Ha! This cracks me up. In an article about how the growing web video and social networks will influence the upcoming Presidential election, Elizabeth Edwards shows that she may be paying too much attention to the MRAs and the “woe is us white people” crowds.
“In some ways, it’s the way we have to go,” Edwards says. “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it’s nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all.”
Damn. Did you just read what I just read? Elizabeth Edwards just played the “what about teh menz” and the “what about teh white folks” card in a single hand. And she did so in reference to a medium that is supposed to help democratize political participation in the U.S.. Does she really expect anyone to believe that her husband is at a political disadvantage because he is a white male?
Yeah, I suspect she (and her husband) does. Nice strategy there. Play up to the anti-affirmative action crowd. It’s obvious that the history of the U.S. Presidency shows blatant discrimination toward white males, so let’s play up how good the women and the Black men have it.
Oh wait. Maybe’s she’s been spending too much time at DailyKos. Those damn Special Interests Groups are always getting in the way of Teh Revolution, according to Kos and the majority of his followers. So yeah, let’s find ways to bypass those bothersome Black folks and women and get down to what really matters: maintaining the status quo and keeping the Presidency in the hands of wealthy white men.
Or not.
Let me make this clear. This is not an endorsement of any potential Presidential candidate. This is me calling bullshit on the wife of a potential Presidential candidate blatantly using existing prejudices against Blacks and women for her husband’s political gain.
Thanks to Francis L. Holland for the heads up.
White devil’s advocate…
Jen at Feministing lambastes Elizabeth Edwards for saying what for the life of me I fail to understand isn’t blatantly obvious: The Web can be liberating. “It’s about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media,” says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and……
Wow. How disappointing. Until now, I’ve favored Edwards over Clinton because he seemed really dedicated and sincere on class issues, whereas I have difficulty trusting that Hillary believes in anything unless it’s politically expedient. Between this and the gay marriage thing, however, I don’t think I can continue supporting Edwards. When someone lets something like this slip, in my experience, it’s often indicative of a much deeper resentment.
I’m in town, by the way, and would love to meet up for a drink or coffee sometime soon. I’ve been here for a couple weeks, but mostly recharging my batteries in solitude after months of exhausting nonsense. Let me know when you’re free.
Cool. Welcome to Ithaca.
I’ll be busy with work the rest of the week, but I’ll shoot you an email sometime next week.
My Jaw almost hit the floor when I read this on CNN. Coupled with that (I think it was) Esquire Magazine piece: Can a white male be elected president, I think its obvious the people Edwards is trying to target
Kevin,
First time commenter here, been reading a few weeks now. Figured I’d say hello.
I read this too over at Francis’ and since I already commented there, I will try and change it up a bit to not be too repetitive.
This is the thing. Edwards is openly against gay rights. In my thinking, where there is one -ism, there is always more than one. Who knows what (who) else he is secretly against.
My wife and I were just talking about this subject over dinner tonight, and we ended up asking ourselves “Why is he running as a Democrat, and not as a Republican?”
I don’t know what is going on in Edwards or his wife’s head(s), all I know is they won’t be receiving my vote!
What’s sad is that she probably has no idea how foot-in-mouth it was of her to say that. Ugh.
Aside from the recent Hillary cleavage scandal, I don’t think much of the attention on Clinton and Obama have had ANYTHING to do with her sex and his race. (And I highly doubt the cleavage controversy won her any fundraising dollars.) Resentment, much?
I recently learned that Edwards was big in the progressive blogosphere because the progressive blogosphere is largely rich and white. This is not related to this article but I’m kinda mad that all along I thought progressives including white feminists supported Edwards when it’s mainly the classist, racist (and sexist, one of the main reasons Hillary’s huge lead is not reflected on blogs) blogosphere.
Is this really a surprise?
I have felt this way all along although that might
have been one of her ( their ) most obvious bloopers.
He was always way off my radar, the pink jacket thing sealed the deal, and this was really just the whipped fucking cream with nuts on top.
ugh. that comment by Elizabeth is gross. I have this image in my head of how a lot of my family would totally love what she said and it makes me ill.
I voted for Obama when I was in Illinois and I bet you can guess what I’m gonna do when I see him once again on my ballot
[...] been writing his usual informative and incisive stuff. Lately, we’ve gotten: “Elizabeth Edwards: It’s Hard Being a White Dude,” and “Hip Hop Photographer Attacked and Beaten by Toronto Cops.” Go spend some [...]
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read this on MSNBC’s website. Between this, Edward’s anti-gay stance, and Obama and Clinton doing their Let’s Strike an Ally! No, Let’s NUKE an Ally! thing, I’m becoming more and more disenchanted with the front-runners.
Maybe I’ll just scoop them both and vote for a Black woman for president. Maybe Charlene Mitchell? Anyone who’s been purged by Gus Hall can’t be all bad.
[...] Moving over to Slant Truth, the Thin Black Duke looks at an article about Elizabeth Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards: It’s Hard Being a White Dude [...]
Thanks for posting this! To see who a candidate really is, take a look at who his closest political friends are. Edwards is favored by DailyKos readers and DailyKos, in turn, is 96% white and arguably is ideologically, politically and demographically effectively a white supremacist group.
I can’t imagine supporting a candidate who has such strong and unique support from a group that is 96% white and likes it that way! If the Klan supports a candidate, I don’t support that candidate.
Thin Black Dude, I published your article as a guest post at the Democratic Afrosphere blog
She was completely right in her statement. A White Male Democratic candidate is NOT going to get the buzz and undeserved support that Obama or Clinton will. He actually has to differentiate himself based on his personality and his platform; that’s a lot harder.
Like it or not, a minority candidate gets more “automatic” media attention and a set of supporters who are foolish enough to base their voting on what should be a non-issue. But then there’re bigots on all sides of all issues.
Oh give me a break. White guys have been getting the “buzz” and “undeserved support” since the US presidency was established. The issue for the white guys is that they are unwilling to give up that unearned buzz. Yes, you are absolutely right, race and gender is such a non-issue that all of the previous presidents were…oh wait, they were white guys…
women and minority candidates may get support from women and minority voters that’s deserved because these voters felt marginalized and underrepresented by previous presidents.
media attention based on identity, however, is negative. whenever gender and race come up it’s to question their feminism or racial authenticity.