Elizabeth Edwards likens John to Jesse Helms

Now...that's not helpful...

Edwards' wife likens husband to Helms
By RUSS BYNUM
Associated Press Writer

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- The wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Tuesday compared him to another North Carolina politician known for his blunt candor - conservative icon Jesse Helms.

Elizabeth Edwards, speaking to reporters before a giving speech in Savannah, Gal., invoked the name of Republican Helms when asked if her husband could appeal to conservative Southern voters.

"I remember one-time somebody saying, 'That John Edwards reminds me of Jesse Helms,'" she said. "They didn't agree on a single policy, I don't think. But here's what they agreed on - that people should know where they stood."

<SNIP>

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/126462.html

a straight shooter. Personally I hated him, but I think I know what she was trying to say.

Too bad she had to use that a'hole as her example....

:shrug:

North Carolinians, not DUers. Thanks!

investigating whether the Contras were drug running here to support to get money for arms. He was extremely anti - drugs and though he was pro-Contras, this stepped over a line. (Lugar had told Kerry he needed to have one Republican's approval.)

Why not pick a straight shooting Democrat, like maybe Harkin? If you have to pick a Republican, John Heinz, Chuck Percy, or even Goldwater.

I guess Elizabeth isn't perfect after all ~ but I like her anyway!

Vote for John Edwards...He'll remind you of Jesse Helms.

(Just kidding Edwards' supporters) ;-)

I know what she meant. Just a bad example that's all.

And here I'd been thinking kindly of him until now.

clearly she is not comparing him to the heinous Helms. Anybody who reads the piece knows that, if they bother to pay attention.

She said that there are some people who make sure people know where they stand - Helms is one. Edwards is another.

It is PRECISELY that they are so different that makes the comparison ingenious...unless you look at it incredibly superficially, which the AP writer has done.

Let's not get suckered in here.

The editor writes the headline.

Is that what you meant?

(I was a reporter for 12 years.)

Anyone that grew up in N.C. knows what an incredible bastard he was.

Of all the people to compare her husband to, why on earth Jesse "Sumbag" Helms?

I live in NC. And the bottom line is Edwards has a lot of work to do, just to win his own state.

Last poll I saw said that most North Carolinians want a Democrat for President, but they don't think much of our three Democratic front-runners. Edwards was polling at 24%.

:sarcasm:

would clarify what Elizabeth Edwards is expressing in comparing her husband to Helms. I think most African-American voters would understand this, unless they're only reading headlines, as many on DU seem to prefer to do.

I don't know that African American voters in N.C., without whom no Democratic candidate can even hope to win the state, would get too amped about a comparison to Jesse Helms, who was about two steps from Grand Wizard status to many people.

in the past few days. First the "snaking" gay friend comment on CNN, and now comparing Edwards' leadership with Jesse Helms.

'snaking' means something very innocent in the south, at least it did then. any southerner would not be startled by this.

she chose the most different person possible in order to make it clear that she was talking about 'frankness' not policy.

it is a standard rhetorical technique. I am suprised this startles people. I worry that it just measures the distance we have fallen from rhetorical sophistication.

"snaking" is a very phallic word no matter what it means in the south, and it was strange to hear it used during a prime-time news program. Most of America does not live in the south, so it doesn't mean much if people there understand it.

As far as Jesse Helms, it was strange for her to link her husband to a name that conjurers up "racist" before it comes anyway near to describing leadership. Rhetorical sophistication? Her statement wasn't even close.

Sure, you can explain the quotations that way, or you can explain them the way I did.

I understand your points, but disagree.

Neither you nor I are right, and neither are wrong. Two different approaches to the same words.

For the record, she wasn't talking about leadership from Helms (certainly not racism), she was talking about the fact that everybody knew exactly where he stood. Edwards - ideological polar opposite - wants everybody to know the same about him.

I think it's a classic rhetorical device, used nicely (except that it clearly gives room for some to miss it)

Plus, it makes sense she would have made a comparison to Helms since he is probably North Carolina's best-known Senator in modern times, and she was discussing a North Carolina voter making the comparison when Edwards was Senator.

EDITed to add "plus" to the beginning, which I somehow managed to delete in the course of originally editing the post.

Rhetorical device or not, whether she was quoting what someone else said or not, the fact is that Elizabeth Edwards linked John Edwards to a bigoted racist. Everyone knows exactly what Jesse Helms stood for, and that name brings chills to to anyone with any sense of decency.

No one's missing anything, although that's the spin you're putting on this. No matter in what context she's comparing her husband to Helms, it was a terrible mistake.

Describing this as a "rhetorical device" doesn't rescue it from being a big mistake, or miscalculation.

Jesse Helms' legacy, the rabid anti-abortionist, outspoken racist, homophobic bigot, nasty, thoroughly disgusting and morally compromised man, should be thrown in the slime pit of history along with the rest of his ilk...NOT resurrected in any positive context, as in comparing how he stood up for things, like John.

Yeah, I know he's not dead, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point.

do you think that you or I more accurately declaim what Elizabeth meant?

If you think she MEANT to 'link' edwards with a racist, I don't know what to say.

If you think that my read is what she meant, and she said it in such a way as to make in able to be interpreted (ie SPUN) another way, then who is 'spinning'.

What did she MEAN TO SAY? That, is what she said. Any other interpretation is spin

(It's such an easy word to throw out at someone to render their argument meaningless, I try not to use it, and only do so now because you accuse me of spinning)

"meant" to link Edwards to a racist? She did. She did it purposefully. Asking that is spinning. Parsing and spinning.

Through the words of another person, she linked her husband to a racist man, for whatever comparison, context, rhetorical device, or intention, she. linked. John. Edwards. to. Jesse. Helms.

Do I think she meant that Edwards himself is a racist? No, of course I don't think that.

around the use of the word 'link'.

the said this: they are IDEOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT (clear so far?)....they BOTH WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHERE THEY STAND (full stop)


Does this link the two men in any way ideologically? No it doesn't.

Does it IDENTIFY THEM AS TWO PEOPLE WHO WANT OTHERS TO KNOW WHERE THEY STAND? Yes.


Now, to take the above and say that it is chilling to "link" the two men suggests - ipso facto - that she is saying they have the same ideology - if not, if that is NOT what she is saying, then why in the world would it be chilling. But you've said it is chilling, so you must, by the internal logic of your argument, be saying that they are ideologically aligned.

In fact, and let us be honest here, what she is saying is that IF YOU DON'T LIKE HELM'S IDEOLOGY THEN YOU SHOULD BE COMFORTED BY THE FACT THAT EDWARDS, ALSO, HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH HIM IDEOLOGICALLY.

I simply can not believe this conversation. You KNOW that is not what she said, so why is it 'chilling"?

and neither does posting in caps. No, you're still off base with this, but I don't want to continue any longer.

Have a great afternoon :-)

I only wish you had answered a single question, or proposition.

bye

at this point I can't believe these smart posters (and many of the ones complaining are smart, as evidenced by their other posts) can not see this.

They would probably say the same to us...but people getting 'chills' from her 'linking' Edwards to a racist...I am, frankly, baffled.

yes, her quote has given them room to 'use' it...they don't need to use it, they could instead attend to what she is very clearly saying (NOT linking) but they have chosen to use it otherwise.

oh, well.

She was referring to the position in the race, claiming that Obama and Hillary are only ahead in the polls cause he's a black guy and she's a woman. What she said could be considered racist and sexist and discount the intelligence of Democratic voters. It could be they are ahead of Edwards cause Edwards isn't a viable nominee for president. That could be a thought!

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt cause it probably came out how she didn't mean it. She probably didn't mean it in a racist way, but she should know better not to say stuff like that that can be interpreted as something entirely different.

about the Hillary/Obama comments?

I'm kinda surprised her statement didn't' receive more attention cause I was pretty startled when she said it. I don't have a link, but trust me, she said it.

as I would be interested to see it. I've been trying to search for some kind of story about it, but I haven't been having any luck.

I think it's irresponsible to put something like this out there.... if there is a link, or a video, or a transcript, I would be very interested to see if she actually said what you claim.

It would be extraordinarily out of character.

Does she note that 1) one is a black candidate and one is a woman candidate, and also mention that 2) this is very exciting for voters and that 3) they are both leading the polls....

If she says that, and I don't know what she said, then is your subject line accurate?

Did she say that if they weren't that race and that gender they would not be leading? That's what your post says.


Your subject line is extremely inflammatory. You must be pretty confident that's what she said.

I'd like to see it.

you should not be comfortable saying something like this and fail to show us what she said.

not because of the terminology--I'd never heard it before--but because someone making a comment like that would make Sen Edwards so uncomfortable. It is just creepy to me. I'd hope he never made similar comments about women....

n/t

(voted for him anyway). One of my problems with Edwards (and Elizabeth) is that they will say just about anything to win. One of his "selling points" in his senate campaign that was that he would often vote WITH Jesse. NC was more conservative then than it is now, and he was willing to say this to get elected. Turned my stomach!

or should we just believe you that he voted like Jesse.

and, please, an example of how they say something just to win elections.

and do tell me what elizabeth has done to make her as you say.

I said that part of his campaign was to tell NC folks that he would vote With Jesse. And here is your link to that!

In 1998, Edwards Promised The People Of North Carolina That He Would Be A Moderate Voice In The Senate

Edwards Praised Senator Helms And Claimed That He Would Vote Frequently With Him If Elected. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC): “He is absolutely a clone of Bill Clinton. I wonder if that man that made the sheep over in Scotland might have worked on Edwards for Clinton. CNN’s Jonathan Karl: But Edwards is a Democrat who vows to fight for big tobacco; a Democrat who vows to slash Washington’s bureaucracy; a Democrat who praises Jesse Helms. Edwards: Senator Helms has actually been very kind to me and my family, personally. Karl: Edwards says he would frequently vote with Helms. He’s also running ads, mocking his opponent by tying him to Bill Clinton. (Begin Video Clip, Edwards Campaign Ad) Announcer: Lauch Faircloth keeps hitting John Edwards with Bill Clinton. But it is Lauch Faircloth who has voted with Bill Clinton over 200 times. Is Lauch liberal?” (End Video Clip) (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” November 2, 1998)

Edwards Said That He Would Not Cancel Out Senator Helms’ Votes While In Washington. ”Edwards said his top priorities will be working for public education, health care reform, the environment and the protection of Social Security. He said he will continue some of Faircloth’s policies, such as opposing oil drilling off the Carolina coast and saving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, in all likelihood by moving it. And Edwards again rejected Helms’ claims during the Faircloth campaign that he will cancel Helms’ votes because he is liberal. ‘We won’t be canceling each other’s votes,’ Edwards said. ‘There will certainly be things we disagree about. I think the reality is Senator Helms has been there a long time. He understands the rules and how things work in the Senate, and I’m interested in having his advice about that.’” (James Rosen, “Edwards Offers Peace To Political Foes,” The News And Observer, November 5, 1998)

Elizabeth Dole gave a speech against it and voted "No". John Edwards went to Tennessee to attend a fund-raiser.

Promises, promises. There lies the rub. x(

to the Senate because he had spent so much time campaigning for the presidency, even before he was on the ticket with Kerry, and missed so many votes in the Senate.

He looks good, he sounds good, but what would he do? I think he, and Clinton and Obama, would all be like Bill Clinton, at best.

Face it, Bill looks good and sounds good but he gave us NAFTA and "the end of welfare as we know it" (I always wonder how many former welfare recipients are doing well today and how many are living in poverty with no benefits) and he bombed Iraq and had an embargo against Saddam that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children, collateral damage that Madeline Albright defended.

Can we really expect better than what Bill did from Hillary, John, or Barack?

rating the summer of 2004 in NC was at a level that would be consistent
with re-election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3254738&mesg_id=3256118

It is titled:

Democrats Falter As Bush Dips

http://www.newsobserver.com/674/story/576254.html

dated May 21,2007

Some aspects of his past working as a public advocate, constitutional law professer and a civil rights lawyer rather than earn big working as a trial lawyer or a corporate lawyer give me hope that he is motivated by public service.

I don't think that his statement suggests that he is selling himself as one who will vote with Helms. He is simply undercutting the argument Helms is making, and suggests that procedures (which Helms had mastered) is what he will take from Helms.

the first graph you link is not from Edwards, it's from CNN and isn't terribly accurate from them

FYI, the kindness that Helms showed was reaching out to them when their son was killed, before Edwards was even thinking of running.

and other conservative democrats. The IWR or do you think Helms would have voted against that? Almost every defense bill he voted as Helms would have.

I've had the feeling he'd say pretty much anything to win, but haven't followed him in the past enough to know. One day he seems to me so boyishly sincere about his cause and the next he seems like a slick fancy talker.

to go back and see what he said in '98.



"‘We won’t be canceling each other’s votes," means that they would at least occasionally vote together on some issues.

THAT would be quite a research project. How many times did Jesse Helms and JE vote the same way?

They probably voted the same way on some procedural motions, some confirmations of presidential appointments, and some resolutions renaming federal builidngs, post offices, federal courthouses, etc.

A lot of congressional actions are non-controversial and passed unanimously.

in where he praises Helms during his NC election race and loads it up on YouTubes.

Since procedural votes don't wash as an excuse with voters, I doubt that's what he was referring to.

Of course, he can always say "I'm sorry".

the danger is they will include all votes to get the "he voted with Jesse Helms n % of the time. It would be good if that's done to have for the same time period the percent of time Kennedy voted with say, Jeff Sessions. It may be pretty high because there are a lot of near unanimous votes - though fortunately a lot of them are voice votes and don't count.

She didn't make the comparison but claims someone else did and in the most innocuous of ways.

How pathetic of AP to misrepresent that and even moreso to see any DUers lacking the comprehension or honesty to see it clearly.

This is the second time I am aware of that AP has done this to EE.

Julie

anybody reading this with open eyes sees very clearly she is not saying that they are alike - in fact it's precisely because they are so different that the point about their frankness is made clear.

two people who want their views known, even if these two people are exact ideological opposites.

conjure up the name of Helms when speaking about her husband, regardless of if she was "recounting" what someone else said is really uncalled for.

It is Ms. Edwards that chose to recount that comparison....

in reference to "Frank"......I say, Frankness my ass! How is it frank to be a racist with a black child hiden from the world till your death. That's what I want to know?

And so what if Helms was frank in his racist ways? Why would that even be something anyone would want to bring up as being "positive"?

The main point of her statement was to point out similarity, not to point out the ideological difference.

The rhetorical device: use the dissimilar ideology to point to the similar desire to be taken for what they believe. It is a rhetorical device, no matter how much others say it's not.

do you really, really believe that Elizabeth Edwards would say they are alike ideologically.

If you don't think she would, what might she be saying here?

I contend that she says that even people so ideologically distant as these two can share a desire to have their views known clearly to all: Helms wants his rightwing views known unequivocally, and Edwards wants his populist stance to be clear and distinct.

Anyway, we are obviously having different takes on this, and I believe that whether she succeeded or not (obviously she didn't with the AP writer and most here), she is not comparing her husband ideologically to Jesse Helms.

Because she evoked Helms name, according to AP, "when asked if her husband could appeal to conservative Southern voters."-- I doubt that her aim was to remind Conservative Southern Voters that her husband was a great big liberal progressive! How would that help her husband with "conservative Southern Voters"? Was her aim to discourage that group from voting for her husband.....cause in terms of Helms telling people where he stood, he only did that when it came to racial questions, i.e., he had always made it extremely clear that he was a bigot.

were ideologically similar in order to appeal to "conservative southern voters", why would she have said, "They didn't agree on a single policy, I don't think"?

White voters in the South (since Hillary and Obama have the African-American vote split between them), hoping that the statement would subliminaly make Edwards that much more attractive for those Southern Democrats and Independents to vote for him.

So maybe it is simply an election "Strategy"....

Those attempting to use the excuse that Ms. Edwards was simply repeating a story about the fact that somebody had once made the comparison doesn't wash, because why would she even bother to repeat such a story if there was no use for her to do so? So I prefer to believe that her taking the trouble to recount this comparison was purposeful....And what other purpose would recounting this story serve in the South but only to remind voters that, out of all running, it is somehow Edwards who shares some similar trait with Helms (who I'm sure is a legend in the South, in particular to the bigoted)? I mean after all, Helms wasn't exactly honest with these folks....since he, oops, forgot to mention the Black child that he fathered while he espoused and worked hard at keeping racism in the public fore.

So some Edwards supporters may think that this was an "accident" or a "media get Edwards" set up.....but I believe that many folks here are smarter than this....because I know that the Edwards are savvy enough to know exactly what message they wanted to leave out there in the South. We Folks are just not that naive.

As I indicated above my brain was reeling and I couldn't get the words out. You stated it very well.

move on Mrs. Edwards' part.

Like reminding White Southern Voters that Edwards and Helms are more similar.....than say, Hillary or Obama compared to Helms. "Code"!

Since a candidate hoping to win or at least do well in Democratic primaries in southern states would obviously want to piss off black voters, who make up a large percentage of voters and in some states close to a majority of voters in those primaries, by speaking in racist code words. :sarcasm:

Edwards's record on civil rights is no worse than Clinton's or Obama's.

Jesus christ people.

She said that they both thought people should know where they stand.


You Edwards haters must be pretty scared.


BOO!

on an issue appearing in Newspaper articles in the South concerning John Edwards during the primaries is uncalled for.

The "haters", as you have chosen to call us, were simply commenting on the possible reasons why Ms. Edwards felt compelled to invoke Helms' name, in whatever way she did. And for this we are to be looked upon as "Edwards Haters"?

Yes, we know where Jesse Helms "stood". And? Why is that something important enough for Ms. Edwards to have mentioned. What was her goal in recounting the statement that someone else made about her husband.

Why don't you enlighten us on this topic instead of calling us names?

I will be curious to see if one who can so easily call DUer names can be coherent when rationalizing why we are even having to discuss a comparison between John Edwards and Jesse Helms.

Thanks in advance for the informational "civil" response you might provide.

didn't agree on a single policy" but NOOOOOOO - because you don't miss a chance, you let the AP misinterpret what EE said. Pitiful.

"Ms. Edwards evokes similarties between John Edwards and Rabid Racist Senator Helms when asked if presidential candidate would "appeal" to "conservative Southern Voters".....cause that was the gist of what occurred.

and "similarities" would have been untrue- she noted one single similarity- that people know where they stand. Your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking. But keep trying.

So when asked about whether Edwards would appeal to "Conservative Southern Voters", evoking the name of a bigot has nothing to do with anything, and more to do with MY comprehension skills? Oookay.

they don't agree on a single thing, my husband and Adolph Hitler were both vegans!"

:evilgrin:

if it weren't so pathetic.

Julie

For once you got it right!

Helms is not dead - Strom Thurmond is dead and is the one who hid the black child. They are both racist and bigots and possibly separated at birth, but they are 2 different folks.

I must say though that I am happy to report real world political gatherings never seem to be ruined by the sort of hatefulness spewed here in the safe confines of the anonymous tubes.

At least there's always a place for those who lack the social skills required in reality.

Julie

Where do you see hatefulness by DU'ers in this thread? I would suggest thats quite an exaggeration.

but all over the Edwards threads are lies and crap from Obama, Clark, Gore, Kuchinich and HRC supporters.

I haven't once trashed any of the other candidates-well, except the repubs. Can you say the same thing?

....this Edwards supporter who is very complimentary of both Hillary and Obama. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3299227&mesg_id=3305185

I cannot comment on your posting history directly, I would like to just accept your statement on your posting habits as fact and move on. But with regard to characterizing all supporters of candidate x or y... I feel pretty sure that comments both positive and negative (substitute trash talk if you prefer) occur in just about any thread that focuses on any individual with a high profile in the democratic party and that members who proclaim support for just about every candidate participate. Whether you intend to dispute that further or not, its an issue that could easily be put to bed by paying a little bit more attention. This is a discussion board for democrats, not for supporters of candidate x or y.

Additionally, I would encourage you to not withhold your opinions on other candidates.

I was beginning to think I had entered some bizarro land where the words don't mean what they mean. It is not a complicated sentence she said, but to read these posts it's like she was speaking Qechua.

It's like the snake thing from the other night - people are shocked because she said a gay friend said John was so good looking that he wanted to snake him. 'Snake in 1970's North Carolina means a very specific, innocent thing, like "I want to steal your boyfriend". It is as innocuous as can be imagined. Yet, some on DU are just flabbergasted that she would say something so bizarre, and to quote an especially offended poster, something so 'phallic'....my god, this is is ridiculous.


thank you thank you

Think of the possible "confusion" they could generate by only using the British meaning.

(As an English visitor exclaimed, "You have shagging _contests?!")

She said they had nothing in common as far as their politics go. I can't say for sure what the op was implying, but this should not be used against Edwards.

Oooh, there's the "hate" accusation again...to be expected, I suppose.

Nothing to see here. It's business as usual on DU, today.

Dick Morris.

Can the OP please fix it. Thanks.

look tough enough to be President. And thats his biggest problem in my opinion.

as shown by making his way against great odds to get where he is today.

Not in GD-P, but keeps showing up in MY DU ...weird. The news link still hasn't been corrected either?

:beer:

Here it is: "They didn't agree on a single policy ... But ... people should know where they stood."

There, I've boiled down for the simple among us. :P

I asked the mods for help, it's still fu*king HERE.

I asked the OP to correct it, I alerted to the Mods to correct it....why has it not been corrected or...horrors...locked ?

Sorry I'm such an anal retentive a*hole, I'm an Edwards supporter trying to level the playing field.

Thanks for the link, but I'm not about to let this smokin'hit drop off.

:hi:

Posted on Wed, Jun. 06, 2007
Edwards campaigns with actor Glover



By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards added some Hollywood star power to his focus on rural problems, campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina's small towns with actor and political activist Danny Glover.
Glover, whose movie credits include "The Royal Tenenbaums" and the "Lethal Weapon" series, joined Edwards as he spoke to a crowd of more than 200 about increasing employment and improving education.

Glover said Edwards understands the needs of the working poor and that the campaign is telling their story. "This is a campaign about real democracy," Glover said.

Edwards, who was born in Seneca, S.C., discussed the rural agenda that he unveiled earlier this year. His plan calls for spending $1 billion on increased investment in rural small businesses, education, health care and resources to fight methamphetamine abuse.

Edwards said the nation's need to wean itself off foreign oil could create 1 million jobs and help rural economies with the development of alternative power such as biofuels and wind turbines.

"We can bring in jobs to replace jobs that have been lost," said the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee.

He also called for a ban on new coal-fired power plants when asked about plans by a South Carolina state-run utility to build a new plant in Florence County. Critics have said the facility's carbon dioxide emissions will further add to global warming.....good grief, here's the rest....

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/126462.html