Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Elizabeth Edwards Interview: "The Candidate Who's Best for Women in This Race is My Husband"

By Ruth Conniff, The Progressive. Posted July 21, 2007.


The wife of the former North Carolina senator explains the role she had in John Edwards' vote for the war in Iraq, why Edwards is the best candidate for women.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ruth Conniff

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Eizabeth Edwards is one of those rare creatures in politics -- a real human being. As she campaigns for her husband, John Edwards, she is winning audiences with her warm, straight-shooting style. She keeps a frenetic schedule, even after the bad news about her breast cancer returning. In May, she spoke to reporters in Madison, Wisconsin, before delivering a speech to a bipartisan group of women in politics. Looking sharp and relaxed in a black pantsuit, she paused to comment wryly to a photographer crouched in front of her, "That is the worst possible angle for a woman, you know. You may take those pictures, but you may not run them."

She dispatched questions about her decision to continue campaigning. "I don't think people who have actually been through these situations are surprised that we would want to live our lives to the fullest, and not give up the things that are important to us," she said. She tied her own diagnosis to the issue of health care generally, which remains people's number-one concern on the campaign trail, she said. "It would be hard to be selfish, eating bon bons with my feet on an ottoman, clicking the remote," rather than trying to do something about the "pain that is out there."

The campaign, she said, "is about the thousands of women who face the same diagnosis I face, but don't have the same access to care. Giving up on campaigning, on trying to make a difference, would be like giving up on them."

Aside from questions about her health, the topic she was pressed to address most was Hillary Clinton. Edwards talks a lot about breaking barriers as part of a generation of female attorneys who had to prove that women could do as well as the guys in previously all-male law firms. So now the delicate job of explaining why women should vote against her fellow barrier-breaking female attorney falls to her. As an advocate for women's issues and women's equal rights, how can she justify seeking votes for her husband, instead of the first likely female nominee for President? "In my opinion, the candidate who's best for women in this race is my husband," she said, citing his universal health care plan, his pledge to end poverty (a predominantly female problem, she reminded reporters), and his determination to fight for equal pay.

In her speech to the group Wisconsin Women in Government, Edwards made an interesting comment that could be interpreted as a sidelong swipe at Hillary. Speaking of Woodrow Wilson's First Lady, Edith Wilson, who is sometimes called the United States' first woman President because she filled in for her husband after he had a stroke, she noted, "She was against women voting." It turned out, Edwards said, "what she wanted was not for women to have power, but for Edith Wilson to have power."

In her book, Saving Graces, Edwards writes frankly about her grief after the death of her teenaged son, Wade; her decision, later in life, to have more children; her battle with breast cancer; and the communities of friends, well-wishers, and even an online support group of fellow sufferers who have sustained her. The book is heartbreaking in parts, and also unexpectedly funny -- as when she talks about telling her young children, Jack and Emma Claire, about her cancer diagnosis:

"'Mommy has a bump,' I said. 'And that bump is called cancer. Cancer is very bad, but I will get rid of the bump, and the cancer by taking really strong medicine.'

"They looked bored. Somber, but bored. Or maybe just bored.

"'And that medicine is so strong that it will make my hair fall out.'

"I think it cheered them up. 'Your hair's gonna fall out? All of it? When? Can I see?'"

As the daughter of a Navy reconnaissance pilot, Elizabeth Edwards spent her early childhood in Japan. She writes about being raised by a zany, outgoing father and a mother who, like other military wives, kept the family together not knowing how long a particular mission might last, or even if her husband would return. Elizabeth met John Edwards at UNC law school in Chapel Hill. They were married the Saturday after they took the bar exam, and she went on to work for the North Carolina attorney general's office, and as a bankruptcy lawyer in Raleigh. After her son's death in a car accident, she and her husband established the Wade Edwards Foundation, built a free computer lab for high school students in Raleigh, and set up a scholarship program in his name.

I flew to Washington, D.C., in mid-June to interview Edwards, who was there for a campaign event. We spoke for an hour over breakfast at the Westin hotel restaurant on Embassy Row. As we were talking, her daughter Cate stopped by to say goodbye. She is working at NPR for the summer and was on her way to the Supreme Court with Nina Totenberg, "to hear today's assaults on the rights of working people in this country," Elizabeth said dryly, after exchanging "I love you's" with her daughter.

Ruth Conniff: How is your health, and how is campaigning going?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: john edwards, elizabeth edwards, election 2008

Ruth Conniff is the political editor of The Progressive.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Elizabeth Ewards in 2008
Posted by: Tefech on Jul 21, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elizabeth Edwards should be running for president. This woman is the brightest, sharpest, most candid, sensible, centered, compassionate, visionary, accessible, caring, energetic, trustworthy, humble banana in the bunch. She has character. John should be campaigning for her! But if John gets elected.... what an elegant First Lady! She knows what needs to happen in this country to recover from the mess the current tyrant continues to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lizabeth Ewards in 2008 Posted by: willymack
Women running for president?
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 21, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look in the dictionary under hypocrite, there's John Edwards...
Posted by: ryno on Jul 21, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
picture. One $400 haircut. One $1200 haircut. A new 30,000 square ft. mansion. That's all just a drop in the bucket.

John Edward's sees two America's alright. His and everyone elses. His big issue is "poverty in America". Well the Dems declared war on poverty 40 years ago with the "Great Society". Congress has been in control of Dems for the majority of the past 40 years. They talk the talk, but when it comes time to actually do something, they really want to keep people in poverty. Dependent on them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Seen Mitt Romney's makeup bill? Posted by: hurricane hugo
Ruth Coniff, prefers corporate democrats to Kucinich and Gravels
Posted by: Perfectclue on Jul 21, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Class liberals, liberal war hawks, most of whom recently voted Lieberman's resolution blaming Iran for the failure of Iraq, are a disgusting bunch of appeasing Neville Chamberlains as Olbermann called them. The democrats have only streamlined the corruption, and they are part of a failed political class, partners with Bush as an Empire in the Middle East and knee jerk supporters of fascism, zionism, especially the criminal policies, foreign policies of both Amerika and Israel. Gravels has it right, about these corporate, class nationalist democrats: "These people frighten me" Recently on Counterpunch Joshua Frank said this of the democrats. It exposes the rot of these liberal cheerleaders like Ruth Coniff who support corrupt organizations like MOVE ON and fail miserably to come up with real alternatives, especially the alternative against nuclear blackmail and aggression against Iran. Joshua said:
“Not only were the Democrats’s pleas to set a timetable for withdrawal fully pathetic, so too was their moral indignation. The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week , the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran,. So while the Democrats call for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in the future….Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of …the amendment …written by Sen. Joe Lieberman, repeats the same round of vacant lies the neocons have been advancing…”

To me that critique is much more fundamental than the one above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Vote Gravel !!!! Posted by: WhatNow?
John Edwards - just another . . .
Posted by: covalentbonded on Jul 21, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
member of the National WarParty dedicated to turning an illegal/immoral invasion into a vital and legitimte occupation. Edwards saw and heard what has been described by both Durbin and Graham (D-Fla) totally at odds with what the Administration was saying publically. He saw that difference, ignored it, and went on his way "alleviating poverty".

So why isn't this question ever asked? How about his vote for the USA's Paranoid Act? How many times has Edwards voted against any funding? John Edwards will keep American troops in Iraq in order to enforce the PSAs now being rammed down Iraq's throat.

Strike/Boycott 08 Elections!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fairly Decent Article
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 21, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this was a fairly decent article. I thought it dealt with her cancer with the right amount of tact. It didn't patronize or become too intrusive. Yet, since it is a legitimate issue, it went into it only to the point it was relevant and no further.

Elizabeth Edwards is an intelligent, articulate women. IMO, I think Obama/Edwards would make a nice ticket!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep up the good work Elizabeth, looks as you have stirred up a hornets nest.
Posted by: wmGreybeard on Jul 21, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of your critics have not a clue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THe Real Thing
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jul 21, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have observed John Edwards interacting with his constituents when he was in Congress. He had one day a week when he met with North Carolinians in his Washington office. He answered questions and if he didn't have enough information, he said so and assigned the topic to a staff person to come up with the answers. He's smart and he can think on his feet. He seems truly genuine in caring about issues of his constituents. His staff were knowledgable and accessible to the public. His position papers while running for office are articulate, well researched and thorough. One candidate can't embody all of the things that voters want in their candidate. I am an Independent and I will change to Democrat on the basis of what I have seen and observed about John Edwards. I will vote for him in the Primary and I will vote for him if he gets the nomination of the party. He and Elizabeth are a team and I think that she is brilliant. I look forward to the day when we can have an intelligent, forward thinking, truly compassionate, and articulate President in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I voted for the war before I voted against it
Posted by: willymack on Jul 21, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of fine Democratic candidates have used this unexplicably lame argument to refute the oft-repeated and dirty lies the rethugs threw at them when calling them flip-floppers. What they initially approved was an authorization to use military force ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAD BEEN EXAUSTED. Of course, this was all the warmongering bastards needed to go ahead with their illegal invasion and brutalization of a helpless Iraq, and the "other options" were NEVER implemented, nor was that the intention of this evil regime. Stealing Iraq's oil and intimidation of the entire area through military force was their intention all along-that and the war profits and kickbacks to a select few. The fact that this has been a dismal failure is a testement to the courage and moral outrage of the people who have been so cruely mistreated.I only wish I could see the same indignation and courage in Congress, but they're on the take, aren't they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» stop using the word flip flop Posted by: Bearzerker
The media in this country is doing a number on Edwards.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 21, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some reason they do not like him and treat him accordingly. Of course the media LOVED George Bushit, and look what they got us into. The media in this country is totally owned by Repuke interests, and act accordingly. I won't even donate to NPR anymore, after their new president was appointed by George Bushit. I am on the verge of despising my own country, thanks to Bushit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our nation's future
Posted by: JohnMucci on Jul 21, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it inspiring that John Edwards has put his humanity in the spotlight in his bid for the presidency. His honest, straight-forward, "you will know everything about me," approach set standards for political dialog and agendas in this and the last election cycle.

The media seems confused by this man. Perhaps it's because he doesn't fit into their political pigeon-hole. Their cost-cutting boilerplates are not useful for coverage of a man that demonstrates that courage, caring, and respect for all are worthy values.

Political hacks, partisans, and pundits also appear to be confused. They trot out the same old quarter-truths again and again, casting aspersions, while the real effect is simply to reveal the source of their revenue stream or, worse, to reveal their own anxieties, anger, or even inner self-contempts.

Let’s put the well-being of our nation ahead of our prejudices and perceived self-interest. As John Edwards said in his first campaign, “America works best when it works for all of us.” A wide array of statistical data proves it true.

It's our vote. Let's not be fooled again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He voted for the war yet Alternet seems to be endorsing him
Posted by: Mojoe on Jul 21, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AHEM RON PAUL?
Posted by: Maggieb on Jul 21, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you just like to whinge in your hopeless muck and mire? Can you open just one eye and ear and hear what the man has to say? Gawd...what in bloody hell is wrong with all of you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AHEM RON PAUL? Posted by: ExDonkey
» Be wary of Ron Paul. Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Be wary of Ron Paul. Posted by: PopRox80
the mainstream press hates John Edwards
Posted by: TerryS on Jul 22, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that so much of the mainstream press
hates John Edwards is further evidence that he
is the best candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

xtiml.
Posted by: xtiml on Jul 22, 2007 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
any one who voted for iraq nvasion should be put out, wilson was the biggest traitor to america, (enabled federal reserve for eternity) and anyone who divides poverty such as the reminder that woemn suffer more from it is a divisive liar, which is all very common these days, as our politicos are the most corrupt on earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What did you expect her to say?
Posted by: dayahka on Jul 23, 2007 8:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if she thought that Hillary were better than anyone on so-called "women's" issues (which, by the way, are way down the list of really important issues we face), what do you expect her to say? This is just another bit of "support my man" propaganda that does not merit a place in Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]