Elizabeth Edwards says:
"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."
Her complaint reminds me of something I hear a lot of Democrats say: to wealthy donors and to the metropolitan press corps, Obama represents the great fulfillment of liberalism. But I've never heard anyone suggest that he is somehow advantaged in this process and a rich white guy in the South is oppressed by his race or gender.
Although, re-rereading Edwards, it seems that she's making a less incendiary (still debatable) point: that Obama (and Clinton) get too much press (unearned media) only because of their race and gender.
Per an Edwards aide, here is what drives Elizabeth Edwards's frustration: last weekend, you might not know, if you weren't there, that John Edwards forced Hillary Clinton to defend lobbyists, and not Barack Obama. Not some nobody. John Edwards. But the press (in Elizabeth Edwards's view) has apparently decided that it's a two person race, and that if someone else drives a storyline, it's irrelevant to the story. Hence, the campaign has turned to less traditional outlets.
Still, it is hard to see what Obama's race or Clinton's gender have to do with the perception that either has a better shot to win the nomination than Edwards.
Also: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two different creatures of history. Clinton's gender and Obama's race (actually, he has a black father and a white mother, and what is race, anyway) are not identical in terms of their relevance to their campaigns.
Using Edwards's logic, one could easily say (just as reductively), that without his Southern accent, John Edwards would be just another wealthy trial lawyer.
Clearly, folks aren't supporting Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman.
By the way: what does Elizabeth Edwards think of this story?
| 
Seems to me that context is everything here. Asked a question about the use of the web, Edwards said that her husband's campaign's reliance on the web is in some ways necessitated by the mainstream media's (understandable and even justified) interest in covering a story OTHER than "rich white southern guy runs for President again." And as far as fundraising goes, does anyone really contest the idea that more television coverage = more fundraising money?
Clearly, folks aren't supporting Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman.
I'm sure this is (largely) true - but Elizabeth certainly isn't arguing this point. If you look at what Elizabeth said, it would read more like this:
Clearly, the media will to some real extent be more interested in Obama because he's black and Clinton because she's a woman. (That's why we're relying on the web.)
Still an interesting story?
Now Elizabeth and her husband surely know as well as anyone else that they walk a tight-rope any time they so much as acknowledge Hillary's gender or Obama's ethnicity. (See the varied interpretations, many of them negative, about Edwards' "I don't know about that suit" comment at the close of the last debate.) But surely she's allowed to point out that the media will be less interested in yet another white man and more interested in the fact that an African-American and a woman are running (and running hard) for the Democratic nomination?
Posted by Will | August 7, 2007 6:49 PM