August 30, 2007 11:39
Elizabeth Edwards and the Mommy Wars
I was following Elizabeth Edwards today in New Hampshire, and got a chance to hear her talk about her conscription into the Mommy Wars. So now that I've come home, set my suitcase in the hall, helped one Swampkid with his high school Spanish homework, watched a television show with the Fifth Grader who claimed (as he always does) that his own homework is done, nudged them both into bed--and, yes, wondered yet again whether anyone really has this whole family-work thing figured out--I thought I'd share what she had to say.
As you likely have heard by now, the skirmish started, as so many do these days, in the blogosphere. What touched it off was a post by a woman named Rebecca on Silicon Valley Moms Blog. Some months back, Jay ignited a blogswarm here when he wrote of his own discomfort with the Edwards' choice to continue his presidential campaign after her cancer recurred. But that was nothing compared to this:
Take your kids home. Get off the campaign trail. Your husband is not going to be the candidate, and he is not going to be president. He is not ahead in the polls. He is not going to make it. We need a Democratic in office desperately, and you are harming that chance by going around saying negative things about the TOP candidates and splitting the vote. Worst of all, you are forcing your young children, who should be in school to ride in buses and talk to the press when they obviously don't want to. This election is NOT ABOUT THEM. They deserve some peace, not time with nannies and campaign-trail daycare providers, since, as the Times article describes, you don't have time to see them when you are busy campaigning too.Do I sound callous? Perhaps. I am truly, seriously, sorry that you are sick and that you are dying. But let this be your parting gift to the world: give your children some actual QUALITY time with you, which they are not having on the bus or in senatorial-aide-nannycare. Help give your children a next new Democratic president, who is NOT going to be your husband.
It turns out Elizabeth Edwards follows the blogs quite closely. A lifelong insomniac, she kept a transistor radio under her pillow when she was a girl, she told me. These days, she spends those sleepless hours at her computer. So within hours, Rebecca got an answer from Elizabeth herself:
With all due respect, what you would choose to do is relevant only once: when you choose how to spend your remaining days. I made my choice; because of our lives it was a public choice, but the choice doesn't belong to the public, it belongs to me. And with all due respect, you have no idea what the quality or amount of the time I spend with my children is. I am reasonably confident your information is wrong because a reporter from the New York Times who was with us for less than one hour is your source. A reporter, by the way, who asked for time with our children and who, because our children are in fact children, saw good behavior and bad and who reported our wonderful advantures together as if the children and I were ships passing in the night, which is simply not true. Just in case you want to know, when we read the story to Jack (which we did while we watched one of the two baseball games we went to with him this past week), his response was actually very adult: that's not fair, he said, everyone has good days and bad days. And finally, what I said about Hillary's choices is that I had made the same choices she had made as a parent, and when I changed my choices I was happier. Just like you don't get to decide what makes me happier, I don't get to decide what makes Hillary happier.I want to be entirely clear. You don't get to say I am a terrible mother because you think you wouldn't make my choices in my situation. You don't get to say that my children don't want to be with us when you don't know them and when, parenthetically, you know that happy children can be periodically disagreeable. You don't get to judge me because you think you know exactly what you would do if you had my disease. I want to be really clear: you don't know. And if the sun always shines on you -- and I pray it does -- you will never know.
The whole exchange came up at her first event of the day, a house party in Bow, NH, this morning, when a woman in the audience told Elizabeth she had seen a spot about it on Good Morning America. "My hat is off to you," she told Elizabeth. At that point, Elizabeth explained how she and her husband had decided to pull the children out of school to be home-schooled, how they determined which campaign trips to bring them along on, and when to leave them at home, how her own nomadic upbringing as a military brat taught her that a classroom isn't the only place to get an education. Her argument began as one of practicalities and logistics. But as she talked, you could see the indignation rising. Again.
"There are people serving in Iraq right now who are not with their children at all," she said, "The very idea that you have to put your child on a school bus and that you have to have cookies and milk on the table every afternoon in order to be a good parent denigrates all of their parenting and is completely and totally unfair."
She added: "The choice we had to make was a very public choice, but the choice didn't belong to the public. The choice belongs to us." At that point, the crowd--about 60 people, many of whom had told me that they are undecided how to vote in the primary--erupted into applause. "Around the country, every place that I've gone, people who have been in the same shoes that I've been--sadly--have all made the same choice, to live, to embrace the things they care about."
"She did, in fact, call me a 'terrible mother,' which I thought might have been going a little far," Elizabeth concluded. "But you put yourself out there in the public light, and you're going to get that stuff, and you have to let it roll off your back. But it's a little bit hard when they talk about mothering."
I checked Rebecca's post again a few minutes ago. She has added an epilogue:
I made two edits in the post, and people will be mad at me for it. I took out the part about Elizabeth being a terrible mother, because I CHANGED MY MIND (ha! I changed my mind!) and I think that was wrong of me to say. I also took about the point about looking like tools, because that was just lazy verbiage. Not like the writing here is Shakespearean or anything.After considerable thought, and reading your responses, some of which were thoughtful and some not, I now think that I too maybe would bring my kids on a campaign bus. I honestly don't know what it would be like to be dying, that is true. And I also don't know what it is like to have limitless financial resources, which the Edwards family does, and which probably gives them the ability to create a nice experience for their children on the road.
The end of the Mommy Wars? Not a chance. But maybe, for now, a truce.
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
Mike Murphy is a GOP consultant and was a senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 30, 2007
IMPEACH ALL WHO SPEAK ILL OF OUR CANDIDATES!
WE DEMAND THAT YOU DO NOT LEND CREDIBILITY TO THOSE WHO DEFAME OUR LEADERS ON THIS SITE!
TIME OWES MRS EDWARDS AN APOLOGY!
Posted by Kos Klowns We Hardly Knew Ya, So BUH-BYE
August 31, 2007
"It turns out Elizabeth Edwards follows the blogs quite closely."
So she has a sense of humor after all?
How special.
The cafeteria Catholics will be so thankful.
God bless us every lawsuit.
Posted by Bram R
August 31, 2007
Notice how she deftly switched terrain from attacking her parenting, to snidely referencing her "limitless financial resources"?
I say HACK. Maybe not paid, but certainly in-the-tank for one of the "TOP" Democratic candidates who have a "chance of winning." Which itself was a flagrant non-sequitor, given the point she was supposedly trying to make.
On the subject at hand, watching Mommy and Daddy try to save the country is conceivably a much more fulfilling and valuable experience, than watching them surrender to the supposedly inevitable.
Posted by Prince Panderer of the Piedmont
August 31, 2007
Too bad she can't run at the top of that family's ticket.
Or that party's.
Posted by Seen 1 Leftard, Smelled Them All
August 31, 2007
She's in a lost, badly fumbled union coddling campaign.
If only she'd had the nerve to tell the whole truth, being the co-owner of the new 29,000 square foot 2 American Counties Wide Plantation House with a candidate that could not EVER get elected POTUS (much less re-elected dog catcher in NC).
What were these people thinking?
Obama and Dodd are the only lights on the left, but by the time the DNC figures that one out they'll be swearing in President McCain and VEEP Rudy.
The really sad thing is so much good could have been done with all the law firm contributions, for the truly needy, instead of Kenny Hairdo.
Maybe in 2012.
Posted by 100 Barrels of Bill on the Intern
August 31, 2007
Hillary totally sucked on CBS tonight. Stiffer than cardboard, laughing like a jackazz at Zippy The Grin. Useless.
Maybe there IS an Allah after all!
Posted by Anonymous
August 31, 2007
But if Edwards is the Breck girl, who is Elizabeth?
Posted by linda
August 31, 2007
Good post, Karen.
Good for Elizabeth. Even a little bit of a 'good for Rebecca' for considering Elizabeth's response despite her obvious bias.
Speaking of bias, perhaps you missed this 'Faux Mommy War': Single Mom Goes to Iraq attack on Katie Couric. [hope, she avoids the Green Zone Fog]
A big shout out to all the parents that Elizabeth mentioned that are serving. Now, back to the other issues [other than total coverage of how totally stupid Sen. Craig is]
More in case you missed it:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html
and
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/australia.bush.ap/index.html
and Time. ME Blog. MacLeod's post "Bush's 'Dangerous' ME Arms Deals"
and maybe that Frederick of Hollywood will actually announce.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
August 31, 2007
My admiration for Elizabeth Edwards just gets deeper and wider. That kind of grace and intelligence under pressure, well, you see it in private life, but so rarely in public.
Let's be clear: it is profoundly unattractive and unfair to pass unfounded and unsolicited judgments on the choices that people make as parents, especially publicly. It doesn't reflect well on nitwits like this Rebecca woman. Who does she think SHE is? Jay too was rightfully boxed soundly about the head and shoulders for presuming to pass unsolicited judgments on the life choices that Edwards' made.
I deeply respect Mrs. Edwards for taking these kinds of cruel and unthinking pecksniffians and addressing their unctuous pronouncements directly and honestly.
She's right, you know. Go Elizabeth!
Posted by jayackroyd
August 31, 2007
James, LA
Just imagine the response if someone wrote a piece describing how destructive evangelical home schooling is for children--filling their heads with arrant nonsense about the nature of the world as we understand it today.
The hypocrisy runs so deep among these people.
Posted by sentinel
August 31, 2007
Karen: sorry to be contrarian. But Elizabeth has chosen this way and can afford it. I take that as a given. But her attacks on Hillary and Obama will provoke reactions. I get the feeling that some people think she is off limits because of her illness. I would not patronise her. If Elizabeth wants to engage, good. But she must then be ready for the counter attacks. How she looks after her children is her own business. How she engages her husband's political competitors is ours. I think her attacks have an edge to them which shows that she, too, is a politician.
PS: Jackaroyd: I recall the Santorum getting beat up about his children being home schooled but I thought the problem there was that he was getting the state to pay him an educational allowance. Your point is well taken.
Posted by ivb
August 31, 2007
Indeed, my admiration for Elizabeth Edwards continues to grow. I don't doubt she is ready for the counter attacks, as her response to Rebecca showed. No one has a right to decide what is best for someone else's child.
I went back to work when my daughter was three weeks old because I would have gone crazy if I had stayed home. My daughter, now an adult, and I are very close and people always comment about what a wonderful relationship we have. My choice was right for me. Another person's choice to stay home could be right for them. No one else has any business deciding for anyone else.
Among the many problems with Santorum was that he was collecting money from a school district in Pittsburgh when they were living in Virginia.
Posted by Poppy
August 31, 2007
Rebecca:
"I am truly, seriously, sorry that you are sick and that you are dying."
"I honestly don't know what it would be like to be dying, that is true."
But you are dying, we all are.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
Posted by Karma
August 31, 2007
It's important to have an opinion about everything, especially how others should live and die.
Posted by Pat Paulson
August 31, 2007
Someone please get the Edwards campaign back on message. Or, at least let the candidate deliver the message, not the spouse.
Posted by Kim
August 31, 2007
Interesting post, Karen T. Thank you.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
August 31, 2007
Who is this Rebecca chick? A personal attack, deleted obnoxiously and without apology, followed by changing the topic, does not reveal any particular talent at thinking, writing, or blogging (yes, writing and blogging are separate skills). How did Elizabeth Edwards manage to find her?
Reason #14,395 why I am not sorry to have been born male. The level of hostility directed at women, public figures and normal people alike, for their personal decisions about how and whether to raise a family is something I'll never be able to fathom. Plus I'm pretty sure that it's only women, never men, who've had their candidacies derailed for hiring illegal immigrants.
Posted by Trudy Capote
August 31, 2007
After watching Shrilllery last night, I now understand why Blozo cheats on his wife.
Posted by JenJen
August 31, 2007
Excellent article and post. Elizabeth Edwards is an amazing human being.
As an aside, the trolls on this comments board are unbearable. They do betray their own ignorance when writing, though, which is, at least, a small comfort to the rest of us.
Posted by Robert Sullivan
August 31, 2007
Elvis Elvisberg: "Plus I'm pretty sure that it's only women, never men, who've had their candidacies derailed for hiring illegal immigrants."
CNN: "One week after President Bush nominated him to be secretary of homeland security, former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew from consideration Friday night after discovering a former household employee had a questionable immigration status."
Posted by DFH
August 31, 2007
Yeah like Bernie Kerik withdrew his nomination because of a nanny problem. The ignorance is typical of swamplands trolls.
Posted by Robert Sullivan
August 31, 2007
DFH: "Yeah like Bernie Kerik withdrew his nomination because of a nanny problem. The ignorance is typical of swamplands trolls."
Ok, DF, since you're clearly the expert, would you care to enlighten us regarding why he withdrew, and why CNN seems to feel it had something to do with his "nanny problem"?
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
August 31, 2007
Seriously, DFH.
Kerik withdrew because of mob connections, marital infidelity, a criminal indictment, allegations of bribery... and I may be leaving out or conflating some of his scandals. To say he had his candidacy derailed because of a nanny problem is like saying that America declared independence because John Hancock liked to write his name real big.
Posted by david
August 31, 2007
"After watching Shrilllery last night, I now understand why Blozo cheats on his wife"
The present tense is cute. Thanks for that. Now if you could just tell us why Giuliani cheated on his wives, we'll be all set.
Posted by david
August 31, 2007
By the way, "Trudy Capote", are we supposed to call Giuliani "Doody" or something? We "libtards" are just not up to speed on the correct name-calling etiquette, I guess.
Posted by Robert Sullivan
August 31, 2007
Elvis -
Thanks. I did some looking, and he did indeed seem to be a rather questionable character. Odd that the CNN piece didn't mention all that. Thanks also for being civil.
Posted by grape_crush
August 31, 2007
Robert Sullivan: "..would you care to enlighten us regarding why he withdrew..?"
The 'nanny problem' was one explanation, Robert. Kerik had more issues; follow the Newsweek link below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700947/site/newsweek/
Posted by Karma
August 31, 2007
Mommy Wars 2 is going to be about the baby formula lobbyist influincing the direction of the commercials encouraging women to breast feed.
I think the real question is, WHY HASN'T TIME COVERED THIS STORY?!?!?! Is it because of your Conservative media bias? Is it because you hate breasts or moms or babies? I bet it's all of those things.
I know why Republicans say these things, it's even funnier when you say it aloud.
Posted by grape_crush
August 31, 2007
Oh, and kudos to Elizabeth Edwards; that's a helluva good response. Thanks for the post, Karen T.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
August 31, 2007
Right on, Robert Sullivan. I have to admit, I'd forgotten all about the nanny issue with Kerik, because of all the other ones.
Unfortunately, civil discussion on this board is made less likely by the fact that 95% of the conservatives on this board appear to be from one troll. After 150 straight "suck it, libtards, Smellary is a Marxist loon!" posts, people tend to have a knee-jerk response to other posts that seem pro-GOP.
So here's to civility. Time would really help out a lot by requiring registration, or IP banning the troll(s).
Posted by sean samis
August 31, 2007
Good post, Karen.
sean s.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
August 31, 2007
This Rebecca woman is a terrible mother. What kind of example for her children is she setting by publicly denigrating a woman with cancer? Some day her children will be ashamed and embarrassed that they had a mother who wrote such cruel and judgmental articles about other women. Imagine the schoolmates in the hallway pointing to them and chiding them for what a shrew their mother is for badmouthing Elizabeth Edwards? I wonder if Rebecca is thinking about what her children are going to go through when she publicly derides and passes judgement on people like that? Put it this way: I certainly wouldn't want my children to think of me that way. I wouldn't want to set an example for MY children of writing publicly about like that about other people. Would you?
Posted by Robert Sullivan
August 31, 2007
Elvis: "Time would really help out a lot by requiring registration, or IP banning the troll(s)."
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been sceptical about "banning" in the past, as it has been used on other sites to stifle legitimate dissent, but given that TIME's editorial positions seem to be reasonable moderate, that might work here. At a minimum, they should consider registration.
Also, if it matters, I am not a conservative. I consider myself a radical moderate.
Posted by sean samis
August 31, 2007
I remain skeptical about banning only because it usually doesn't work. There are always ways around it. I've learned over time that there are certain persons on this site I shouldn't bother to read, and I just skip over them. I'm sure there are those who skip over mine.
Certainly a bozo filter should catch some of the worst stuff, the same line "IMPEACH EDWARDS" or whatever repeated 40 times, etc. but at the end of the day, the bozo's always get through.
sean s.
Posted by carolyn13
August 31, 2007
I think there are two trolls on this board, one with the anal fixation and the other with the paranoid obsession with communism. I find the later one to be a hoot. What is he, 102 years old? I picture some senile old dude strapped down hollering about commies under the bed and liberals in his closet.
I'm not sure what can be done about trolls on an open board. It's a problem for every blog and it is worse here because Time will be accused of bias if they ban anyone. As Sean says, banning doesn't really work anyway. It does seem there has been a more diligent moderating lately, deleting the most disruptive comments. The threads have become more readable.
As to the topic of this thread, Elizabeth Edwards has my deep admiration. She is a brave woman, independent and outspoken, a rarity for a wife of a politician.
Posted by Alan
August 31, 2007
As much as I admire Elizabeth's Edwards actions I must confess to some qualms about the way she is injecting herself into her husband's campaign. He comes out of this as someone who needs help. Mrs Kerry drew the same reaction. I want to hear the candidates and from time to time the spouses. But I am leery of a spouse to takes over the campaign and reduces her spouse to second tier status. Perhaps strong Edwards'supporters don't see that. And they may be right. But when I read about Edward's campaign I am side tracked by some confrontation which involves Elizabeth Edwards. I don't he needs that.
Posted by northern observer
August 31, 2007
My concern is that they are not trolls per se but unpaid campaign volunteers for the RNC, and the eye catching lies they churn forward from the RNC baloney mill will increase as we head to election day 2008. Time will have to take action.
What I love about E Edwards is that she is living proof that when you stand up for yourself and your beliefs you get respect. More Democratic strategists and politicians could learn from her example.
Posted by RoMo
August 31, 2007
Great post Karen. Thank you.
Posted by Karma
August 31, 2007
northern observer
Politicians don't want respect. They want votes. They generally don't go hand in hand. At least not in this country.
Posted by Judgement
August 31, 2007
Rebecca I think the comments made about Mrs Edwards where truely disrespectful. It is amazing sometime how calus and rude you liberals are to people. All you have to do is look at the posts here to see how condecending all you liberal people are. Just look at the difference in the way the posts read. You can hear that angry tone in each Liberals post here.
I don't know what life has done to you people to make you so rude and obnoxious but, taking it out on others just makes you people feel better somehow. I don't understand it. Watch all the name calling I get for this post, all the little clever rhetoric names.
That is why ultimately you guys loose when given the choice no one follows an Ahole. You guys got the Senate and took it all the way down to a 14% approval rating the worst in history and you think that is going to get you the white house? You guys really do live in a fantasy world. All your canidates are phonie, inept, and would sell their mothers to get in the white house. It shows, and people can see that, no one likes someone who is desperate.
Posted by carolyn13
August 31, 2007
Alan
I don't see this as her injecting herself into the campaign. She was personally attacked for her choices, she answered that attack. Good Morning America did a segment on it and she was asked a question about it by a woman in the audience. It seems like it was others dragging her into this.
I don't support Edwards, basically I'm still pouting about Gore, but I like how they present themselves as a partnership. My respect for John has risen because he is comfortable with a strong woman like Elizabeth. I also think it is a good political tactic for Edwards, presenting himself as a family man which helps cut through the image the GOP has manufactured for him.
I do agree though that there is a fine line to walk here.
Posted by TLB
August 31, 2007
Could Swampland hire Harvey Levin to guest-blog here? Or, are you worried that his hard-hitting reporting would make people like Tumulty look even more like lightweights?
Posted by grape_crush
August 31, 2007
OMG - that's probably the BEST example of right-wing projection I've ever read, Judgie!..
..and if you think my saying the above is an example of being condescending toward you, it is. You have not demonstrated a capability for intellectual honesty or freedom from bias, and I have trouble with taking what you say seriously or in treating you as a peer.
Posted by Stuart Zechman
August 31, 2007
Karen:
This is an amazing post and thoroughly worth reading (and linking to).
I'm having a really hard time posting commentary these days because of the degeneration of this blog in to sock-puppetry, trollery, inanity, etc.
If you continue to post extraordinary stuff like this, then I will continue to frequent this blog despite the incompetence of its management (as evidenced by the rapidly deteriorating quality of its commentary).
Thank you so much for this good work; you've kept a reader (for now).
Posted by grape_crush
August 31, 2007
and by the Judgement - you should be called Judgemental with an emphasis on the mental...
Posted by Janey in Cincy
August 31, 2007
Hey Stuart Zechman,
I agree with you; reading the comments section of this blog is depressing and mind-boggling. The sheer trollery reveals a dark, nasty side to political commentary, and it's a shame.
The blog has been excellent lately, though, and I'll continue to visit, and read the commentary, scrolling through the muck to get to thoughtful posts like yours!
Posted by carolyn13
August 31, 2007
Okay, let's talk meta. I'm fairly new to these threads. I've read this blog for some time, but have only read the threads now and then, so I'm kind of a newbie. I'd like to know the consensus of the commenting community on how to fix the problems here and why aren't the bloggers responding to it?
Posted by DFH
August 31, 2007
The bloggers see no difference between someone who calls Karen a lightweight and someone who types IMPEACH HILARY over and over again.
By the way Robert, maybe you should think about why CNN reported that Kerik withdrew his nomination because of a nanny problem and played down his other criminal activities. Then maybe you would understand why it's hard for some of us to be nice. This stuff happens every day. You might also not that this blog has not mentioned the Gonzolas perjury investigation or the GAO report about the 'progress' in Iraq. In a reality based world these might have been bigger stories than some commenter on a blog chiding Mrs. Edwards parenting skills.
Posted by carolyn13
August 31, 2007
Somebody, I'm not sure who, did delete IMPEACH from the threads yesterday and I haven't seen that on this thread today. Frankly, on any other blog, I would consider TLB's off topic slam at Karen as concern trolling. On other blogs that kind of thing is usually handled by the community not the bloggers.
As to the topics they chose to blog about, I agree that quite often the bloggers here don't seem to have their fingers on the pulse of the news. Their pieces are prepared as though this is a column and not the fast paced commentary that prevails through the blogosphere.
Posted by yann123
August 31, 2007
I say, three wonderful women: Elizabeth for setting it straight and a huge sign of huamnity from Rebecca. Rebecca you are to be truly applauded for changing your mind on Elizabeth. You are a wonderful person for that act alone-to admit you were wrong. You have set a wonderful example to your children.
And Karen...the writer of this acticle for showing this in it's real true light: disagreement resolved.
John and Elizabeth I will work until election day to get both of you elected. Don't give up. Please.
We all want you.More people than you even know.
Posted by grape_crush
August 31, 2007
"..you should be called Judgemental.."
My very own doppelganger! I'm so flattered...
..but if you are going to imitate me, you gotta remember that I don't go for the obvious insults like the one quoted above, spoofer.
Posted by An Outhouse
August 31, 2007
I support Edwards because his wife his hot !!!! (the brain is the largest sexual organ).
Why can't she be president?
Posted by carolyn13
August 31, 2007
IMPEACH!
IMPEACH!
IMPEACH!
Posted by Judgement
August 31, 2007
Nice try grapenuts... if you are going to post something at least stand by it.
Posted by Impeach THIS
August 31, 2007
"Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says "hatred" of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election."
Well taste my salt and peppa!
Iz-a gonna havta go wif Lizbef on datun.
Posted by grape_crush
September 1, 2007
Judgement: "..if you are going to post something at least stand by it."
Definitely. I still stand by my earlier statement that "I have trouble with taking what you say seriously or in treating you as a peer."
Happy now?
Posted by grape_crush
September 1, 2007
but I would really like to treat you as a queer...
Posted by PunditMom
September 2, 2007
If only one could think that this would bring a truce. But I suspect that, unfortunately, this will only add fuel to the fire, since the whole Mommy Wars topic is one that sells books and newspapers.
As for Elizabeth, I'm pulling for an Elizabeth Edwards/Michelle Obama ticket!