May 14, 2008
Where Was Elizabeth?
John Edwards' better half was absent from his big Barack Obama endorsement event this evening in Grand Rapids. While JRE's backing lends Obama credibility with the white, working class, Elizabeth Edwards' support would've signaled to women, to the faithful boomers holding tight to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that it's okay to let go of their hope that she will be the first woman president.
Obama needs women to emerge from the bruising primaries as enthusiastic about him as they are about Clinton; in several state contests, after all, female voters have comprised about six of 10 Dems voting (59% in OH, 58% in PA, 57% in NH).
The bottom line, in case anyone doubted, is that Elizabeth Edwards matters. She matters to voters who view her as a strong advocate for reforming America's health care system, and she matters to the working moms who see themselves in her.
Elizabeth Edwards' absence from the rally this eve should also dampen buzz about a joint Obama/JRE ticket. The visual would've been all the more effective had Elizabeth and Michelle Obama stood with their husbands as the two men embraced.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
Posted at 08:37 PM
Comments
While I agree that Elizabeth's absence was telling, the fact that Michelle was not there for other reasons would have made the scene awkward as if the Edwards were both endorsing Obama together.
Elizabeth is her own person. Even if she will come around, she will do it in her own terms and her own pace.
Benjamin | 05.14.08 09:54 PM
 |
ONE LOSER ENDORSING ANOTHER LOSER. Edwards is trumped by PEOPLE POWER.
The West Virginia resounding defeat of Obama was an expression of PEOPLE POWER that proclaimed Sen. Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee. The PEOPLE POWER of Sen Clinton's victory trounced the pro-Obama biased media. Superdelegates who are endorsing Obama daily in an end run around the Democratic nomination process to swipe the nomination for Obama should ponder seriously the PEOPLE POWER that buttresses Sen. Clinton. Edwards. Obama and his superdelegates are taking the Democratic Party down the path of a train wreck in November.
crat3 | 05.14.08 10:15 PM
|
This is just an insane, bizarre post. Another in a long long line of WAY OFF THE MARK analyses that we have now come to expect from Ms. Skalka.
Only you, Jennifer, could take THIS sorry half-assed, pitiful commentary from one of the most awesome -- in the literal sense -- and inspiring campaign appearances of the Presidential campaign thus far.
NOT that Barack pledged to join JE in a campaign to cut American poverty in half. NO.
NOT that Barack and JE each made multiple overtures of unity to HC followers. NO.
NOT that Barack was clearly more fired up than any time since the contrived BS Wright media campaign. NO.
It's "where's Elizabeth" followed by over-reaching criticism.
SHAME ON YOU. AGAIN. And shame on your pathetic non-journalism. AGAIN. Pathetic.
Ethan | 05.15.08 01:00 AM
|
Actually, I don't think it would have made any sense for the wives to be there today, unless Obama was in fact announcing that Edwards is his choice for vice president. The image of the four of them together would have looked so much like a post-nomination tableau that the VP story would have pulled focus from the intended message of the day, namely, Edwards endorses Obama.
TKD | 05.15.08 01:33 AM
|
Maybe Elizabeth was sick or maybe she does not like Barack or maybe she did not want to steal her husband's thunder. None of us know except the Edwards' and Obama families. What does matter, I think, that Mr. Blue-Collar himself can help Barack close the gap which has been made more pronounced and exaggerated by the media hype and the Clintons.
Angellight | 05.15.08 07:44 AM
|
While JRE's backing lends Obama credibility with the white, working class, Elizabeth Edwards' support would've signaled to women, to the faithful boomers holding tight to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that it's okay to let go of their hope that she will be the first woman president.
Ok, let's parse this humdinger:
1. "While JRE's backing lends Obama credibility with the white, working class"
You can't give anyone credibility. They have to earn it. Obama hasn't earned credibility with the white working class, so the most expedient thing for him to do is to be associated with someone who does, John Edwards.
John Edwards has been on TV for two weeks saying there was no reason for him to endorse either candidate. What changed? The 41-point spanking Obama got in WV.
Edwards' endorsement has nothing to do with who would make a better candidate. It's about ending the growing perception that Obama can't win against John McCain because he can't get rural, blue collar, less wealthy and less educated voters.
2. "Elizabeth Edwards' support would've signaled to women, to the faithful boomers holding tight to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that it's okay to let go of their hope that she will be the first woman president."
Ignoring for a moment the condescension that's just dripping from this, Elizabeth Edwards wasn't there because she won't endorse Obama.
Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
And you think Elizabeth's endorsements will encourage women boomers to let go of their hope. Not even close.
corinne | 05.15.08 08:18 AM
|
Once again, the candidate-centric observers have missed the forest for the trees:
The Edwards endorsement was not for the public, it was for the supers and the opinion leaders. The substance of the endorsement ("draw in blue collar whites") doesn't matter at this stage of the process; the only place where that might have any impact is Kentucky.
What is important is that Edwards' endorsement was a symbol, a closing door. As much or more than MTP comments, this signals party regulars that stand-off-ishness has to end.
And, Ethan, take your meds. You can't shame someone who has more information (and perhaps objectivity) than you.
Pining for Chuck Todd | 05.15.08 09:02 AM
|
You have got to be kidding me. Elizabeth Edwards absence as a "damper" on the endorsement? I am issuing an invitation to you right now Jen to venture outside the Beltway and get a clue. Elizabeth Edwards is a fine person, but she carries absolutely no weight within the party or America at large. The only folks focused on her absence are folks like you who can't see the forest for the trees.
CommonSensicus | 05.15.08 12:18 PM
|
Well, good for Mrs. E. At least one of the E's has principles. My dream ticket would be Senator C + Mrs. E.!!!
Royal King | 05.15.08 01:08 PM
|
CommonSensicus it was a huge neon sign for me that Elizabeth was not there...
tammyv | 05.15.08 03:05 PM
|
>>>And, Ethan, take your meds. You can't shame someone who has more information (and perhaps objectivity) than you.
What information, exit polls that have nothing to do with Elizabeth Edwards?
Objectivity? I presented 3 news stories that could have been a major story in any non-partisan press.
That is my problem with Jen Skalka. It is not that she is not biased towards one party or the other, she offers negative critique and nothing else, and she will contort ANY story to align with her asinine world view.
As a journalist, you tell the story. And clearly, any objective reporter would be able to see that the three stories I mentioned trump "where's Elizabeth" in importance.
Either she is pathetic and negative for no reason whatsoever, or she wasn't watching and didn't really give a damn. Or, she was told what to write.
Again, none of those options re: Ms. Skalka is journalism, it is just BS spin. And it is totally pathetic.
Ethan | 05.15.08 06:37 PM
|
Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...
feeba | 05.19.08 01:45 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
