Stop following me!

Matt Zeitlin notes Elizabeth Edwards getting a bit weird:

Elizabeth Edwards has been straddling the line between the unafraid, aggressive left wing clarion voice of her husbands campaign and gaffe prone, petty attack dog. With her reaction to Hillary’s health care plan, she may have finally crossed over to just being shrill:

Elizabeth Edwards accused Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton of copying the health care plan outlined more than seven months ago by her husband, John.

The New York senator has failed to lead on an issue in which she has extensive experience, Edwards said.

“Does Mrs. Clinton’s plan seem very familiar to you?” Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Mrs. Clinton has — seven and a half months after John unveiled his health care plan — unveiled a health care plan that is in every material respect just like John’s.”

So, Elizabeth Edwards is criticizing Hillary for…being too much like her husband? If this doesn’t make sense to you, you’re not alone. Would Edwards be more happy if Hillary came out with a plan that didn’t have a mandate and didn’t have a public option? Would Edwards criticize her less if she came out with the Bush/Giuliani plan? For Clinton, coming out with a plan very similar to Edwards’ isn’t “failing to lead,” it’s the exact opposite. Is Edwards tarred with trying to implement a similar system and massively failing? Do various right wing media types have a prefab story line for Edwards plan, with cute names like “EdwardsCare 2.0″ or “Son of EdwardsCare”? Of course not, for Clinton, she’s making her self a target to her opponents by coming out with this plan. She is taking a risk to a central achieve progressive goal, and that should be commended, not scorned.

This would seem more of a time for a jokey "Why not elect the guy who thought it up?" response, not this slightly whiny tone. There's a weird, protective, send-a-woman-to-attack-a-woman vibe about this. What's next? Des she sue Ms Clinton for alienation of affections?

Comments

Maybe Elizabeth means, "In every material respect it's just like John's, but I didn't really like his plan. I was hoping Hilary would give us something more Canadian."

Posted by Colin Fraizer | September 21, 2007 12:24 PM

To be fair, I think that Ms Edwards was criticizing Hillary for failing to lead on this issue. What would make me think this? This passage:

"The New York senator has failed to lead on an issue in which she has extensive experience, Edwards said."

Now, I'm not going to vote for either of them, and I'd rather we didn't create a government-run, universal-health-care policy. But if you're going to criticize the lady, at least criticize her legitimately.

Posted by Half Canadian | September 21, 2007 12:34 PM

What's was the big hurry to rush out with a healthcare plan? Nothing can happen until next year- Edwards et al are just whining because they are far behind in the polls. Edwards hasn't had a real job in quite a while- no wonder he's had time to write proposals, stand in pickett lines and shake hand with each and every Iowan. That's his job-running for President-- Hillary Clinton has missed fewer votes than any of the others running and she continues to represent the people of NY with consistent high quality. Elizabeth Edwards would do well to talk about her husband -not throw dirt at Hillary to see what sticks- it's not becoming and it doesn't seem to work.

Posted by veritas | September 21, 2007 12:59 PM

Let me get this straight: The time-worn political campaign gambit of accusing your opponent of copying your good idea is, in this corner of the world, considered "throw[ing] dirt" and "whiny" and "shrill." And, since it's a wife criticizing a female candidate, it's sexist to boot!

Honestly, have you hothouse flowers ever seen a presidential campaign before? Or any campaign? I know it's great sport over here to squeeze every last drop of condescending, high-minded outrage possible out of any given candidates' (Dems especially, of course!) action or statement. But jeezamay crow, this is maybe the most trivial statement to ever be 'analyzed.'

Posted by Woody Bombay | September 21, 2007 1:28 PM

We will never have affordable health care until we fix the problems. We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Posted by Dr Coles | September 21, 2007 4:16 PM

"Why not elect the guy who thought it up?"

Mitt Romney?

Posted by Njorl | September 21, 2007 5:05 PM

Look at from whom Hillary gets megabucks. It's very revealing, as much of it comes from the very industries that have been responsible for the outrageous cost of healthcare today.

Follow the money!

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Mitt Romney (R)
$228,260
Barack Obama (D)
$161,124
Hillary Clinton (D)
$146,000
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$95,300
Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$65,000
John Edwards (D)
$5,650

Hillary finally caved to the pressures (money) and now she is not free, like John to get the job done.

Elizabeth has been wise for a long time, and she doesn't have to dance to the puppeteers.

-David k. Beckwith
Charlotte

Posted by Dave Beckwith | September 21, 2007 5:15 PM

The quote from Elizabeth Edwards didn't seem particularly shrill to me. She made a comment about Hilary's health care plan being similar to her husband's.

Now if Hilary's plan is not at all similar to Edwards', then Elizabeth looks silly. If it is, then she's just pointing out a fact.

I don't understand why this is remarkable? Elizabeth Edwards is nutty enough that it should be easy to find actual examples of nuttiness.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 21, 2007 5:38 PM

Right now, I wish we were using the Canadian loonie as our standard of money. Our boys in the Big House aren't doing a very good job protecting the US from foreign invasion.

If you look into the Seattle Times the last week or so, you'll find out that the Canucks have been coming across the border and buying up all this 'cheap property' we have here now. Buying land in Canada has never been any kind of easy task, if at all, the way we consider property to be private, that is.

Posted by beneficial | September 21, 2007 7:23 PM

"Elizabeth Edwards is nutty enough that it should be easy to find actual examples of nuttiness."

Sez you.

Elizabeth Edwards has more class, poise, and integrity than any of the finks, dwarfs, phonies, and frogs running for the Republican nomination.

You want "nutty"? Try Giuliani's wife. Although, no, "nutty" isn't really the word. "Repellent" is more accurate.

Posted by MrWonderful | September 21, 2007 7:26 PM

There is nothing whiny or shrill or nutty about Mrs. Edwards' comment. She is merely pointing out that Hillary's plan is much like her husband's. This is politics. People say things like this. The partisans here are reaching for a controversy that simply isn't there.

If I were a Republican, I would be feeling pretty desperate these days too, though.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | September 22, 2007 5:20 PM