On Elizabeth Edwards

I admit it. I was a John Edwards supporter.

Having attended college and graduate school in North Carolina, the Tarheel state offered opportunities for my first involvement in political campaigns. In 1998 I posted fliers and stuffed envelopes for Edwards' senate campaign.

Early in 2006 I believed that Edwards had a real opportunity to win the Democratic presidential nomination. I suspected Obama had an insufficient ground organization to effectively challenge Clinton. (Hilarious in hindsight I know.) I also suspected that Hillary was too polarizing and off-message to win. (I was a little closer on that prediction.) Edwards was my early pick, in part, because he is a charming, white, Southerner and whenever the Democrats had managed to win in the modern era it was with this kind of candidate: think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

In assessing his electability I counted Elizabeth Edwards among John's greatest political assets. Elizabeth is smart, tough, and unafraid of political engagement. And her personal biography made John much more likeable. Elizabeth was the mother who supported her husband's turn to politics after the tragic death of her son. Elizabeth was the woman who chose, in the face of this tragedy, to have more children much later than she had planned. To do this Elizabeth endured fertility treatments and the side effects that accompany them. Then Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer. Hers is a compelling narrative shared, in parts, by many contemporary women. Hers is a story that resonates with women across partisan differences.

And John loved her.

Yes he indulged in expensive haircuts. Yes he seemed a little too slick and too sappy at the same time. Yes his message was a bit one-note. But he loved a smart, funny, intense woman who gained weight and lost her breasts. John's love and admiration for Elizabeth was among his most interesting personality traits. So campaign funds misappropriation aside, when John Edwards' affair was revealed it was more than a routine ethical breach. It wiped away one of the things that had anchored him as a compelling public figure.

It was for these reasons that I followed Elizabeth Edwards' return to public life last week. She was vilified by some and pitied by others. But more than the personal details of her estrangement, Elizabeth Edwards represents a broader problem of the role of women in American politics. I get the sense that Elizabeth is as angry about being cheated politically as much as being cheated on personally.

Elizabeth Edwards was relying on John to make a space for her political work, a way for her ability to impact policy, and a forum for her to use her political voice. When John was silenced she was too. She is trying to reclaim her voice and space in public life.

Far too many women still find that the path to political prominence and influence relies on their intimate relationships with men. Many educated, aggressive, public minded women have found their way to political influence by being the daughter or wife of a powerful man. This remains true even in this moment of seeming unprecedented political achievement by women. Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House, but she is also the daughter of a powerful Democratic mayor. Hillary Rodham Clinton put 18 million cracks in the political glass ceiling, but her political career rests firmly on the shoulders of her past-president husband. Even Caroline Kennedy's new political relevance this election cycle was firmly rooted in the biographies of her family's men.

I don't mean to diminish the qualifications or capacity of these women. Quite the opposite; I believe the real tragedy is that many women who are deeply capable and superb potential leaders end up withering in the shadow of men rather than making independent contributions.

When political women rely on political men they are vulnerable to men's choices, particularly their personal and sexual choices. For years I was thinking of Elizabeth as a political resource for her husband, all the time forgetting she was a political resource for the nation. The point was not how Elizabeth helped John get elected, but why it wasn't Elizabeth all along running for office herself.

I am tired of seeing women's political achievement as an adjunct to that of the men in their lives. One of the critical tasks we face as a nation is unclogging the political pipeline to allow women's talent to flow more freely. That commitment is why I am proud to be associated with the Center for American Women and Politics here in New Jersey, which is actively working to prepare women to run for political office.

For Mother's Day I think I'll make a donation to EMILY's list…in Elizabeth Edwards name.

Comments (42)

1. I enjoyed this analysis --spot on I think. Elizabeth Edwards was probably a bigger asset to John Edwards than any other presidential candidate's spouse. She was the flaw corrector.

   I didn't take a particular shine from Edwards in the '04 campaign, but his incessantly clear voiced message had me by late '07. It was so refreshing to see a presidential candidate with a real chance at the White House saying things like, "The power brokers in DC will give up their power when we take it away from them."

   No wonder he was almost universally despised in DC. It is one of the more frustrating facts of modern American politics that being refreshingly honest --and equally importantly, well fleshed-out-- and yes, confrontational, is considered too "edgy" by so many voters.

   We've been well trained. And Barack Obama appears to have stepped into the starring role of Cesar Millan for the masses.

   On some important fronts I hope we misbehave. It'll certainly make for much better television, in any case.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/10/2009 @ 9:09pm

2. It's great that a male politician's policies pale in importance to where he puts his penis. No wonder we have such an awesome government!

   Posted by Mandaliet at 05/10/2009 @ 9:59pm

3. Good post, Melissa. The dilemma you mentioned makes it imperative that we revive feminist activism. Emily's List is an effective group, but I don't think it's really interested in abolishing male privilege. We need a revival of "the personal is political" feminism. Radical feminism certainly had its excesses, but at its best, its insights were spot-on brilliant.

   Posted by ktrig at 05/10/2009 @ 10:32pm

4. Paradoxically, the manner of Elizabeth's re-appearance on the national stage reveals precisely why John could not help finding erotic release elsewhere.

   Many Anglo-Saxon wives still apparently believe that being a good trooper is enough for sustaining intimacy and sexual attraction. That would be bribery through loyalty.

   I find no problem in John's dalliance with the video woman. In fact, I find it perfectly natural that he was attracted to an energetic, provocative, non-conformist and creative person. just as it is natural for her to gravitate towards confidence and good looks.

   Perfect wives are always going to lose this competition.

   Posted by yaldabaoth at 05/10/2009 @ 11:09pm

5. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/10/2009 @ 9:09pm

   It is becoming increasingly clear that Edwards was a PHONEY all the way around.

   The man had no REAL concern for "the people", B_KOOL, because he was willing to risk an easy Republican victory in 2008 when, not if, his affair would be revealed...or AT BEST, the derailment of his agenda if he won and likely return of a GOP Congress in 2010 and another Dubya i 2012.

   If he had REALLY cared, he would have dropped out well before Iowa rather than egotistically run and try to get the nomination and risk "President McCain".

   As noted on Stephanopolous, his staff atleast were patriots and were planning on sabotaging his primary run if he looked like he might win, because THEY atleast knew what would happen and CARED...even if Edwards didn't.

   Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 06:22am

6. It's great that a male politician's policies pale in importance to where he puts his penis. No wonder we have such an awesome government!

   Posted by Mandaliet at 05/10/2009 @ 9:59pm

   A politician's policies are only as good as his character. Whether he pays his taxes, how he treats waitstaff, whether he is honest, and whether he can be trusted; these all matter as much or more than where he puts his penis.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/11/2009 @ 06:56am

7. Elisabeth Edwards isn't our First Lady, but she is our Frist Victim. Millisa claims "She was vilified by some".

   Really?

   Do you have any names?

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/11/2009 @ 06:58am

8. Whether he pays his taxes.... these all matter as much or more than where he puts his penis.---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/11/2009 @ 06:56am

   Well, Darin, we'll keep that in mind for 2012-

   February 18, 2009 4:46 PM Palin Ordered To Pay Back Taxes Posted by CBSNews.com | 110

   This post was written by Igor Kossov.

   Alaska officials on Wednesday ruled that Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin must pay back taxes to the IRS.

   The exact amount the governor must pay is not yet known, but the Associated Press estimates she owes taxes on more than $17,000 in per-diem expenses.

   Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 08:02am

9. Mask, I'm way ahead of you. Check out what I wrote about Palin on Nichols' Beat thread.

   And I don't consider taxes to be like sin with binary outcomes of guilty or innocent.

   Sebelius' problems of paying a few thousand dollars for missing documentation goes way beyond any standard a normal person should be held to. She was in material compliance and gets a pass from me.

   Killefer also gets a pass. It was $1000 on an employee settled long before she became a nominee. That's material compliance.

   Solis is getting greyer. What her husband did with his business was definitely not material compliance, but it was her husband and not her so gets rapped for the "birds of a feather" guilt by association.

   I think Dascle is next. Clear he was not materially compliant, but there is a possibility that he thought he was. Even so, he should have known.

   Gietner is, in my opinion, the worst of the lost. He had to know he owed US income tax on his World Bank income. He was materially out of compliance and had to know it.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/11/2009 @ 08:57am

10. thank goodness he did not go farther than he did.

    he had such potential...such a pity he ditched it for the tyranny of mister winky...

    but she remains a class act despite the slightly sketchy voyeurism...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2009 @ 09:16am

11. uh - exhibitionism that is...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2009 @ 09:16am

12. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/11/2009 @ 08:57am

    Yep, I noted the end of the love affair.

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

13. I can't believe this horrible post was written by a woman who actually seems to think she is some sort of feminist.

    "Many educated, aggressive, public minded women have found their way to political influence by being the daughter or wife of a powerful man. This remains true even in this moment of seeming unprecedented political achievement by women. "

    Really, Melissa? And what about George W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, JFK, Franklin Roosevelt, Al Gore, etc. I could go on with that forever.

    Why is it that if a woman is connected to a powerful man is somehow lessens her achievement but no one says the same thing about men who were connected to powerful fathers or brothers? Face it. Politics is often a family business-- in part because their name becomes an asset that other candidates don't have, in part because running a successful campaign is skill best learned by doing, in part because entering public service is a value that people pass on to their children, and in part because understanding the process from having someone close to you go first builds your confidence that you are capable of taking on the challenge.

    When you say things like "Elizabeth Edwards feels cheated politically" you are spouting off exactly the kind of verbal abuse that men have heaped on women for years in order to keep them out of politics and keep them down. If a woman marries a powerful man, it's because she secretly want his power- she is an ambitious she-devil who cares only about herself. If a woman who is connected to a powerful husband runs for office, it is because she only wanted to use him to get there in the first place.

    You are not only letting men get away with this garbage you are buying into it. It's an embarrassment!

    Posted by sel77 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:37am

14. This is a fabulous piece. Thank you for a way to think about Elizabeth Edwards as a whole human being, and not just as one of the many cliches that are being bandied about with such carelessness.

    I have a good friend who lived in Chapel Hill for several years - the quote from her is, "Everyone (in that town) loves Elizabeth Edwards." That doesn't happen if someone isn't both kind and possessed of serious "substance."

    And while it is easy - and tempting - to attach a series of judgments and labels to both John Edwards' behavior and both Edwards' choices following those unfortunate episodes ... I think none of us know what really went on and none of us are exactly in a position to judge.

    What I really like about this piece is that you gave all of us another lens through which to view the woman and the issue - but one in which our meditations/conclusions might actually take us somewhere better on down the line.

    Posted by swkidder at 05/11/2009 @ 12:07pm

15. The dilemma you mentioned makes it imperative that we revive feminist activism. Emily's List is an effective group, but I don't think it's really interested in abolishing male privilege. We need a revival of "the personal is political" feminism. Radical feminism certainly had its excesses, but at its best, its insights were spot-on brilliant.

    Posted by ktrig at 05/10/2009 @ 10:32pm

    By all means, please revive radical feminism, today if possible. Start holding protest rallies, burning bras, vilifying men, and all the other marks of the miscreants that filled the ranks of radical feminism. Oh, and don't forget to call for the end of marriage (that will endear you to the homosexuals, or leave them even more confused).

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 1:20pm

16. Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 1:20pm

    Curious, Larry, what exactly is the NON-radical form of feminism that you support....what does it entail?

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 1:35pm

17. Curious, Larry, what exactly is the NON-radical form of feminism that you support....what does it entail?

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 1:35pm

    where did I ever say I support feminism at all?

    I think feminism is just a ploy by the godless who are often marxist in their leanings, to tear up the American family

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 1:42pm

18. Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 1:42pm

    Well, given atleast ONE definition of "feminism" is "equal rights for women"....

    are you saying there is NO definition of feminism that you support???

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 1:51pm

19. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Edwards was a PHONEY all the way around...."

    ~Maskot at 06:22am

    By the severity of the CAPS attack in that post, Maskot, it's readily apparent that a shit storm must have gone off in your limbic brain. Please, relax ol' boy.

    Perhaps you missed some of the discussions here recently regarding entheogens and consciousness. You may also have missed the Oprah interview of John and Elizabeth last week.

    I'd suggest that if you can find it in yourself to put one and infinity together you may yet reach the midpoint and find a sort of contentment there. Perhaps.

    Alright, I'm kiddin'....sort of. But calling Edwards a phoney "all the way around" is very much akin to painting yourself into the same corner you so enjoy enticing others into. Perhaps a more level-headed and restrained analysis would state the most obvious.

    John Edwards became a huge disappointment to himself, his wife and kids, and whole lot of people in this country.

    Maybe you're a PHONEY too, Maskot? I won't answer for you.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 1:56pm

20. Well, given atleast ONE definition of "feminism" is "equal rights for women"....

    are you saying there is NO definition of feminism that you support???

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 1:51pm

    That's not what you asked me. I do support equal rights for all citizens, male, female, color, or ethnicity. But it doesn't require feminism, just the Constitution.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 2:04pm

21. "the tyranny of mister winky"

    Hmmm, more like the tyranny of Ms Winky in this case, as Ms Video producer accosted him 1st. And he ran up the white flag of surrender post haste.

    Q: isn't Elizabeth doing wonders for the Edwards children here? but perhaps that's a small sacrifice to make, the least the kids could do for their country, there being no draft any longer. So suffer ye little children, Ma has a just gripe & just has to go public with it. It is, after all, the American way. Air it on TV & be redeemed. While selling your book.

    Posted by sloper at 05/11/2009 @ 2:11pm

22. Since the Sinister Minister is in the house, here is a fine live performance by The The. If you'll recall from yesterday, I posted Hank Sr's "I Saw the Light" mostly for your listening pleasure.

    This one's a toast to your "Clusterbombness" --original track is from the Mind Bomb record:

    tinyurl.com/qqhwah

    Enjoy!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 2:18pm

23. Money quote from above youtube post:

    "If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today.....

    He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA."

    Think about it Larr, think about it real hard.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 2:25pm

24. Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 2:04pm

    Well, Larry, feminism IS defined (on one level) as "equal rights for women"...

    and given the need for the 19th Amendment, "just the Constitution" wasn't enough, was it? And I'm sure you have no problem with the 19th, right???

    So obviously by ONE definition, you DO support a FORM of feminism, right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 2:40pm

25. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 1:56pm

    Okay, KOOL...explain Edwards' thinking?

    Did he expect that NOBODY (sorry, just using it for emphasis) would ever find out bout Rielle Hunter?

    Your choices are-

    1. "Yes, he thought it would stay underwraps until he left office after his 2nd term ended in 2017"...and that means Edwards was monumentally stupid/naive and didn't deserve to be anywhere near the Oval Office.

    2. "No, he knew it had to come out sometime". Okay, Johnny...when?

    2A- When you were the nominee for the Democrats and it would KILL your candidacy and let John McCain win a victory he should (and fortunately did) easily lose? PLUS, likely fall-out that would hurt Democrats?

    2B- After you're elected, and it derails your Presidency within the first year, thus ending ALL hopes of reform as your credibility is shot. Plus again, likely leading to fall-out on the Democratic Party that would cost them Congress?

    2C- Late in your 2nd Term...if so, see "#1"

    So come on, KOOL, explain where we go with that? Cuz I only see two options-

    1. Edwards was/is an idiot.

    2. Edwards was/is a gigantic egotist who cared more about his own ambition than the good of the country.

    Either way...a phoney or false, if you like.

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 2:46pm

26. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 2:18pm

    I don't generally listen to or even know about bands formed after the mid 70's.

    about the latest after the early 70's that I listen to would include Elvis Costello, U2, Phil Collins and Genesis, Smashing Pumpkins, Janis Ian, Tracy Chapman, probably a few more, but can't think of any right now.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 3:11pm

27. Posted by snowball666 at 05/11/2009 @ 5:18pm

    I have a number of music artists that I have always enjoyed who's politics is far apart from my own. In fact most of the music artists,especially those from the 60's.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 5:57pm

28. Very interesting how Condi Rice's name did not come up with Pelosi's, Clinton's, and Kennedy's when speaking of politically accomplished women.

    You have to be a liberal to be on that list...otherwise, your accomplishments aren't worthy. What a pathetic, insulting double standard.

    Shame on you Ms. Lacewell.

    Posted by jimmylove at 05/11/2009 @ 7:00pm

29. Posted by jimmylove at 05/11/2009 @ 7:00pm

    You're right, jimmy.

    Condi should be credited...in her part in getting us to spend a TRILLION dollars to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad and KILLING 4100+ American soldiers to do it.

    Full credit.

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 7:09pm

30. You need some eye holes in that mask. You are blinded by your partisanship. If Rice were a liberal, should would be lauded by the left for being a black, female Secretary of State. But since she's a Republican, she's simply a murderer...which is what you just called her.

    And if you're concerned about wasteful government spending, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

    Posted by jimmylove at 05/11/2009 @ 7:18pm

31. You're right, jimmy.

    Condi should be credited...in her part in getting us to spend a TRILLION dollars to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad and KILLING 4100+ American soldiers to do it.

    Full credit.

    Posted by Mask at 05/11/2009 @ 7:09pm

    Yes Jimmy, Bush and Cheney should have listened to leftists like Mask who would have let Saddam continue to commit genocide and once the Masks of the world got sanctions lifted, he would have rebuilt all of his WMD and been an even great threat to the world.

    Like all good leftists, Mask prefers to wait until thousands of Americans are dead before taking any action.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 7:27pm

32. The comments written underneath this article by MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL really stink. While I certainly don't like a certain one-sided-ness I see in her perspective, based on what she wrote, what I see in the comments is yet another example of a Nation author who is completely wasted on his/her apparent audience.

    Addressing what she wrote, I find her writing and apparent perspective rife with the same sort of mentality that alienates me from much feminist thinking - a combination of navel-gazing and bunker mentality. Let me explain on the off chance that H-L is actually reading this comment - what I see in her writing is such an absolute focus on the plight of Elizabeth Edwards, without a concern for the plight of John Edwards, that rapidly segues into an insular, hermetically sealed world view that seems to only include as subjects of depth other female figures.

    John Edwards made a big mistake, but that shouldn't negate him as a public figure, nor does is it eliminate the depth he had, even in H-L's mind, at least until he had an extra-marital affair.

    What if we learned that Elizabeth Edwards had an extra-marital affair that she kept concealed? Would H-L suddenly see Elizabeth Edwards as a superficial figure to be written off? Or would that affair instead be explained to us as the behavior of a still-deep and meaningful public figure?

    I suspect that, if we looked more completely at both Edwards, what we could see are two figures facing an incredibly painful situation, coupled with the added pressure of a national political career and the corresponding spotlight. The odds are good Edwards didn't risk and sacrifice a likely presidential career for some quick sex. There probably was more to it than that. And H-L seems to miss this obvious thing.

    Posted by syfriendly at 05/11/2009 @ 9:16pm

33. BTW, the Constitution does not support equal rights for women. That's why we need feminism. And that's why we need an Equal Rights Amendment.

    Posted by ktrig at 05/11/2009 @ 9:43pm

34. Some funny stuff on this thread. And by the way, Maskot, nice job on the razing of "JimmyLove" --apparently a fawning sycophant for Condi "birth pangs" Rice.

    I don't personally hate Condi, I just think she's rather obviously a callous sell out to power. From what I've read she might even have helped Dubya steer a (very) slightly wiser course in Iraq if it wasn't for those darn bullies, Dick and Rummy.

    Yeah, Snow, I caught that line last time about the "thousand lakes". Nice sleight of hand.

    Great Lakes State of Mind (an obvious reparte to NY State of Mind since I was talking to Emile Manhattan DuBois) kind of referred to a general placidness of spirit with maybe an underlying malaise perhaps due to invasive species --some not so bad and some more pernicious.

    It's a meme war out there. I'm just trying to do my part to purge the bad and exhort the good.

    Peace out, ~B

    P.S. Almost forgot to reply to Maskot. Edwards was guilty primarily of an accute chronic case of hubris --tends to blind the afflicted. But it also provided the fiber and fire that made him so appealing --he was willing to fight like a mofo, and he had the persuasive tools to be effective at it.

    Unfortunately the fiber he possessed was of a less than desirable moral content.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:16pm

35. One more thought:

    I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run....hopefully to a place where constitutional theory is not just pie in the sky, torture is off the table, and impeachment is a featured course when the guests request it --kinda like monkey brains but better.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:27pm

36. I just ain't feelin' Edwards, ma or pa Never did. Couldn't stand the made for TV repetitiveness. Grew so tired listening within minutes! Tired of the poor poverty mills pull yerself up bootstraps schtick. He had that same ol' Bush angle going actually-- which is look I'm rich and important but I'm really one of you. And then implying 'one of you' meant you morons, he went on to talk like a third grader. I don't think he is that smart. Winning over jurors with the same schtick is no sign of smarts. As if the electorate consists of those who can't get out of jury duty.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/11/2009 @ 11:56pm

37. I thought us lefties were arguing FOR sanctions. Silly me.

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/11/2009 @ 9:48pm

    Snowball, when the threat of war was real, you guys were shouting "sanctions" from the rooftops. But twelve months earlier you (or people standing next to you that are indistinguishable from you to people like me) were arguing that US sanctions had murdered 500,000 Iraqi children and we are barbaric and the sanctions should be lifed immediately.

    (WAMM is an acronym for Women Against Military Madness)

    http://www.worldwidewamm.org/newsletters/ 2008/1008/polly.html

    1. As a result of the years of U.S. sanctions prior to the invasion, over 500,000 Iraqi children have died.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 07:17am

38. Like all good leftists, Mask prefers to wait until thousands of Americans are dead before taking any action.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 7:27pm

    Boy, I'm sure glad you hate people who stereotype.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 07:52am

39. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/11/2009 @ 10:16pm

    Sorry, KOOL, but I don't count ego that could have led to Caribou Barbie being a 72 year old heartbeat away from the Button to be a "positive".

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 07:55am

40. I was just being snarky with Anti, but I DO still prefer sanctions over 'shock and awe'...

    I found Blix and the boys credible in the run-up and am definitely the type to know before I pull triggers...

    And please don't jump to any conclusions about me supporting terror...

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 07:42am

    Nothing to disagree with here, but for the 100th time: Reps/Cons think Dems/Libs are naive; Dems/Libs think Reps/Cons are evil.

    Yeah Blix was doing a credible job, but what many of your teammate naively ignored was the behind the scenes work France and Russia were doing to undermine support for sanction on the UN security council.

    And what do you know, we later recovered documents implicating French and Russion UN officials as being complicit in the largest corruption ever to occur in human history: the multi-billion dollar UN Oil for Food bribery scandal.

    In the run up to the war Bush Admin officials were wieghing the risks of sanctions being lifted and I mentioned those concerns here before. You may choose to beleive the risk was immaterial, but you opinion is 180 degrees out of phase with the reality of billion dollar bribery and corruption at the UN.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:14am

41. One more thing, I tend to think Ms Polly Mann's statistic of 500,000 dead Iraqi children is hyperbolic bullshit, but what if she is even half-right and there were 250,000 dead children. That is in addition to 300,000 - 400,000 dead Iraqi's in mass graves killed by Saddam to keep order.

    That would be 600,000 preventable deaths in a country of 23 million. What kind of heartless monster would argue for leaving Saddam in place?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:25am

42. Reps/Cons think Dems/Libs are naive--------Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/12/2009 @ 08:14am

    So are you

    (A) not a Republican or conservative?

    (B) the rare exception?

    (C) see nothing wrong with that despite your attempt at "both sides are wrong", and will actually defend the idea that "Dems/Libs are likely naive" in accordance with your standard MO of FIRST appearing "non-partisan", then becoming partisan and hypocritical?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 09:01am