who have always liked her. I have women friends who are good, solid Dems and we can disagree on candidates, without centering on one, perhaps because we're such political junkies. Perhaps we have that luxury while working class women are just too busy and worn down to spend time musing about the DLC and the differences with it and Dennis Kucinich, etc. I must say I get all carried away with this stuff, cuz I love it, and as a retiree I have more time on my hands...

if her last name was not Clinton, would she even be running? Would anyone even be listening?

Her 'base' for the most part do not see her, they see Bill. Period. Everyone seems to think if she's elected, Bill will really be the President, not her and that my dear readers is what most of my 'uneducated, lower income level' friends have told me.....Hillary on her own does nothing for them.

Again, said it before and will say it again.....I am not sure why I don't care for her (other than she's bought and paid for and makes no secret of it), but I do know this, if I do have to vote for her as the dem candidate, it will be with a large clothespin on my nose.

if she's elected, Bill will really be the President, not her and that my dear readers is what most of my 'uneducated, lower income level' friends have told me.....Hillary on her own does nothing for them.

You are only partially correct. Our true feelings are, -- if Hillary gets elected Bill will attempt to run the show which will result in so much animosity between them, it will lead up to our country's first "First Man" filing for our country's first "White House Divorce".

When the litigation is settled, The judge will decide that Bill will get the White House, and Hillary will have to go.
;-)

edited twice, -- to clean up a tsunami of grammatical errors.

What a brilliant, one-sentence idea for a continuing series--West Wing meets the Sopranos! No, that was Bush/Cheney....West Wing meets First Wive's Club! Yeah! Boffo!

and it's astounding that more people don't get it - Bill Clinton would not be the man he is today if he had not had Hillary Rodham by his side. She is one sharp woman, no matter how you feel about her personally.

That said, I don't like her. But it kind of chaps my ass that people look at her as an extension of her husband, when she is a very accomplished person in her own right.

I notice how everyone's getting all upset about your comment, but "seems to be" sorta SEEMS TO ME to be one of those wildass assertions that are tossed out, like a pork chop to a pack of rabid dogs, without a shred of proof.

What "category" do the supporters of the other candidates fit into, I wonder? Are all the Edwards supporters wealthy? Are all Obama supporters "urban" or "urbane" perhaps?

If all of her supporters "seem to be" poorly educated, they must be dumbos who are RICH, because she's getting an awful lot of contributions from these uninformed, poorly educated folk.

That post is just a load of...er...SPECULATION. To put it nicely.

I'm still undecided, but that's just crap you're throwing out without evidence. And it sure doesn't help me make up my mind, that sort of shoddy supposing.

But what I do for a living has nothing to do with who I support...which is no one at this time.

I'm not crazy about Hillary, and don't want to vote for her, at this point. However, that doesn't excuse this trashy thing that Elizabeth Edwards said. Even more than Hillary, I do not want to vote for Edwards now. He or his team have made several desperate comments in trashing other candidates. I've had my fill of that. He needs to go back into his McMansion and look for a job (he IS unemployed).

:sarcasm:

I guess the truth really hurts.

Informed, well-educated, and a Democratic Socialist. And, except for Gore, HRC is MY first choice.

It pains me to say so, but -- she's the hammer, he's the schmoozer, etc. etc. It all seems very familiar, except she has a softer tone than HRC.

or is it just that the MSM pays no attention to what the Repug Candidate's wives say?
When was the last time any of them were quoted anywhere?

Or is it that the rupugs think women should be seen and not heard? hmmmmm....

The MSM and the Republicans created that image. They took out of context, Teresa telling off a Pittsburg reporter who had lied about her and John Heinz as well as Senator Kerry for decades.

They also absolutely distorted Teresa's comments on the View about how she would differ from Laura. In an answer where she praised Laura effusively, she defined the difference as the fact that she was to some degree defined by the work she had taken on while Laura had not worked since she was young. The Republicans then hit back that Laura had worked as a librarian and teacher - and then went on about how important that was. Teresa apologized, then Karen Hughes attacked Teresa again saying that being a stay home wife and mother was an important job as well. (Completely ignoring that Teresa was a stay home mom herself when her children were young.)

Also missing that Teresa's answer was accurate and honest. Laura had not worked since she was 27 and whatever she brought to the position did really come from other sources. Teresa's use of her foundation to push green building decades before it was in, supporting work on how to improve women's pensions and healthcare among other issues, bringing together scientists annually to confer on womman's health, environmental toxins and cancer for the last 12 years define how she works to help causes she believes in.

Find me ONE attack from Teresa Heinz Kerry on the Edwards, the Deans, or any Democrat in 2004. (Teresa did not even respond to the barbs in EE's book and interviews.)

I guess I'm just asking 'why?'.

the negative vibes I was getting from her. I don't think she helped Kerry. In fact, she (and to some extent their marriage itself) probably was a negative to lots of voters. This view, which was subjective on my part, was borne out when my son in law, who did focus groups for Kerry's campaign, said they were being "killed" by her in his Wisconsin testing. I think a lot of this had to do with her being "foreign" and very wealthy to some midwesterners (who didn't live in Madison!).

behavior against other Democrats that Elizabeth is doing now.

That reflects zenophobia, which is real in this country, and the way the media framed her. They also did mind that she was wealthy when she was married to Heinz. I saw some of the old 1980s and early 1990s articles on Heinz that were filled with praise for Teresa. I have also seen her three times at 2005 - 2996 Kerry events - she is a soft spoken, warm and very quick to laugh or smile - and she was funny.

I know in 2004, there was all this "too bad she's not Elizabeth Edwards". I saw both interviewed - frankly the 2 biggest reasons that she was hit were that she was Foreign born and she was married to the Presidential candidate.

With the always negative media comments, it is no wonder she polled as she did. She was actually smeared more than Kerry himself in 2004, and did not have the platform

who don't live on either coast of the country. I'm in New England and lived for years in New York and D.C., however, I was born and raised in Texas. I guess I have a basic gut feeling about how national candidates go over in other parts of the country.

It ain't fair, but not all of it is xenophobia. I'd say it is a discomfort level for some folks. I don't think they all hated her, they just didn't see how she or even he could really understand the average person's life and concerns.

To this day, my son in law and I often wryly quote Kerry's immortal line "Who among us does not love NASCAR?" and it always gets a sardonic laugh (he in particular as a Bostonian).

Maureen Dowd made it up as snark in a column - it then ended up quoted as true. Seeing that your son-in-law was so involved in the campaign, he should at least have known that this was the media - not Kerry. This was one of many attempts by the media to frame Kerry. I've seen Kerry at some Boston events and at a NJ event, he absolutely does not speak like that. I do think that one difference is not elitism, but that he is of a pre baby boomer generation. In fact, at the hearing for Belguim ambassador, his language including things like, "so two wrongs make a right" made me thing he was morphing into my Hoosier dad!

I grew up in INDIANA, so I have as much claim to knowing the heartland as others. The media and the Republicans did an excellent job framing Teresa in a negative way, before the Kerry campaign could get out who Teresa really is. A better response to the negative polling you mentioned in Wisconsin, might have been a good ad that had both their credentials on the environment, which led to their meeting at the Rio conference, then working a joint environmental project, falling in love and marrying.

I think This moment on Earth was partially designed to counter the fact that Teresa was so thoroughly smeared in 2004, as well as the fact that these are issues both Kerrys passionately care about. Teresa was extremely impressive in all the interviews I saw - and I think I saw them all. For example, in one she gave an explanation of her role, as a non-scientist, in hosting an annual conference an environmental toxins, women's health, and onocology as being someone who can bring all these people together which can lead to synergies that move things ahead. She is a very serious person, who has done very serious work. Like her husband.

Bill Clinton took on the issue of green buildings last year - as one issue in his foundation. Teresa was doing that over a decade ago. Her foundation's office was the first large green building in Pittsburg. They also were instrumental in the Pittsburg convention center being green - the largest green building in the country. Her foundation had the money to pioneer in this area - which they did - and their example led others to follow. If, this is "good work" done by Bill Clinton, aren't Teresa's actions over a decade long period (as opposed to tasks forces and position papers) at least as impressive.

The fact, NO candidate other than maybe Kuchinich has in adulthood lived the life of a lower middle class or poor person. Not even Edwards. From the time he left law school and married Elizabeth, they quickly became at least upper middle class. His parents had periods where they were poor, the Edwards themselves really didn't other than perhaps there first year of marriage or two - and then it was clearly temporary given their salaries. They never personally faced the situations you allude to either. That does not mean they - or Kerry, or Clinton or Obama - can not relate to them. You can emphasize with people suffering things you don't. (Also, Kerry voted against the 2001 banruptcy bill, unlike Edwards and Clinton - so maybe he DID understand something.)

The Kennedys, the Roosevelts and most of the fore fathers were all from an upper class elite. They did win election. You also ignore that Kerry would have WON a fair election even with the media against him against a sitting President in a time of war. (Clinton ran against a President, the media had come to dislike, below 40% in the approval ratings. ) Had Ohio been honest, Kerry and the wonderful Teresa would have had the platform of the presidency to let the the country know who they were. In both cases, the country would have been pleasntly surprised.

based Kerry pollster, he might know that it was a statement originating with Dowd. My SIL likes Kerry as do I. My family all voted for him and were devoted fans of his (probably still are).

Please don't get me wrong. I liked Teresa and was entirely comfortable with her (with one exception: when she took Jack Edwards thumb out of his mouth at the photo session when they announced JE the running mate - that should have been left to JE or EE to do). I know she's done some fabulous things, so I was pleased to have a potential First Lady so informed and caring.

I think a woman with strong opinions and with great wealth scares lots of people, even to this day. I hope we can get over this old prejudice and move on to value smart women who speak their minds...

and she had on CSPAN. Kerry was giving a speech with Teresa, John, and Elizabeth standing behind him. John and Elizabeth were wearing HUGE grins while Kerry was talking. They're really a very attractive, outgoing couple. They looked great, and like they were THRILLED to be there.

Teresa, on the other hand, looked bored. She was standing there looking like a sullen 13-year-old.

I was sort of appalled that the candidate's spouse would look so put-out at having to appear at something as banal as a campaign rally. It really lost me a lot of respect for her.

I never saw Teresa look sullen. I think that she did at times look serious and exhausted. (Also, note in your describtion, the Edwards were standing together. Far easier.) Teresa was also subjected to far more by the campaign that Elizabeth Edwards, who was given enormous support - I would think that could make some differnce as well as the fact that Teresa is about 10 years older.

I could point to other video - and make the opposite point. The train video, showed the Kerry's waving together - while the Edwards on their side were apart - each waving seperately. I think though the difference was meaningless - each were doing what they thought best.

He was wound up and rolled off a laundry list of judgmental/negative comments that Elizabeth has made against others, including Teresa Heinz and Hillary Clinton.

He wanted me to understand that S.B.'s are hard wired to place themselves morally above others and Elizabeth can not help herself or stop her snarky comments because she believes herself to have superior moral judgment. He is angry about what he considers to be her obvious sanctimonious (and unrecognized) character flaws.

He went on and on making his case. Finally, after about ten minutes I interrupted him to say I was not supporting John in the primary. He was relieved - he assumed since I was in N.C. that he would be my candidate and afraid I would not see Elizabeth for the moralizing hateful woman that he sees. I told him I just thought she kept getting off message and the campaign was having trouble controlling her.

I also told him that John's supporters love her attacks. He said he felt it would guarantee John's loss as people begin to pay more attention.

I then asked him if he was sure she was Southern Baptists - his response, she has to be she acts like one.

You think those same Republicans who hate Hillary have a chance at liking Obama? Or Edwards? Or any Democrat for that matter? Any one of the candidates we have now is going to draw Republicans to the voting booth. The difference is that with Hillary, there aren't any new attacks, no new "scandals"...because all of it was already dragged out from 1993-2000. She has already fought the very same attacks that will be leveled against her should she win the nomination, and there is only a very small chance of some surprise skeleton jumping out. People know who she is, and they know what the arguments against her are and have had a long time to digest them.

The issue is not "who draws the most Republicans to the voting booth" come November; the issue is who can best respond to those attacks that will be thrown out. Hillary is that person, plain and simple, BECAUSE they hate her so much! It is that irrational hatred that has given her the experience fighting them. And because of that, she will be able to effectively dismantle those attacks not just by debunking them with a press release, but also by using that to her advantage politically.

We (aka, the Democratic Party) have around 70 million members, the Republicans have 50-55. We have more potential voters in our party (since not all of them, obviously, vote), and potential voters who are going to be more likely to vote for OUR nominee. We just have to tap into that.

how charming she is. Last night one of Obama's supporters (after her Lettermen appearance) posted that he was charmed. I have heard the charming comment over and over in the past several weeks. This comes from undecided or inattentive people that have seen enough to know that she is not the "shrill" bitch they had been lead to believe she is.

As she is on tv more and more as the campaign goes on her negatives will continue to go down as more people realize they were carrying a false impression.

They can see she is out there havin' fun and just one of the gals.

She is manipulative and overly ambitious.

Don't mistake getting fooled with being charmed.

He had watched Hillary last night and was totally taken by her.

He asked me a surprising question: "Do you think that Hillary's presidential run will start a new feminists movement?"

I responded that I hadn't thought about it but perhaps it will. I told him I would watch for the signs and let him know. He believes it will. He is 52 years old and works at a major university and he said he was picking up the idea at work.

of our country being ran by these 'elite families'.
people are sour to the idea of another clinton administration. it's that simple.
we need someone new and refreshing - someone who has deep respect for our constiution and our personal rights.

before the civil war and managed to hold onto their giant land holdings because they were war profiteers. To this day the family still controls all the diamond mining in that state, as well as being the single largest rice producer. His Mother's family owned/owns controlling interest in Dixie Cup.

He grew up in so much privileged that when it came time to go to college he had his choice of any Ivy League school because he had over 40 legacies to every single one of them.

As for Hillary - her family owns the White Soxs, the Cubs and the Bears. Her family is the biggest munitions manufacturer in the U.S. as they managed to parlay a small family business (Rodham Rifles) into an international provider of terrorist weapons through their strategic placement of large (sometimes illegal) campaign contributions to influential politicians. Sadly, when it came time for Hillary to go to college she had to gain entrance to a "girl's school" because the Ivy League schools still were not taking females - thousands of family legacies aside.

I've never seen any report of Clinton's mother being connected to the Dixie Cup fortune (if there is such a thing). I was born and raised in Arkansas.

the sarcasm tag.

willingly used their talents in the service of corporate overlords while maintaining the facade of being "progressive"
Sure has paid off well for Team Clinton, hasn't it?
The most ambitious are often the most corruptible.

a Hillary Hater post Rodman Rifle and Dixie Cup ownership as proof that she is a DLCer.

It's not like my day wasn't going shitty anyway, but if calling people dense makes your day better then by all means go right ahead.

Please post sources or a sarcasm icon.

So I'm dense sue me.

for their stranglehold monopoly on the anti-retroviral market.

Having said that, I must admit that Rodham Rifles are good quality.

A slug from the A900 ("Whitewater Special") can stop a wild moonbat dead in its tracks from 200 yards.

;)

:pals:

Fred Thompson is most likely to be the 'selected' however, the House and Senate will become strongly Democratic with perhaps veto proof powers.

This, imho is a good thing. One party control of national gov't results in diaster and illegal wars.

"Check and balance" is a good thing.

Yesterday, I was talking about the war & shrub to my heating/ac serviceman, he said he didn't like shrub but there was no way he'd ever vote for Hillary, I didn't even have to bring her name up.

not only in your house but on the convention floor

He may have some high ratings in the polls because he was an actor on a popular TV show. I don't see how that and his lackluster political career makes him President. At least Reagan had been a 2 term governor of California, whatever one thinks about his governance, which isn't much in my opinion. Andhe had established his own "stardom" in the Repub Party.

Thompson hasn't done jack, as far as I can see. He may look fairly OK in the lineup of Republican creeps, but up against an Edwards or Obama or Clinton, he's gonna look old and cranky and even boring.

Here is a Pew poll from this month:

8/1-18/07
Very favorable 21
Mostly favorable 34
Mostly unfavorable 18
Very unfavorable 21
Can't rate 6

Other polls which divided strong disapproval (hatred) from moderate disapproval came up with similar results. Only 21% hate Hillary, and that's less than the number of right wing drooling zomboids who will never vote for a Democrat anyway.

and rather classless of her. She's done way too much attacking IMO. Yes, I think she's right, but let someone else say it.

Waiting until the post-election post-mortem is much too late.

Elizabeth Edwards is correct: Hillary would motivate the GOP base.
Hillary's spokesman is correct: Hillary would run strongly anyway.

With the GOP circling the drain as it is, I'm thinking this is probably the most opportune time in our history to run either a racial minority (Obama, Richardson) or a woman (Clinton) for the presidency.

and a lot of Democrats won't vote for her because she's too un-Democratic. Nobody ever accused Hillary of being a progressive populist!

;-)

The last of a dying breed.

and the other half can hate Hillary. Perfect for perpetuating the L/R split and ensuring that no one gets to vote for what they believe and that Democracy remains powerless.

Even though this is how Elizabeth feels , why does it warrant being on LATE BREAKING NEWS for days? If this were about anyone else besides Hillary, it wouldn't last very long on this forum. It would probably be moved to GD forum, and rightly so.

Elizabeth really needs to chill. She sounds so petty. :shrug:

that spewed lies and hate constantly throughout the Clinton administration. So, what Edwards is suggesting is that we fold to republican spin. I am stunned at that statement.

And if she doesn't think the republican machine will not do that to her husband as soon as he gets the nominee--she is mistaken.

We all know what she's about.

She has her supporters among the democrats... but she also has a lot of hatred aimed at her from the republicans. There are also many democrats who know about her record and DON'T APPROVE.

This is exactly why I think she would be a bad candidate.

Right now I'm leaning towards Obama, but I could see myself voting for Edwards or Richardson or someone else too. I can't see myself voting for Hillary in the primaries. I also sense that a lot of people I talk to are in the same camp. It's not quite an "anyone but Hillary" camp, but there's just a general level of distaste there that's going to be almost impossible for her to overcome. She's had 15 years in the public eye, and trying to change those impressions in a few months is not going to work.

The other candidates have had much less time for Americans to get to know them, and there is still a lot of leeway for "remessaging" without looking like shysters.

and passive-aggressive about this, I think.

I think it would have been better not to have said this.

And has used indirect communication to slam Senator Clinton on a few occasions.

I like her much better when she goes after Annie Coulter.

anyone they run against. They'll put horns on Hillary's head and call her the Devil. They'll morph her into Osama and say, "Don't elect Osama for president."Running against fascist thugs is a contact sport, and we need experienced knife-fighters. Does John Edwards seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter? Does Obama seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter?
Elizabeth seems to suggest that if we send up a decent, honorable man, the GOP will respect that and play fair and not demonize the guy, even tho we already tried that with Gore and Kerry.....
Ben David

yes INDEED

from the BushCo book--Fool me once, won't git fooled AGIN!!!!

I've already decided--even though I haven't 'decided' on a candidate--that I will support the primary winner wholeheartedly. I'll do some precinct walking, smiling and dialing, GOTV-ing, and on election day, driving folks to the polls. I won't do the "Waaaah, I'll hold my nose and vote" or the "I may go third party, or stay home" bullshit--that's for selfish, childish political sissies who care more about their self-centered (and in the big picture, irrelevant) view of themselves as "independent thinkers" or "free spirits" rather than caring about the very dire future of our nation.

I think the tactics by the Democrats might change after the primary, no matter who wins. Right now, they're just trying to get to the point where they own the nomination. And they're trying whatever they think might work.

something to give some thought to --

Shirley, Gore wasn't effective at defending himself against personal attacks --
which is what they'll be --

And, neither was Kerry at all effective at defending himself against personal attacks --
certainly not!!!

Does Edwards have the strength to keep responding -- ???

I don't know, in rethinking this, I think Hillary wouldn't sit idly by and get swiftboated . . . .
but here's the thing, she didn't sit idly by in the White House --
she did defend herself -- "whitewater" --
but no one played that defense more than once --

That's the thing -- MSM will replay attacks 100X100 -- but defense, you'll hear once --

stated that it might not be doing Hillary any good being in 41's photo-ops.

Senator Bobby Kennedy: "What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country…"

That's the main reason. Accomplished and a brilliant lawyer. Just as smart as Bill.

However, I personally like the Clintons. I saw her make a campaign speech for over an hour without any notes back in 1992. She sounded like a liberal then.

Politically, I think they are both way too conservative to be called Democrats. At least he dug us out of the deficit and into a surplus, but he approved NAFTA and continued the shafting of the working and middle classes that started with the Reagan union busting of the air traffic controllers.

Hillary is NOT acting like a Democrat. She's acting corporate, so she and Obama are being shoved in our faces and the guys with good progressive ideas (Edwards and Kucinich) are being deliberately ignored.

Bill's penis, again, for one non-issue ---

I am not so crazy about her Corporate snuggling and Nafta Hugging!

I wont vote for HC, sorry.

and even here the majority seem narrow minded! That's the problem with Americans, they don't travel, they have no idea what the rest of the world is all about and the result is they're too focused on themselves and therefore don't understand that this time we need a leader who can mend everything this administration has destroyed. We won't move forward as a country until our standing in the world is restored.

The gop could not have accomplished anything without the help of DLC democrats.