:: 2008 and the Politics of Divorce

The language of hating Hillary belongs in a
divorce court, not a political contest.

First, a confession. I've been spending way to much time following the comments over at the New York Times "blog" devoted to the Iowa caucuses; for the most part, that's the material that informs my impressions.

Okay then.

I've noticed a distinct variety of Hillary-hating that seems to come mainly from people who purport to be Barack supporters. I say "purport" because I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these nutters turned out be provocateurs deliberately trying to play up resentment against Hillary and Barack. Really, who knows.

The theme is typified by commenter "Denise":

[Hillary] lacks the qualifications for the job, and the only way she will get elected is to align herself with Bill. That’s just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.

Every time Bill moves up (think Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (think Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up again (think President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (think US Senate). See the pattern, women?

Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:

• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary’s election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary’s need to ride Bill’s coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in “it’s my turn and Obama should wait his turn”) makes me doubt her capabilities.

• Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in “Mrs.” Clinton and walk all over her?

• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.

Here's another, from "MT":

I don’t think most of us are claiming that Hillary is not intelligent. My issue with her is that she has uses her intelligence repeatedly for personal gain while someone clearly loses. I am a professional female with two advanced degrees - I would like to see a female in the White House. But HRC is the complete opposite of the kind of female who furthers women’s causes (yes - I am sure by her words she will claim to have done more than her share but as with anything, actions speak louder than words).

1. She is where she is today purely b/c, whether one likes him or not (I do not), her husband is a master politician and has given her instant name recognition and “history” in this country. This is not to say that she would have accomplished nothing on her own but she would clearly not be where she is today without him. Riding on the coattails of a man only reinforces the stereotype that a woman cannot achieve success on her own.

2. She more than anyone else skewered the women that Bill Clinton pursued. Paula Jones was far from perfect but she was denigrated in the media while she sought her claim against him. Hillary was also in full attack against Jennifer Flowers. All these women had very little power and Hillary used her status and influence to degrade and intimidate them. Hillary could have chosen to stay out of all that but she was front and center in taking these women down. That is not someone who walks in solidarity with other women.

I am sure that in her mind Hillary is a feminist. But if we are to judge her on her actions, she has shown to be otherwise. Intelligence is not the only requirement for the presidency. She has shown herself to be a calculating, self serving politician. There is a reason she has such high negatives - there is no smoke without some fire.

It is time to move on. So that is why I am supporting Barack Obama - he has not only proven his intelligence(president of the Harvard Law Review takes some brilliance) but a look at the diverse political make-up of his supporters (I am a Republican) tells you that he has already done what he said he would do - he will unite this country.

I could share lots more similar comments, but then someone would have to kill me. Instead, here's a short take on the commonalities - with a pronoun shift, as addressed to a fictional judge:

• Your honor, she hasn't worked for what she's got! I did all the hard work, and she just wants to cash in on the rewards. Please don't make me pay!
  

• Your honor, she feels entitled to her lifestyle just because of who I am and what I've accomplished, with no help from her. Its not fair!
  

• Your honor, she's a scheming, plotting, cold-hearted, calculating bitch. She doesn't deserve a cent!
  

• Your honor, she'd be nothing without me!
  

This isn't the language of politics, its the language of an ugly divorce. Apparently a significant number of people out there are reviewing their personal psychodramas through the prism of national politics.

A simple check of Hillary's Wikipedia entry provides enough material to verify that she is an intelligent, capable and accomplished individual - even if you discount all of her Arkansas and White House years. Yes - her pre-marriage years plus her post-White House years add up to more experience in public policy and public service than the entire careers of Barack and John.

Nevertheless, the hysterical, angry language keeps coming. It is simply not possible, these voices claim, to be a married woman and still be your own person. A married woman is a satellite of her husband. Anything different is profoundly, disturbingly wrong.

And things are only going to get weirder. Read more!

:: The Morning Read

What you need to know about the new Des Moines Register / Selzer poll on the Iowa Caucus, plus the Guardian takes feminism seriously - again.

Mark Blumenthal, aka "the Mystery Pollster," has done some phenomenal work analyzing and explaining the ins and outs Iowa Caucus polling. His latest post describes - in soothingly calm terms - the new results from what is considered by other pollsters to be the most reliable barometer of potential Caucus-goer opinion. Read it here.

There's a nice article in today's Guardian about Ann Lewis' role in the Clinton campaign. Nothing you don't already know, but a great example of what campaign coverage looks like when its free of the cynical, snider-than-thou attitude to which we've become accustomed. Its always refreshing to read about feminism in the Guardian - they take it seriously, something you almost never see in the US mainstream press (unless its some conservative take on why feminism is wrong, ala the New York Times' David Brooks and John Tierney).

Beyond giving me the warm fuzzies, a few points from the article - called "A Clinton Operative Plays Operator" - jumped out at me.

There's this quote, from Judith Lichtman, "I don't have to convince Hillary Clinton about the issues of importance to women and family."

My sentiments exactly. I don't trust John Edwards the same way, especially since part of his general election strategy would be to play on his potential Southern appeal. I certainly don't trust Barack Obama the same way, since his track record to date has been, shall we say, somewhat Liebermanesque (by which I mean that he appears to fancy himself quite the moralist, and, I suspect, who would enjoy playing the role of the man who "goes beyond party lines" to find "compromise"). The shorter version: Bill Clinton vetoed PBA twice without blinking, despite the poll numbers and the tenor of the press coverage of the issue. Were history to repeat, I am certain Hillary would do the same thing. I am not quite as sure about John, and I'm downright suspicious about Barack.

The author of the article writes "But much of the campaign's grab for women's support has been around amorphous nods to women and family issues... [that seem] based in a general idea of woman-ness that feels almost 19th-century in its simplicity."

True. Welcome to America, where the 19th century is still in re-runs. A good number of us are in thrall to capital punishment and torture, have a Dickensian attitude towards health care and social services, and believe Adam and Eve rode to church on a dinosaur*.

Oh, don't even get me started.

She also writes "When Lewis mentioned that the campaign has nurses reaching out to nurses, I ask which part of the (women's) nursing community is pro-choice versus pro-life. From her response, or lack thereof, one might think nurses are unconcerned by abortion politics (unlikely) or that women have a universal set of needs. Above all, the idea conveyed is that divisive politics don't play a part in candidate endorsements."

Um, no, I believe the idea being conveyed was that the question, though seemingly straightforward, didn't make sense in a strategic context. You target nurses with a "women" message because as a subgroup they are predominantly female. Because they are female and Democratic, they are also most likely predominantly pro-choice. But since all the Democratic candidates are pro-choice, at least on paper, it doesn't make much difference - if they are anti-choice and its a voting issue for them, they'll have to vote Republican (or not at all).

* I think the "Adam and Eve riding a dinosaur to church" line comes from the fabulous Tina Fey, though I can't find an exact reference. She is brilliant, isn't she? Read more!

:: The Edwards Gamble

Oh, the desperation. According to the AP, “The Edwards campaign on Thursday called on Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama to co-sign a letter to party leaders decrying the connection between political donations and Washington's lobbying industry.” The idea is to preclude the Democratic party’s fundraising committees from accepting contributions from registered lobbyists.

Apparently Edwards’ letter includes the inspiring line “The system is clearly rigged against the people who make our country great.”

This kind of talk really gets me steamed. First, you [Edwards, Bradley, Nader] try to convince people that the system is broken, owned by "special interests," and/or won't listen to ordinary folk, so you can set yourself up as the agent of change, the messiah of reform. Then, when voters don't want to get involved in politics, be sure to complain about their apathy. Above all, don't connect the dots between your campaign telling them that they can't make a difference (except, of course, by voting for you) and their belief that their votes won't make a difference.

David Brooks in the NY Times (yes, I said it) alludes to this tension in his column today, which contains much praise (both regular and backhanded) for Edwards. [Personally, I think Brooks has had some kind of breakdown; a recent column indicated he's been spending a lot of time drift-surfing baby name websites. Don't remember it? Its the one that began "Names matter. People named Dennis and Denise are disproportionately likely to become dentists. People named Lawrence or Laurie are disproportionately likely to become lawyers..." If that's not a cry for help, I don't know what is.] Brooks points out that the message that Washington, lousy with insiders, doesn't work for ordinary people is somewhat at odds with the message that ordinary people should support a candidate who favors a variety of Washington programs.

Of course, the formula only works if you add Edwards / Bradley / Nader, super-agent of change, to the equation. The downside is that if people are convinced Washington is a hopeless basket case, they won't believe Edwards (or any other candidate) can make a difference, and they will tune out all together. This is fine when it comes to Nader voters, they can keep to their burrows for all I care. But Edwards has the ear of people who should be told about the good things government does, and can do, for people - people who will hopefully stay engaged with the system for a long time.

I presume Edwards saw the lobbyist gambit as a win-win; if Obama went along with it, they'd gang up on Hillary and Edwards would reinforce him status as Obama's equal. Instead Obama turned him down. I imagine Edwards can now paint himself as the only ethical candidate in the race, but I think getting brushed off that way doesn't help his stature.

[Of course, the party would never along with Edwards' proposal – for one thing, it is ridiculous, and for another thing, validating the belief that lobbyist contributions are unethical means tacitly supporting one candidate over another. I wonder if Edwards will say that if he is the nominee, he won’t accept funding from the party because it accepts money from lobbyists?]

There is another downside to this maneuver. No one in their right mind thinks influential lobbyists are our number one problem. The more Edwards focuses on small-potato issues, the more he will seem like a small-potato candidate. We are in the midst of so many crises right now that I think the only thing left to happen is a resurgence of polio. We should be so lucky to have lobbyists at the top of our list of concerns. Read more!

:: Lady Macbeth Rides Again

Presidential campaigns remind me of the wagon trains of yore.* As they move toward their destination they pick up wagons whose drivers believe in the wagon master’s** promised land and think he's just the guy to get them there. Other wagons may drop out of the train due to mishaps, a lack of faith, or better opportunities elsewhere. And, when things get really rough, somebody inevitably gets eaten (and it sure as hell isn’t the wagon master).

I bet every wagon train had people who created controversy along the way, some for good reason and some purely out of self-interest. I imagine some controversies were almost guaranteed to come up (I won’t enumerate them but I’m sure at least one of them had to do with cougars.)***

And this brings me to my point: every presidential contest brings forth a crop of perennial micro-controversies. This week, its the return of the Big Bad Wife. ****

I say “micro-controversy” because I’m not talking about the larger issue of family image control, which can become big news ala the Great Cookie Baking / Stand By Your Man imbroglio of 1992, or those reliable thorns-in-the-ass Billy Carter (RIP), Roger Clinton and the Bush twins. Instead, what I have in mind is the fight for status and control between the candidate’s "top advisors” and the candidate’s wife,***** which feeds into the all-important question of Just Who Exactly Does She Think She is?

Not only does it come up every cycle – I’ll spare you the historical retrospective – but it occurs on a bipartisan basis. For example, in the space of one week WaPo has run multiple items concerning Mrs. John Edwards, Mrs. Fred Thompson and what you might call “Lady Macbeth Syndrome.”

First, Mrs. Edwards. On 30 July, WaPo ran A True Political Partner: John Edwards’s Wife Has Helped Shape His Presidential Bid and Often Shares the Spotlight.******

I’ll break it down for you. First, here's the setup:

Among political insiders who closely follow the presidential race and gossip about who is up and who is down in every campaign, Elizabeth Edwards is the hidden hand behind virtually every important decision regarding her husband's second bid for the White House.

And the volley:

Still, with savvy consultants, would the current campaign have avoided some of the issues that have arisen this year? Those are now short-handed as the three Hs -- haircuts (at $400 a pop), hedge fund (the candidate's tenure as a hedge fund executive) and house (the 28,000-square-foot home the couple recently had built for their return to North Carolina).

And now, Mrs. Edwards’****** perspective. The Post gives us an Elizabeth who alternately denies her influence and takes ownership of it, to wit:

Edwards recently recalled a moment in the 2004 general election campaign when she lost faith in consultants…. "It seemed so completely bogus," she said. "It was like somebody had pulled the curtain back in 'The Wizard of Oz.'

[and]

"We tried to do it the way we were told by people who had lots of experience. We're now liberated from that, and it's great."

[versus]

"I get a lot more credit for, you know, being the puppeteer than I am," she said. "I express my opinion. Honestly, I'm not the decision maker."

[and]

Asked who is now running the campaign, she laughed again. "All these stories about my pulling the strings -- honestly, I don't know."

On one level, this is about certain consultants’ resentment of Mrs. Edwards – after all, she is doing for free what they could be doing for money. And nobody likes having two bosses.

But on a different level, it reflects the same old anxiety over the ambitious, controlling wife who usurps the leader’s rightful place and precipitates disaster. Such a woman is seen as unnatural, not only perverting her role as “helpmeet” but also emasculating her husband, and thereby weakening his realm.

Mothers can play this role too – re: The Manchurian Candidate – but Lady Macbeth is the obvious precursor. That is, unless you want to count Eve getting too opinionated about whether Adam was eating enough fruit.

WaPo has spun the same storyline with Jeri Thompson. Robert Novak’s column today is dedicated to saving the lady’s reputation from those who would cast her as temptress / villain. Novak recounts a typically molar-crushing moment from the Sunday morning talk shows:

"Well, first," said Juan Williams of National Public Radio, ". . . I think you should get Jeri Thompson in here, the trophy wife, right?" William Kristol of the Weekly Standard interjected: "That's unfair." Williams: "Unfair, unfair, I know, but --" Kristol: "It is unfair."

That ended the discussion. I asked Williams, a respected journalist, whether he regretted the comment. He did not, but he explained that he got the idea from a July 8 New York Times article by Susan Saulny. "Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?" she asked in the paper's Style section. "Subsequent to that," Williams told me, "I heard the same thing in conversation with people in other campaigns -- about her being so young, so attractive and so powerful."

This is indeed unfair, Novak points out*******, because, far from being a prize, Mrs. T in fact has copious experience as a Republican operative with the RNC and elsewhere. He writes:

“She has been intimately involved in the planning of her husband's campaign, including last week's staff shakeup. When Tom Collamore left as Thompson's campaign manager, he told CNN that he was "very respectful of the desire of Fred and Jeri to make some changes as they move to the next level." Those comments generated whispers in the political community that whoever ran this campaign would have to answer to the candidate's wife.”

As with the Edwards campaign, this is a gone-public aspect of behind-the-scenes skirmishing over limited resources. But it also reflects the disconnect people feel when they try to match the notion of “wife” with "chief strategist.” Apparently for many of us a “wife” should have a “derivative” existence (that’s Mrs. E's term for it), assisting when needed rather than calling the shots. “Wife” is incompatible with the idea of the “campaign manager” who, by occupational necessity, must be extremely strong-willed.********

Consider this joke made by Fred Thompson to a fundraiser audience (as reported by Novak):

“[He] began by introducing 'my campaign manager -- oh, I mean my wife.'"

I propose that to the extent the comment is funny, it is because it taps into the dissonance between the two occupations.********* A big tough guy like Thompson, letting himself be bossed around by his pretty little wife – the very idea! The crowd titters, vaguely reassured that, at least for the moment, Fred has his priorities straight and his house in order.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnotes]

* Yes, I said “yore.” Bite me.

** That’s what they were called. I looked it up in the wikipedia. Quote: “Ward Bond died of a heart attack on 5 November 1960, in the middle of the fourth season and was replaced by John McIntire as wagon master.”

*** Yes, that’s how it is spelled (not “cougers”). I used spell-check.

**** I say “wife” because I don’t mean “husband.”

***** Ditto.

****** Since when did we start writing “Edwards’s”? I thought for a noun ending in “s” you put the apostrophe on the outside to show possession. Did the rules change or something? Or am I imagining this?

******* A fine example of the "stopped clock" rule.

******** Don't even think about bringing up Mary Matalin. She is the exception to every rule you can think of, and quite a few that you can't.

********* Don't agree? Then consider some variations: "I'd like to introduce my campaign manager... Oh, I mean, my friend." No dissonance = no funny. "I'd like to introduce my campaign manager... Oh, I mean, my father." That might get a small laugh, but it could be more alarming than funny if the father's reputation is superior to the son's (imagine George W. saying that in 2000). "I'd like to introduce my campaign manager... Oh, I mean, the Captain of the SS Cornflake." Really, only Kucinich could pull that one off.

Read more!

:: This is Your Brain on Manic

I spent several hours the other night compiling Bill Donohue's greatest hits, which I won't reproduce here because apparently some people (named Buffy) have short attention spans and prefer their information in bite-sized chunks. It was a day late and dollar short, as they say, but the mind-numbing repetitiveness of the task helped me work out my frustration (or killed part of my brain, not sure which). You can find it here.

It garnered a kind word from nutbird-watcher extraordinaire Fred Clarkson, which is a very nice thing. This is before your (plural) time but Fred used to work in the fruit bowl too. Read more!

:: I'm Angry. What a Surprise.

Great. Just when I thought it was safe to feel good about John Edwards, I hear Amanda Marcotte has resigned. This is her announcement, reproduced for the good of the whole:

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics –has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

There is good news. The main good news is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on. The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse.

Bill Donohue doesn’t speak for Catholics, he speaks for the right wing noise machine. You guys pointed this out, you made a stink, you refused to walk into the same stupid trap that is laid out for liberals and Democrats by the right wing noise machine and I think you made a difference. While loyalty played into the pushback some, the real story is that we liberals are not taking this crap any longer and we’re pushing back. And now that I’m attached to only myself again, I’m ready and eager to join in the pushing back with you.

Obviously, I’m scatterbrained right now. But I’ll be raring to go soon. In the meantime, I want to share this letter Evan got from Frances Kissling, the president of an organization I adore called Catholics for a Free Choice. She wrote a letter defending free discourse and her religion from being hijacked by the likes of Bill Donohue and other people who dress their reactionary politics up in faith’s clothing. She sent it to the NY Times, and for some reason they didn’t run it.

First, I want to say that I do not buy the line many are peddling that Marcotte resigned from the Edwards campaign simply because she didn't want to be a distraction.

Why? If there’s one thing those of us from the kingdom of peaches, pears, figs and apricots know its how to read a letter of resignation. Ms. Marcotte's statement does not thank Edwards or the campaign for standing by her, nor does she thank Edwards for the opportunity to work for the campaign if only for a short time. Also conspicuously absent are words of praise for Edwards as a candidate. If she were truly falling on her sword for the good of the campaign I'd expect to see something like this:

“I want to thank John Edwards for giving me a chance to be part of the campaign, however briefly. Now more than ever I believe he is the right man to lead this country as we face the life-and-death issues of peace in the Middle East, health care reform, and economic fairness.”

I think Ms. Marcotte is a brave person who has come through this hellish scenario with her dignity and integrity intact. John Edwards, however, has managed to squander a lot of good will and set progressives against each other over a situation that never had to happen. I am sure Bill Donohue could not be more pleased.

We all know that the GOP smear machine is always in high gear. What we forget is that every attack, to be effective, has to have a tiny, porous grain of truth. The hyperbole, the hatred and the lies - the slime - are anchored to that grain, which is just factual enough to turn on a few reporters and turn off a few supporters. The smear about Edwards' sale of his old house and purchase of a new, expensive spread? Just enough truth there to justify an attack on him as a fat cat trial lawyer. The bogus story on Nancy Pelosi's request for a larger plane? Just enough truth to support the smear that she is too much of a snob to fly commerical. And the attack on Amanda Marcotte for making statements that are offensive to Catholics? Just enough truth to support bogus claims that she is a foul-mouthed bigot and extremist.

The attacks on Ms. Marcotte were meant to put Edwards on the defensive. Sadly, the Edwards camp dithered for hours before they put out a statement. This meant the progressive blogging community had to do the heavy lifting against Bill Donohue by distributing the information about him from Media Matters and other groups and contacting the AP, NY Times and other MSM outlets. Loyal supporters were left guessing about what the candidate would do, unsure of what message would be supportive.

When the Edwards camp did finally release a statement, it was somewhat tepid. He was offended by the now notorious comments but believed in giving second chances. He reaffirmed his unqualified support for religion and his dislike of the right wing.

What the campaign did not do was seize the opportunity as soon as it emerged to make a strong statement against the use of faith as a weapon of divisiveness and hate. They should have buried the media, the blogosphere and the progressive community with a research brief on Donohue and his organization along with a clear statement of Edwards' values. Then Edwards could have reminded everyone that it was based on those values that he was focusing on health care, income inequality and so on.

This was a golden opportunity to show that Edwards is tough enough to stand up to the typical Republican attack-dog bullies. He could have seized the moment and used it to his advantage. It would have been great to see a headline like "Edwards, Under Attack, Comes Back Swinging."

Unfortunately, he didn't. He delayed, he fumbled, and now, by accepting the resignation of Ms. Marcotte so quickly, he has created the appearance that he changed his mind yet again and caved in to conservative pressure.

From this action I draw the following conclusions:

1. Edwards is not typically described as the "calculating" candidate. We all know who gets that label. But if Edwards decided to throw a staffperson overboard because of a trumped-up scandal rather than risk a few votes in the primaries or general, that was as calculating a move as one could imagine.
2. Donohue, Malkin et al will point to this as a personal victory as well as a de facto admission that they were right all along. Their clout among their supporters will increase, as will their credibility with the MSM for being able to mobilize conservative opinion.
3. Economic conservatives who have lately eyed their religious conservative coalition partners with distrust (if not disgust) now know that there is merit to playing nicely together after all. Donohue managed to wound Edwards without anyone having to dirty their hands by opposing health care reform or justifying income inequality. The religious conservatives have shown that they are still useful when it comes to doing the dirty work.
4. Donohue's extremism will be old news in the eyes of the media. His profile will rise along with his perceived power - after all, in Washington, power is legitimacy.
   

Edwards will be compared unfavorably to Barack Obama, whose response to Australian PM Howard's stupid remark about his candidacy (that al-Qaeda would “be praying as many times as possible for a victory for not only Obama but also for Democrats”) was rapid and right:

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Obama looked decisive and strong in standing up to a head of state; Edwards looks tepid and weak in caving to a bigot and bully. Further, Obama indirectly addressed the “experience” issue: those of us who wondered how he’d handle a scurrilous attack can now look to this response for clues. The clues Edwards leaves, unfortunately, lead nowhere good.

Remember when Bill Clinton was criticized for choosing nominees to federal posts and then backing off in his support for them? Whether the change of attitude was attributed to a staffperson improperly vetting the nominee or a calculated move to avoid criticism, Clinton took the hit for not being solid and dependable. Now Edwards gets to wear the special hat – which, by the way, is tall and pointy, sort of shaped like an upside-down ice cream cone.

In the eyes of many voters, the perception of being weak and indecisive is a far greater sin than hiring a mid-level staffperson who offended some Catholics.

All this is terribly disappointing. Edwards has many good ideas as well as good intentions. But without the courage to stand up to bullies and the judgment to formulate quick and effective responses, he is the wrong person to bring those good ideas to fruition.

Further, this was a living, breathing example of the double standard in action. Why is it that only women are asked to take one for the team and put their own careers/ interests aside for the greater good? Where are the repercussions for McCain for hiring his sleazy media firm, or the push back on Bush for his sliming of McCain in the 2000 primaries? No – only women and Democrats are supposed to back down.

All the more reason why I support Hillary. She would never throw a women’s issue overboard for the sake of convenience, and she knows how to handle bozos like Donohue. Enough of the John Edwards amateur hour. Read more!