The Edwards campaign called. They are in a tizzy over a quote from my article, which is being sensationalized at this moment on Drudge: "Elizabeth Edwards on campaign's troubles: 'We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman'..."

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.

"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."

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

[benny05]

Ed, I hate to say this, but I think the message in using social networks as a media outlet for a campaign got lost because of that quote. It's too bad.

[Don Moore]

Is this your FIRST post at DRUDGE? I had completely overlooked the article cause the RSS didn't appear as if you were going to stir up a hornets nest.

[Patrick Eakes]

Did CNN ask you if you live in Greensboro, SC?

[John Burns]

Drudge is a tool of the GOP. It's so fraking transparent.

And do you think the guy might use some of his money to update is page design?

[Joe Guarino]

A conservative/Republican would have gotten clobbered to oblivion in the media if he/she had made the comment Ms. Edwards did. The Edwards' will survive this comment, however, with scarcely a blow landed, because of their party/ideological affiliations.

[Ed Cone]

The "media" meaning...Drudge, the enormous website which pulled the quote of of context? Or Fox News, or the Wall Street Journal, or talk radio? Or the news outlets of every description that slaughtered Howard Dean, and were cheerleaders for the invasion of the Iraq?

Update your script, please.

What exactly was wrong with the quote, anyway?

[Ivan Lenin]

There is nothing "wrong" with the quote. It's quite right in reflecting that identity politics, especially when it comes to women and non-whites, reign supreme among Democrats. And the quote also reflects Edward's campaign willingness to present him as whatever people want to see. Nobody needs Drudge or this particular quote to figure that out; it's pretty obvious.

[Kevin Murphy]

Ed--

I agree. In context the quote makes a lot of sense. She's basically saying that the Press is completely superficial, focusing on race and gender "firsts" and not on issues. Drudge especially; this instance being another example.

I despise Edwards' politics, and find much of what his campaign puts out chilling, but I gotta defend them on this one.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"What exactly was wrong with the quote anyway?"

Maybe the way it was used by "a friend": http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/08/edwards-campaign-called.html

[CalGrad]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the quote either...I think Mrs. Edwards is spot on in her assessment. But I also agree that if Mrs. Bush had said it about her husband--or Mrs. Edwards'--it'd be much bigger news than just Drudge, and would be trumpeted from here to eternity as proof positive of the essential veniality of the GOP in general and GWB specifically. This is politics, which is very unfortunate, especially in this case because it meant nothing negative about Dems, the GOP, blacks, or women--in or out of context.

[Letalis]

EE is right. JE is just another rich, white, male, lawyer with good hair, a reasonably handsome face, and a huge amibition. What is newsworthy about that when the two primary competitors are a "Black" and a "Woman"?

Oh, and I wouldn't vote for JE for dog catcher and I think EE is despicable.

Yada yada yada.

[Sir William of Ockam]

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman."

She could have added "So we have to roll with the only talent a filthy-rich personal injury lawyer has the advantage in - demagogery. But even there, you know, his opponents are no slouches!"

[Mike G]

Why this is so important is because she is implying that Obama and Clinton are receiving more media coverage and $$$ because they are either "black" or a "woman". She needs to bow out of this campaign until it's over, if it's not already.

[PeteDrum]

Drudge must be doing something right. I see him pilloried as a tool of the DNC about as much as a tool of the GOP

[John Hood]

Very interesting piece, by the way, Ed. Great job.

I wouldn't worry too much — surely the hoopla will significant increase the number of people who end up reading your reporting about Democratic and Republican online campaigning, even if they follow the link for a different reason.

[Patrick]

That may be the way Elizabeth Edwards "rolls," but it probably isn't the way for John Edwards to get elected president. I think their personal story is one of courage and dignity, but from a campaign perspective in this media environment, Mrs. Edwards is a loose cannon.

[Neo]

Just when I finally found something genuine about Edwards, we're told it's a burden.

New candidates .. Please.

[John Burns]

As soon as Drudge links to your site, Ed, the caliber of your comments drops. Did you notice that?

[TallDave]

But they COULD make John Edwards poor.

How bout it, guys?

[Dash]

Well it's a stupid comment. It will be played as her essentially saying being a minority makes it easier to win office, i.e. poor us, we're rich white folks... you know, the underdogs. =p

[BigTomFromVegas]

Edwards still has a chance, right? Obama's not really black enough, Hillary's not really woman enough. I mean, isn't that what they're saying about each other, the Dems? Unless Edwards isn't rich enough, or poor enough, or whatever enough to be real. Right?
Who in their right mind would want the lousy job, anyway?

[Joe Killian]

You know what's weird...I read that and didn't really think anything about it. I mean...it seems sort of obvious that media outlets are going to do the "can a black man/woman be elected" stories -- so Edwards is essentially out of those. That seemed like the context to me.

I'm not sure what the hubub is about, really. He was on the cover of Esquire recently with the cover headline reading: "Can a white man still be elected president?"

It's not exactly foreign territory.

[The CA]

I get the point Elizabeth was making. I don't see where it is being taken out of context. Drudge didn't write the article he linked to. Ed wrote the actual article, and those were her words, so I don't see the lack of context. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

I thought last month Edwards was claiming he was more of a woman than Hillary. Has he dropped that theme already?

[The CA]

To clarify- Ed wrote the article the quote came from, not the article that appeared on Drudge- that wasn't written by Drudge, so blaming Drudge for taking it out of context (again, how so?) is a non-starter.

[The CA]

My bad. Ed did write the article. I missed the byline the first time around. Drudge played no role in the article.

[Ed Cone]

The context that was lacking at Drudge was the context of gender and race supposedly driving media coverage that Edwards doesn't get. Drudge plucked out those few words and presented them as a disembodied statement about "campaign troubles," with no sense of what she was talking about.

I think Killian has it about right.

[The CA]

I don't see that as out of context. Raking in less funds is a problem for any campaign, and the quote is one of the explanations EE gave for it. Otherwise, what was she referring to?

[Ed Cone]

Sarah Wheaton at NYT: "Her comment was meant to justify the campaign’s heavy use of the Internet to get its message out to voters — not to her penchant for making the provocative comments or challenges to conservative pundits that have generated press and fund-raising pitches for the campaign."

[Joe Killian]

It seems obvious from the sentences before and after it that she was talking about media coverage related to the other candidates being a black man and a white woman -- that he's not going to get any press based on his race or gender (or public perceptions of those things).

[The CA]

I agree Joe, but that is exactly in context with the exception that you left out the link between the statement and fundraising that EE clearly made. Where the noise about it being out of context anywhere is baffling to me. The NYT article Ed quotes is actually a little less accurate than your synopsis, Joe, but still pretty much correct. Other than Ed, who else is claiming that anyone has taken it out of context, and who are the people taking it out of context?

This sounds like a manufactured controversy to me.

[Mister Snitch!]

You know, if Edwards REALLY wanted to be President, he COULD SO become a woman. I question his commitment.

[David Boyd]

Public perception of his gender? I've seen the primping video, but is it really up for debate?

[Sally-O]

Like they say: a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

Who doubts that when EE complains that John can't be made black or a woman, that she's giving voice to real frustration that these two things, at least, can't be faked as easily as everything else Edwards pretends to be?

If Edwards thought we were stupid enough, I have no doubt that he'd attempt to outdo both of his major competitors by trying to pass himself off as a black woman.

[The CA]

"If Edwards thought we were stupid enough, I have no doubt that he'd attempt to outdo both of his major competitors by trying to pass himself off as a black woman."

Best line of the day.

[Ardsgaine]

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman."

Actually, the latter is quite within the realm of possibility, and would probably garner him a lot of votes. I say go for it. What's he got to lose?

[Anthony]

"What's he got to lose?"

Heh.

[Banjo]

The Breck Girl has enough female qualities to pass for one.

[Gate]

John Edwards says there are two Americas. We want to live in his. Fighting against poverty would be so much easier for us if we had a big mansion to go home to at night.

[jows]

I don't see why it would be a problem for the dems anyway. If you want them to believe John Edwards is a female minority (of any variety) then just get another leftist to proclaim it and they will all accept it as an undeniable fact. They may even get really angry if someone tries to disprove it in their presence.

[Patrick]

I don't understand it, but it has to be acknowledged that John Edwards rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And it seems not to be just the wingnuts, amply represented here, who try to belittle and feminize every prominent liberal male. Do you have to be poor to advocate policies that you think will help poor people? What then of Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy, or even Lyndon Johnson? George Bush argues that the economic and tax policies he promotes are best for working class and poor Americans. Is he to be disqualified from making the argument (or ridiculed as Edwards is) because he owns a huge ranch in Texas and his enviably large, reputable and successful family retreats in the summer to an ancestral compound perched spectacularly on a stony point on the coast of Maine? Can a president only talk about poverty if he is poor himself? If so, the poor might as well start packing, because that isn't about to happen.

[Ed Cone]

Just to be clear, the flood of comments came from a link at Instapundit -- Drudge linked directly to the article, not this page, Instapundit linked the both the quote and the main article, and this post on context.

I think there is some evidence in this thread as to why Instapundit doesn't allow comments at his blog.

[Jane]

Does EE have "hoof & mouth" disease? Seems as if JE would be better off if she shut up.

[The CA]

As I said on my post this morning, the more I learn about John & Elizabeth Edwards, the more they remind me of Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker. You just get the sense that you are being conned.

[billg]

>>"Do you have to be poor to advocate policies that you think will help poor people?"

If anyone believes that, then they have given up on any national politician advocating for the poor so long as being rich remains a prerequisite for running for office. That's probably just fine for the Instapundit crowd.

[Ed Cone]

CNN reports the quote in context.

[Mick]

I am no fan of Edwards, either this "Lefty" version or the previous "Moderate". BUT, I see zero controversy in the comments as they ring true to me. I will admit I feel that had someone with an R behind their name said such a thing all hell would break loose. Of course, Teresa Heinz probably would have been skewered as well.

No biggie to me

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, you're just trolling with that comment. Jim and Tammy were charlatan hucksters who took money from the poor and spent millions on themselves. Tammy died owing many hundreds of thousands in unpaid taxes. Jim was accused of rape and convicted of massive accounting fraud.

Edwards is really rich, and he's trying to help the poor. It's not hypocritical to help the poor and be rich. It's not even hypocritical live a high-flying lifestyle while helping the poor. Helping the poor is good - a guy named Jesus had a lot to say about that. Even if Edwards shopped at WalMart, gave all his money to food kitchens, and went to Great Clips, he couldn't significantly change the lives of very many people. He's trying to change the system in big ways. His money gives him a platform. You might not agree with his methods or his motives, but the goal is noble.

I might not vote for the guy - haven't made up my mind yet - but I like what he's saying about reducing the incidence and the impact of poverty.

[Joe Killian]

The "but he's rich -- look how rich he is, and how he made his money!" thing is, to me, really strange coming from conservatives.

It's a tactic the most out there (and least successful) leftists have been using for years. It's the kind of silly, anti-capitalist sentiment P.J. O'Rourke picks on in his book Eat the Rich. All of my favorite conservatives make this point, which is certainly true no matter how many kids on the protest circuit deny it: wealth is not a zero sum game. Rich peoples' wealth does not cause poverty. Particularly when so many rich people (Edwards, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates) use their incredible wealth (and Edwards is not really in the league of the other two examples in terms of wealth) to help the poor and draw attention to the things that cause poverty.

Something I've always sort of hated about the left, frankly, is its distaste for wealthy people sort of on principle. It's terrible to see some conservatives buying a ticker on that train, at least where Edwards is concerned.

[Joe Killian]

"ticket on that train."

[Jon]

I remember a comment by a Dem strategist during the 2004 Presidential election who, of course, wanted John Kerry to win the Presidency, wanted to retain Laura Bush as the First Lady.

EE, shades of Teresa Heinz. Though, the entertainment factor would be exciting.