Context
|
The campaign staff didn't even know I had spoken to Elizabeth Edwards [clarification: some staffers knew because I told them after the fact, but I didn't go thru official channels to reach her]. That is how she rolls. The staffer wanted to know when I talked to her, and what she said. CNN just asked me the same thing. Here's how it went: I emailed Elizabeth in July to ask if she wanted to talk for an article I was reporting on the use of the net in politics. She said sure, so I called her and we spoke, on the record and for publication, with the only caveat being that I not discuss ahead of time the then-impending response to all the noise about her husband's hair. She did say the words quoted by Drudge, and obviously it's a zinger, but somewhat less so in context: The Web can be liberating. "It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads. She's quoted elsewhere in the article, too: In at least some campaigns, the Internet pros have penetrated the inner circle. "This is the new reality: the Internet people are at the most senior table," says Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate's wife and adviser, herself an early proponent of online campaigning. "Trippi reports to John. It's a straight line. Whenever there is a process of trying to get out a message, or engaging people on an issue, the Internet is honestly the first place we start." Elizabeth Edwards said some insightful things about net campaigns in a long article about net campaigns. One of the things she said about using the web to create buzz when other candidates are sucking up all the media oxygen was kind of spicy, as it implies that at least some of the attention given to her husband's rivals is for reasons other than their excellence as candidates. She's worked somewhat similar ground before. The stuff about integrating databases at the state level and figuring out how social networks translate into votes seems a lot more important than the dig at the media and/or Obama and Clinton, but I guess it doesn't make such a sexy soundbite. |
Comments (10)
I saw the quote on Drudge and read your entire article, which I think is a good one and very relevant to running a political campaign here in the early 21st century. What I think makes this such an interestng quote is the fact that some have accused Senator Clinton of being more "manly" than any other Democratic candidate out there. I certainly think she has more backbone than Edwards or any of the others.
And Senator Clinton's campaign is also much more disciplined than any of the others. No offense but, you just don't let family members go off and do interviews willy nilly in the middle of a heated campaign season. As the media is likely to do, quotes are all too quickly and readily (and happily) taken out of context, as this situation so perfectly demonstrates.
In politics, as in a court of law, anything you say can and will be used against you.
Regards,
David Flanagan
Annapolis, MD
Posted by David Flanagan | August 8, 2007 12:42 PM
It seem to me that since she said this about Hillary and Obama, one could go out on the limb and say she is trying to used the fact that she got cancer to get sympathy votes for her husband.
As far as I am concern, looking at what the Dem sand Repubs are doing, we need a new politician machine that will work for the people, you know, the 99% that is not rich.
We are damn tired of being screwed without vasiline and many of us are dying because our money is taken by the government to make the rich richer.
I am sick and tired of these catting remarks, and all these damn "do nothing for the majority" politians. Hell, we come in all shade, and it's sad that many of us don't see this. The poor is divded by color to keep us at each other throat, instead of ensuring that the goverment obey the constitions. The government is in office to serve the people, but instead we are serving them.
Posted by Amias | August 8, 2007 4:49 PM
guess what!!! that's why she's not running for president,and others are hehehe however the others are also just as (stu--d) and have accompilshed nothing while in public life, so again we have nothing to look forward to except another round of dummed down candidate's...it's so funny they think they can fix health care when they robbed the american people of social security and ruined medicade and medicare. gosh have people forgotten our future is in chapter 11. so when they say they can fix something get a bet in betting the other way then you won't have to worry about them handling your taxes
Posted by mark | August 8, 2007 5:07 PM
Wow! It's nice to know that being a black male has some advantage in this country
Posted by joe | August 8, 2007 8:13 PM
I honestly think we are open for anything this election. Look at what experienced political dynasties have gotten us in the past and present. Maybe an eager injury lawyer is what we need. If he's as ferocious about carrying out his presidential agenda as he is in the courtroom, then this may be the best chance to bring about change and optimism- if not exciting times, in politics. At first I was hesitant about his modest political experience, but now I think it may be an asset. And can we please trade in Hillary for Paula Deen?
Posted by Natalie | August 8, 2007 9:11 PM
Elizabeth is right on with what she said! The media loves that there is a story with the first woman and African American with a reasonable chance of winning a party nomination and possibly even the white house. It's a fact that the media is obsessed with these two! Of course Hillary did have some name recognition coming in to this race, but the media completely built up Obama from nothing to a superstar. Now OF COURSE that does not mean that either of these two are not good candidates, because they are, but from everything I have seen and heard John Edwards is the outsider and the one who has fought big corporations and won and the one who is fighting poverty and is tops on womens issues too. It is a shame that his message is being lost in the media's obsession. In any other year if the previous vice presidential nominee was running for President they would be receiving the most media attention, but because of race and gender he is not and it will be America's loss if it doesn't change!
Posted by davem | August 8, 2007 10:35 PM
Fact is, the two largest Democratic constituencies in the country are women and blacks. If anyone thinks that's not bouying Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama right now, they are fooling themselves.
The problem is the other candidates haven't tried hard enough to highlight the differences between all of the candidates, and that makes them all appear to stand for the same things, so voters make their decisions based on other differences, i.e., gender and race.
If voters believe that Clinton believes the same thing as Edwards, then why wouldn't a woman vote for Clinton over Edwards if the only difference she perceives between the two is "gender"? Same for Obama.
The problem is voters are about to choose a sold out tool like Clinton, who is Republican-lite, and John Edwards and her do think differently about most things.
The challenge for the Edwards campaign is to stress the fact that all Democrats don't think alike or believe the same things, and they would govern differently as President, and Clinton would be worse for them than he would be, and that we can do better with him as President than we did during the 1990s on things like health care, the tax code, education, and so forth.
If they are all going to be allowed to seem the same, then gender and race will be the only thing differentiating them in the minds of voters.
Posted by OEST | August 8, 2007 11:55 PM
So, where is the ENTIRE INTERVIEW that you did with Elizabeth Edwards?
Posted by OEST | August 8, 2007 11:56 PM
The article was a good one and the quote is a great one. Journalists sell their children into bondage for quotes like that because they reveal so much in so few words. Candor is hard to come by. Hillary has let her excruciatingly tight pinched mask fall only twice in a few years, ( Iowa - "I resent?" ), and on both occasions we got to see a deeply disturbed woman consumed with rage, envy, and narcissism. Elizabeth Edwards' quote reveals: "We're maybe running a good third, we're desperate, no one pays attention to John, just his hair, it's not fair, we're scrambling to keep up at all."
Posted by another joe | August 9, 2007 6:58 AM
Though I am not an Edwards fan. His wife is right. The media loves black candidates and woman candidates. The media doesn't care whether the black or female candidates are qualifyed or not. Makes no difference to the media. Just being female or a minority, apparently makes them qualifyed. There are hundreds of qualifyed black and females people across the country. Obama and Clinton are not in those hundreds.
Posted by Al Bumen | January 1, 2008 4:49 PM