I am guessing such an offer was proposed to Hillary or one for her that is much higherup/more likely to achieve something (like making her in charge of universal healthcare in the senate) or something like that.

Kind of doubt that he would intentionally slam HRC like this right after she endorsed him. That is just dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb politics.

"I admire and respect Elizabeth Edwards. This isn't about her."

Except it is about her, since however much you say you admire and respect her, you clearly don't think she was chosen for her "expertise and experience" but rather as a "token."

Otherwise, the post would be pointless.

Elizabeth Edwards is an attorney who has never held public office or worked on public policy matters, other than serving on her husband's campaign team. She is a smart woman, but has no health care experience that I am aware of. She could serve equally well in almost any capacity. Why he (or she) chose health care is puzzling.

Because health care is her policy interest and she's proven herself an effective, high-profile advocate for universal coverage. It would be puzzling if he or she had chosen anything else.

FWIW, both Paul Krugman and Greg Sargent have a different view of the wisdom of this partnership.

It's entirely possible that this just hit me the wrong way today. That said, last I checked, neither Paul Krugman nor Greg Sargent are in the aforementioned target demographic.

Here's the problem, from Sargent:

"Late Update: The key political context here, of course, is that back in April, Elizabeth revealed that Obama's health care plan wasn't her favorite. Enlisting her as a public voice on health care could obviously help with the Obama camp's outreach to women and help win over skeptics in general."

My sense is that this will not help with "outreach to women", at least not with disaffected Clinton supporters. Most women I know admire Hillary for very different reasons than they admire Elizabeth.

I hear you, Mel.

Except ... wasn't the Edwards plan better than both Hillary's and Obama's?

I mean yeah, if Elizabeth Edwards is to be a Hillary replacement, that's kinda weak, but this happens to be her signature issue just as well as Hillary's.

Hillary is also super-strong when it comes to women's health issues and reproductive choice. I'd have her kick ass on those grounds, and probably keep her around as anti-Republican pitbull both on TV and in the Senate.

Not being a member of the target demographic myself, I can't really judge that reaction.

But I think it's a bit much to say that his interest in a partnership on health care with Elizabeth Edwards means "he views middle-aged white women as virtually interchangeable." Elizabeth Edwards isn't a random white woman; she's distinguished herself as an effective critic of both McCain's and Obama's health plans, and as Krugman and Sargent note, a partnership with Obama would enhance his credibility on the issue.

Obama and others may see the fact that she's a white woman as a bonus, but I doubt that's his the only reason even the primary reason for his interest.

Why wait until Senator Clinton suspends her campaign to announce the "partnership" with Mrs Edwards?

Because Edwards preferred Clinton, and would not have agreed to that partnership until she had?

"I mean yeah, if Elizabeth Edwards is to be a Hillary replacement, that's kinda weak"

Wwho said she was a replacement? It just seems that you are looking for something that isn't there.

A new direction means just that. Why would you want to rehash the healthcare fight of '93 by appointing Clinton?...to much speculation here. Nobody knows the background of who was or wasn't asked or what the background is.

I find it interesting that there seems to be a divide between the men and women (no matter who they voted for).

I'll hold off on the pop psychology.

Deak, I was trying to partial concede the point if it is there because while I don't see it, it may be possible to see it.

By the way, any thoughts on how to woo women, blacks, and Bubba without mutually turning off the others (with a message all see - no fair using dog whistles)? And yes, I may have just asked for the Holy Grail of Democratic politics.

By the way, any thoughts on how to woo women, blacks, and Bubba without mutually turning off the others (with a message all see - no fair using dog whistles)? And yes, I may have just asked for the Holy Grail of Democratic politics.

Have Hillary as your VP?

I doubt Hillary is the only Dem who can woo bubbas, I don't think she would do better than BHO with the AA vote, and women maybe she has a better chance than BHO (although I tend to view groups as being more intelligent than voting for X candidate because X is a Z and I am a Z too).

And Hilldog said no to VP.

well, first I couldn't resist, but second, where did you hear her say no?

There may be too much speculation here sndeak, but news reports are our only means of following the campaign. The message seemed loud and clear to me.

I don't think Elizabeth is a "replacement" for HRC, but I do think she is part of the "replacement" strategy.

I know he's supposed to be post-everything, but there's got to be at least some political calculation behind this appointment.

my bad I swore i read somewhere that she said no to being VP (honest mistake). I just searched google news briefly and couldn't find nothing.

Just throwing it out there but there is also no reason to believe that almost all of HRC supporters have BHO as a 2nd pick unless she is getting support from people because of Kyl-Lieberman and the Iraqi war or authorization vote (which I would have to think is a minuscule portion of the Party).

Don't forget too that part of what people "know" Elizabeth Edwards for is her recurring cancer, and her determination to fight ahead for her husband's campaign despite it. She's probably one of the most famous survivors on the political scene where it comes to health.

I hope it wasn't tokenism too, though.

To me, it read more like an invitation than an appointment - as far as I've seen, EE hasn't said boo about her interest in being an official part of Obama's campaign.

As for how to woo women, I'd thought it'd be a good idea for him to pledge to appoint a more balanced cabinet, and more women generally; he'd have to start in his campaign first, and it's be an obvious pander, but given that Bush's whopping six women cabinet secretaries is a record, not really arguable.

But it sounds as if that'd be dismissed unless one of those women were Hillary.

Of course, Senator Obama is 2nd place for folks who supported Senator Clinton. I don't think that's the issue, at least for me.

This is not a shoe-in election, as much as we might like to think it is. I believe Senator Obama is going to need all the help he can get and we can give to prevail in November.

I think Senator Obama recognizes that, but it seems to me that his supporters do not. There seems to be a sense that he already won and that they just have to do more of the same to win in November. Sadly, that's not the case.

The way to woo women is the same way to woo any other constiuency. Listen to them.

Obama is actually doing better with women (as a whole) than Kerry did, but he's not doing as well as he could with working women.

I don't see this as a huge problem, but it would just be nice to win big for once.

It pains me to admit this, but my mom falls into the category that just might not vote for Obama in the GE. She's REALLY upset with how women were treated during the primary by him and his supporters, and by the FL debacle, and she just changed her registration from Democrat to Independent last week. My mom is very passionate and she is very passionate about this and she said the only way she might consider it is if he either picks Hillary or Biden as his VP.

We have a chunk of the electorate vowing to practice "the audacity of nope", but we shouldn't give up on them.

How were women treated poorly in the primary? I didn't see anything like that happening. I saw a woman who was at times treated poorly because she made several gaffes, but a lot of criticism came from other women.

Watching the campaign coverage recaps was interesting last week. I was reminded that the MSM went from declaring HRC the inevitable nominee to shouting her off the stage over the course of the campaign. I was frustrated by the coverage at the end, but feel the pain of the other candidates who were lost in the crossfire early on. It's not personal, it's television.

How were women treated poorly in the primary? I didn't see anything like that happening. I saw a woman who was at times treated poorly because she made several gaffes, but a lot of criticism came from other women.

sigh. There's been lots written about this; I really don't want to get into it on here, but I'll just repeat some things my mom repeated over the weekend as that might be a window into this. I also should have added that some of what she was mad about was the ageism.

"You're likeable enough Hillary" ~Obama (which my mom kept quoting)

"I hated that I was told over and over that I'm old and uneducated"

and now I'm forgetting some other things she said, but what it boils down to her is that my mom (perhaps unfairly) basically saw this race as a chance to confirm the women's movement and she sees what happened as what's happened to women in normal life writ large: the qualified older woman gets passed over for a job (or job promotion) in the workplace by the younger, charismatic, but less qualified, male. My mom's generation has experienced that phenom over and over all their lives and they feel like they just saw it play out on the national stage with this election.

We have a chunk of the electorate vowing to practice "the audacity of nope", but we shouldn't give up on them.

Yep, and they're also forming PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), but I agree, please don't give up on them. Have you seen this article?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_now_all_about_respect.html

I guess the obvious question is, who was speaking to your Mom? Was it the campaign or the media? All the rural, and middle income folks those comments were straight from Fox and CNN. I get an e-mail a day from Sen Obama's campaign and I have yet to be offend, except over the constant beg for money, which seriously duh!

As far as the "you are likeable enough" frankly that was just bad, but my goodness after everything that was said by her husband about AA voters, really it might be time to put that in the "wow" we're both freaking tired and our our attempts at humor might fall flat category.

As and FYI: my mother also a Equal Rights & NOW chick, ( we were not allowed to watch I Dream of Jeannie cause of the No master yes master") Who voted for Bill because of Hillary in the day can't stand the woman now. So go figure.

IRE, you should check out the various re-mixes on sexism in the media during this primary. There is some God-awful stuff out there.

However, most of the worst is from people like Tucker Carson, Joe Scarborough, and such that are very rarely our friends anyways. Chris Matthews is a toss-up, as is Lou Dobbs (they both have this amazing ability to make me go from "right on" to "fuck you" in record time).

But, there's still a lot of work (perhaps cultural work) to do on the educated v. uneducated thing. There needs to be another category for sophistication to fall into other than "snob" or the guy that comes into your Podunk town to pirate the place and buy up all the land.

Great link plange. I hadn't seen that, but it rings true.

"I guess the obvious question is, who was speaking to your Mom? Was it the campaign or the media? All the rural, and middle income folks those comments were straight from Fox and CNN. I get an e-mail a day from Sen Obama's campaign and I have yet to be offend, except over the constant beg for money, which seriously duh!"

It doesn't really matter who is speaking, does it? The message is getting through and no one has spoken out specifically against it.

I assume you get an email a day because you signed up. For those of us who haven't done that yet, when we go looking we find a lot of nastiness.

I think people are conflating opposition to Democrats (specifically Hillary) with sexism when it may not be there (ex: Tucker Carlson who opposes Democrats and nothing else needs to be read into his statements IMO).

I think people are conflating opposition to Democrats (specifically Hillary) with sexism when it may not be there (ex: Tucker Carlson who opposes Democrats and nothing else needs to be read into his statements IMO).

IRE, not really when it comes from the campaign. "When Hillary gets down her claws come out" (Obama) and then several of his campaign surrogates calling her a monster. Really, it goes on and on, and what's frustrating is that the underlying sexism that was exposed is not recognized and acknowledged. The underlying racism that got exposed was reported by the media and is generally frowned upon (rightly so); but not the sexism.

As and FYI: my mother also a Equal Rights & NOW chick, ( we were not allowed to watch I Dream of Jeannie cause of the No master yes master") Who voted for Bill because of Hillary in the day can't stand the woman now. So go figure.

Am certainly hoping you're not saying my mom's feelings on this aren't valid?

You know what, I never said any of that and now I am offended. They are just two different perspectives from two different people.

Please do not put any words in my mouth.

Sorry Jules, didn't mean to make it sound that way-- was just clarifying, not putting words in your mouth....

My hunch from Obama's margin of victory in GA is that it was heavily based on sexism. I still blush thinking how many people from outside the metro area felt free to air the following at this year's JJ: "Well, I know one thing, I ain't votin' for that f*ckin' BITCH."

But I think that's just a cultural thing down here. Sexism is certainly more powerful than racism in Georgia. It may be that way in the general population too ... but I wonder how many folks were voting for BOTH candidates because they couldn't stand a) a woman or b)a black man in the presidency. We can't assume that all of Obama's or Hillary's votes were FOR their respective candidacies. I wouldn't be shocked if upwards of 20% of people were voting AGAINST the other candidate. *sigh*

I just hope that the Obama campaign figures out the solution before it's too late. The way McCain treated his first wife, he's certainly not "pro-woman".

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Jules was just pointing out that women of a certain age and political pedigree do not all have the same reactions to the same events...and not to denigrate plange's mom's experience or feelings.

I agree we're not interchangable but some are setting a seriously difficult standard.

By some of your definition HRC was the hardest fighter, the most experienced, the most tireless advocate and the smartest in the room so the obvious question then is just which woman is her peer?

I mean if she was the "one" then who can measure up?

I'd like to hear some names please. Otherwise this is a fruitless discussion. If EE Isn't good enough just who is?

So this is a sidebar, but I got defriended today by someone I knew in high school that I was pretty close to. She is on facebook listed as "very conservative", and she's home schooling her 3 kids.

Of course, I'm unapologetic about who I am and what I stand for. But apparently, she got a little too much of a dose of truth for her liking. She defriended me, and then emailed me to say it was because my posts were becoming increasingly "problematic". Looking at my post history, I'm not sure what that means other than she couldn't stomach a steady dose of liberal truth. She tried to alter her privacy settings to block my postings, but it didn't work. So I'm defriended.

If it weren't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

So this is a sidebar, but I got defriended today by someone I knew in high school that I was pretty close to. She is on facebook listed as "very conservative", and she's home schooling her 3 kids.

Of course, I'm unapologetic about who I am and what I stand for. But apparently, she got a little too much of a dose of truth for her liking. She defriended me, and then emailed me to say it was because my posts were becoming increasingly "problematic". Looking at my post history, I'm not sure what that means other than she couldn't stomach a steady dose of liberal truth. She tried to alter her privacy settings to block my postings, but it didn't work. So I'm defriended.

If it weren't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

"If EE Isn't good enough just who is?"

I think some would have liked to see Senator Clinton included in this:

"I'm going to be partnering up with Elizabeth Edwards - we're going to be figuring all this out,"

And if Senator Clinton was asked but chose not to participate it would have been nice to know that. To me, it's real slap in the face to all that Senator Clinton has worked for all these years.

He did say it in North Carolina, and Elizabeth Edwards was in the audience - apparently her first appearance at an Obama rally, since she was noticeably absent from the one where John Edwards endorsed him. It may have had nothing to do with Hillary at all.

And see, here I'd presumed that Obama had asked EE to come on board at the time her husband endorsed, to help out with healthcare policy advocacy, but that she had probably wanted to defer as long as HRC was in the race because she was part of a pro-Clinton think tank and more naturally inclined in her direction as to healthcare. I didn't take it as a slap in the face of Clinton, but a request from E. Edwards that her involvement not be announced as long as she was still in the race out of respect for her. Just what I assumed had happened, who knows.

Considering that Obama said on Saturday that he's going to want Hillary Clinton to be the one to spearhead bringing universal healthcare to reality, I certainly did not take away any feeling that she was being substituted for with this engagement of Edwards.

Sara,

That's good news about Clinton, but I can't find any mention of it. Is there a link?

plange, my mother feels the same. She'll end up voting for McCain, and will probably vote Republican from now on. She's called three times since Saturday to tell me how upset she is.

Jules, not sure who would be "good enough", but if I turn on the TV once more and see Carly Fiorina shilling for McCain, I'm going to start getting very nervous.

kumbaya.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-boren,0,1042038.story

Anyway, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for being mad that Elizabeth Edwards was picked for a healthcare team on the Obama campaign.

In fact, I can see where someone would complain if Hillary was put on there, citing that she should be VP or something else.

It's a lose-lose situation.

Sorry, got the Saturday statement and the Tuesday speech confused. It was in Tuesday's speech where he said she'd be at the forefront of bringing universal healthcare to fruition.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/06/obama_no_more_f.html

Obama supporters listen up. It's time to sell our candidate again. The best place to start is right here...
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

The other thing you must understand is that most of the Clinton supporters are long time activists. They have been fighting the good fight for many years and deserve respect for what they have done. Quite a few of the Obama supporters have never been involved in politics and don't know what it is like to have to come together after a primary when your candidate loses. Like my grandpa used to say "Act like you've been there before."

One other thing to keep in mind. In 2006 there were people I worked with that were disparaging Nancy Pelosi when she was voted in as Speaker of the House. Fathers and husbands mostly. I was appalled. I have a 13 yr old daughter and I made damn sure that I voiced my opinion - I told them if they have daughters, nieces or sisters that they should appreciate this historical moment. I feel the same way today regarding Hillary Clinton's campaign. In the last 2 years we - DEMOCRATS - have made huge strides in equality. Let's not blow this.

Does that mean that Hillary must be on the ticket? I don't think so. But it does mean that we must respect the effort of those who worked for another candidate and appreciate their dedication.

But what do I know, I could be completely wrong.

Oh! Hillary's supporters have been active in the party forever, but Obama's supporters are new.

Wow. I think your last sentence is quite true :P

Give it a rest RD. Quite a few of the Obama folks are new.

When I attend Obama volunteer activities I am usually one of, if not the oldest people there.

Considering the number of people getting involved this year, I'd say both campaigns had/have their fair share of newcomers.

Obama's got plenty of more experienced activists as well.

Once again you try to spin things. Like I said, it's great you support your candidate, but you're starting to lose credibility by acting like a biased mouthpiece.

Obama did very well among extremely young voters, who probably weren't able to vote in previous elections. Thus, they do not know what it is like to go through the reconciliation process. I don't see why that's such an outrageous statement.

I'm apparently losing credibility with RD...I must be doing something right.

"this doesn't mean much of anything"

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=assignment_desk_barack_obama

First of all, I think there is no way he could have asked HRC to do this particular task after they've been bashing each other over the head with the differences in their plans for the past year.
Secondly, I have to assume this is just some sort of PR type role. I mean, Obama already HAS a health care plan. What's she going to do, change it? No, she's going to sell it. But I think even more likely (and interesting), is that these types of roles usually go to people who are in line for potential cabinet posts.

I think she'll have some input on it. We may have a slightly more inclusive plan by the time we are done.

I think both Edwards and Obama had some inkling of the idea to try and make the transition to universal care as voluntary as possible, so that it becomes a cherished institution like Social Security and sidesteps the "this was dropped on us from above" talking point.

I remember Edwards having the mandate, but opening up a government competitor to private firms to keep them honest. Obama went more for the subsidization route (although I'm sure we'll get lots of "welfare Queen" crap or coded "Obama's here to turn the country over to the coloreds.")

This whole situation was my fear when it became obvious that we'd have to choose between nominees from 2 key Democratic constituencies. Either we were going to royally piss off women or African Americans and the new youth who jumped on the Obama train in droves. Either way, we disaffect a key constituency. Would having Hillary as VP fix it for November? Maybe...I just wish I knew how that situation would work between the two of them.

We have a real chance to make history and turn this country around in 2008, but I'm scared that the chance is slipping away before our eyes.