You’re right, and for the upteenth time, dsmissing him as a girly man who cried over a woman–a WOMAN!!! had nothing to do with sexism.

“Fight your battles where they occur.”

Thanks daddy.

“You deny Elizabeth valid status as fully actualized adult woman able to make her own decisions just as fast as you deny John Edwards a deeply felt, valid and healthy emotional life. How very feminist.”

How can you blame her, John? All her life she’s been going along thinking she undersands feminism and sexism, without ever once being exposed to johnsturgeon, world’s leading expert on feminist, to explain to her what a stupid little girl she is. How can you expect her feeble brain to comprehend without you here to explain it all? fter all, you can hold your own with anyone, but we just can’t handle it. And unlike you, some of our best frends may not have been feminists! Help us john, explain our lives in a way that our feeble minds can process. And I reallu object to zuzu traeting you condescendingly–I mean your creds speak for themselves even if you didn’t have all these feminist friends, I mean parents

“Attempting to wage a wider war on systemic, ingrained sexism, culture-wide, in order to win a national election, is to lose the White House. It is tactically unsound and not bright.”

Well, that’s us girlz, doh! Not bright kind of defines us. And we will go on thinking we matter. Hell, we might go on thinking we’re the Democrats’ most numerically significant constituency and all. We’re so dumb, but we listen when daddy explains it all to us, thankfully.

The same thing happened to Ed Muskie in the snows of New Hampshire in 1972, so it isn’t just sexism.

Oh, dear God.

How many times does this have to be freakin’ explained before it sinks in?

You never had to explain it. Everybody here knows that.

I just got through explaining upthread that, yes, men and Ed Muskie too, are subject to sexism. But citing Muskie does not deny sexism exists, NOR does it imply that Hey, everybody deals with it so it must be ok.

The Muskie episode is relevant b/c sexism and related valid issues are prevalent. Everybody faces that. It’s a reality to be dealt with. The question is, how? And how well?

After all, it’s only the second of fifty primaries– : still a long way to go, you know ’strength’ will come up as a valid issue & positive trait held by both genders, and national security is on the table. Talking about it is not sexist–even when John Edwards does it.

So the key, & the interesting thing is: What else is going on here? A lot:

1. Muskie and Tweety and Hillary’s emotional vid does not speak to Edwards’ general words or indicate some 3rd-party sexism on his part, nor employ an outrageous coded subtext.

It’s a campaign. Talk of ’strength’ is SOP; strength is not confined to one gender.

2. He’s gonna talk about resolve and strength because it’s in the job description and they’re positive qualities of men and women.

3.a. Eyewitnesses swear melting snowflakes only made it look like Muskie was crying. I didn’t see Clinton’s tears.

3.b. Buying into the Crying Frame is a huge mistake, the hubbub plays into the bullys’ hands. And is a losing proposition. It is also a lie:

4. It doesn’t work. PARTS of the electorate responds ‘weak like a woman.’ But many respond positively, as New Hampshire just proved!

5. More is at work here than sexism. When the chips are down, does a leader/Prznt/partner relentlessly stick to business? Or are their feelings their paramount concern? Emotions are great! But plenty of women keep them in check and in perspective until they finish up Job One. Voters intuitively and consciously know that. That’s valid. So maybe nailing Boehner & Rudolph G for crying instead of falling into the defensive trap is a better route.

6. Attempting to wage a wider war on systemic, ingrained sexism, culture-wide, in order to win a national election, is to lose the White House. It is tactically unsound and not bright.

I think about the kind of person Elizabeth Edwards is, and it doesn’t fit. (His Southern persona is a bit alien even to me until I adjust my reading.)

You deny Elizabeth valid status as fully actualized adult woman able to make her own decisions just as fast as you deny John Edwards a deeply felt, valid and healthy emotional life. How very feminist.

Some folks go to great lengths to get pregnant and I can’t say I understand it. But it’s a marriage and like abortion, who’s in your bed, how many kids you have and when, it’s just not my business.

Hasn’t Jane Hamsher been vilifying everybody for attacking fellow Dems? Aren’t you with the program?

Fight your battles where they occur.

I wrote a lot more than this before, but this POS software blew away the text. Read here, then comment either place.

I wrote a lot more than this before, but this POS software blew away the text. Read here, then comment either there or here.

I wrote a lot more than this before, but this POS software blew away the text. Read here, then comment either place.

So on the basis of this, you and a half-dozen other bloggers who ought to know better go off on a tear about how Edwards is a mysoginistic prick?

As far as I’m concerned, this entire story was generated out of nothing. I haven’t read this blog very often, and if this is an example of the skepticism and reasoning you apply to a story, then it looks like I wasn’t missing much.

Meanwhile, her husband had sued hospitals and drug companies for years. He knew how indifferent the medical establishment is to the welfare of women patients. And he at least went along with the hormone chug-a-lug into his wife’s bloodstream, even if he didn’t order it.