Last night, CNN joined up with YouTube for a Democratic debate for the people, by the people. Regular citizens submitted questions online (our president included) that were fielded by the presidential contenders. One of the questions posed by a viewer asked the candidates to turn to their left and say something that they like and something that they dislike about their neighbor. All the candidates were convivial and generous; however, John Edwards made a comment about his neighbor, Senator Clinton’s outfit. Do you think that his comment was intended to marginalize her?
Read what the Washington Post had to say about it.
July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Edwards’ comment is a poor reflection on him because it wasn’t substantive, was about a trivial matter. More than marginalizing Ms. Clinton, it madehim appear to look shallow and frivolous. With all the humor about his hair and other aspects ofhis personal appearance, he should be aware of the downside of making comments of that nature about other candidates. As for fishing for opinions that Edwards’ comment marginalized Clinton, I say stop taking yourself so seriously!
July 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm
The remark was made with very typical thinking from a Southern man, commenting on the attire of a woman when he should have had more insight and a more generous remark to make. It was similar to all the commentary in a recent Wash Post article about Hillary’s alledged evidence of cleavage in a photo. The reason we elect the wrong people, we focus on unimportant matters.
July 24, 2007 at 5:45 pm
His remark may have been perceived as flippant by many, but my own perception was that he attempted to be informal and congenial. In my view, he succeeded and should be congratulated, not vilified.
July 24, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I have been considering Clinton, Obama and Edwards for my vote until now. Edwards just fell out of the running. Thanks for highlighting this in your blog.
July 24, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I was also disturbed by the beginning comment in which he mentioned “what her husband did for America.” I felt that he was diluting his statement of admiration for Sen. Clinton by remarking on her husband. It felt like an out to me (though in keeping with the theme of Sen. Gravel mentioning Sen Dodd’s father and Sen. Dodd mentioning Elizabeth Edwards). And yes, I did think mentioning her jacket was another subtle reminder that, as a woman, she was the only one who stood out with color and style that was different than the gentlemen. But Gov. Richardson and Sen. Obama won the question.
July 24, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I think we, as women, must expect for people to notice and possibly comment on our attire, hair, etc. It is only unfortunate if that overshadows our intellect and capabilities. I think Edwards was attempting to be funny rather than mean spirited. We must not be so defensive. As more women assume greater positions of authority, we will be noticed for more than our attire, but frankly, I’m glad that we have more options than a navy blue or gray business suit!
July 24, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Why are you making such a big deal about his comment? I sounded cordial, friendly and you appear to be looking for problems.
This smallness doesn’t look any better on women than it does on men.
July 24, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Stop marginalizing yourselves by obsessing about silly things, girls. Don’t we have bigger issues to focus on? For heaven’s sakes, why aren’t we blogging about a real issue…not even Hillary skipped a beat on this one!
July 24, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I’d wager that Edwards’ comment was an inside joke. He has recently wrestled with the haircut comments, and she has had to put up with all kinds of ridiculous comments over the years. Maybe Senator Dodd has had “white hair” comments. Who knows. I liked Anderson Cooper’s rejoinder, to the effect that “he is finally growing into his white hair”. Beyond the fluff that most of the candidates took part in, Clinton did a very good job, and was quite an effective speaker, especially when stressing her experience. However, I don’t like her corporatist politics, her support of NAFTA/CAFTA so-called free trade, and her past support of the war. It’s a dilemma for many of my friends, women and men, who would otherwise be excited and inclined to vote for her.
July 24, 2007 at 7:46 pm
To say that Edwards’ comment was meant to marginalize Senator Clinton seems to be reading too far into it. I think he intended to be friendly and informal, and I think he succeeded. While I am not particularly considering voting for him, I don’t think it is appropriate to vilify him or make a decision whether or not to vote for him based on such a trivial matter.
July 24, 2007 at 9:04 pm
No, I do not think that John Edwards had any intention of marginalizing Hillary. I think his comment demonstrated the ease with which the two interact and the lack of any resentment or negativity between them. I believe it was done with a feeling of camraderie and informality and in no way showed disrespect for her. In every way Edwards interacts with Hilary I feel he shows both admiration and respect for her intellect and strength as a political figure. I am a professional woman who has survived 40 years of attempts to marginalize me because I am a female and I think I can be objective about this occurence and about Edward’s intent. Please resist any effort to make a big deal out of something that is no big deal. Please. Lets put the emphasis in this campaign on the real issues and not fall prey to the Republican strategy of distracting people from the real issues by emphasizing the small and insignificant things.
July 24, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I have not decided on a candidate as of yet, but I did not perceive his comment as being anything but smart politics. The question was a bit ridiculous and Edwards was not going to play into it.
July 24, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I thought John Edward’s comment about Hillary’s jacket was a clever way to dodge that silly question and to show a bit of his humor. It shouldn’t be taken as a demeaning comment by those women who tend to over react to any and every little remark as sexist.
July 25, 2007 at 12:17 am
Edwards’ comment was frivolous, but meant to be so. He didn’t win any points with it but at least he shied away from the repetitious “pantsuit” joke. Hillary was not marginalized. She does stand out. She’s queen of the hill….and let’s face it, she looks Presidential. I like the way Obama took the pressure off and spun the comment. He’s quite gentleman and a peacemaker (and wouldn’t those be great qualities in a president for a change?)
The question was a great “on the spot” exercise; Essentially exposing everyone’s juggular and seeing who, if any, would bear fangs. Savvy, in a ’round about way.
July 25, 2007 at 7:38 am
Edwards was just keeping his response light and hunorous. It was no different, in tone, than those of the other candidates.
July 25, 2007 at 8:33 am
No I don’t think Edwards did it to marginalize Clinton, I believe he respects her and recognized that her brilliant red jacket would draw attention to her and distract what he was saying. He did save that comment to near the last of his statement. He said just what all other males were thinking. When CNN did a wide tv view of the group as a whole, all eyes went to the red jacket first!
Nikki Beare
August 15, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Well, I don’t think he did it intentionally.
But if a male candidate rather than Hilary was to his left I really doubt that he would have complimented their tie or jacket for that matter.
To me it was crystal clear that the purpose of the exercise was to give a compliment based on character or merit possibly. Mrs. Clinton’s jacket has nothing to do with any of those things.
I think Edwards sent the message that the most a woman has to offer as a president is her fashion sense, not her stance on real political issues.
August 22, 2007 at 10:40 am
No. I don’t think Edwards intended to marginalize Clinton.
Psychologists claim that men think about sex more often than women do. Sometimes men learn to control that part of themselves and sometimes they do not. Commenting on Ms. Clinton’s outfit only demonstrated that Mr. Edwards has a hard time pushing the appearance of women out of his mind. To concentrate on another candidates’ appearance rather than the issues is of concern to someone like myself: the comment shows that Mr. Edwards has less of an ability to lead our country than Ms. Clinton.
Edwards and Clinton work for the same team, the Democratic Party. Surely, Mr. Edwards could have found a positive compliment that reflected their mutual values and contrasted that with a minor difference they share.
October 25, 2007 at 10:28 am
Changing everything across the world means to use the science, art, language, and math we’re taught to see the world as a classroom, not a class. It is the common denominator everyone has – we all emerge from classrooms, or should.
In classrooms, ideally, no kid would be left behind, male or female. It is the story of the red mitten – performed by ordinary people on a national and an international stage.