Do you think that Elizabeth Edwards should be given a speaking slot at the convention?

[book_worm]

I love her. She is inspirational--a woman with a compelling story of fighting against the odds and she is very strong on the Edwards campaign two top issues poverty in America and health care for all. BUT while I'm sure she would get a very warm welcome from the convention would it be coutner productive by putting the affair back in the news?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I'd guess she'd rather not, at this point...

[WeDidIt]

2. No.

If she had no idea, I'd say only if she wants it.

But no, she shouldn't.

[saracat]

3. Yes. And it is pathetic that the so called "scandal " is being used to

deprive one of our most eloquent spokesperson's on healthcare a venue but then, we don't have a real healthcare platfornm anyway. They will never allow her to speak, that is final. But I don't think she would want to know anyway. it is just too bad we don't have the courage of our convictions and can't say"so what? " The scandal has nothing to do with the issue. But we are weenies. If JFK had to write Profiles in Courage today the book would be blank!

[cali]

6. You've made it clear that your hate of Obama is so extreme

you want it to lose. Much as I like and admire Elizabeth, her voice would be diminished should she speak at the convention. The coverage would focus on the affair.

John Edwards compromised his wife's voice.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Being the suspicious type...

I cannot help but wonder: Was that the original intention? To still two voices?

[donheld]

21. .

:cry: Get over it already

[newfie11]

4. no

[NYCGirl]

5. NO. NT

[Skittles]

8. no

no point

[Swamp Rat]

9. Both Elizabeth and John Edwards.

They could talk about the work they did in New Orleans.

[AllentownJake]

10. No

Best for the Edwards to move away from the spot light for a while.

[GoesTo11]

11. Now is not the time

As much as people want to show her support, it would be a distraction that would harm the vibe of the convention.
Also, it would be just as well to not draw more press to the Edwards family right now.

God willing, she will be healthy in 4 years and can make a speech during the nomination going into Obama's second term.

[dweller]

12. silence is golden

.



dp

[bobbolink]

13. Heaven forbid that "the convention would be harmed"

"It wouldn't be good for the party"

:crazy:

[gristy]

14. No

None of the reasons you like her, valid as they may be, warrant a speaking slot at the convention.

[RB TexLa]

15. No more than I think Jill Biden, Jackie Dodd, Barbara Richardson or

Elizabeth Kucinich should.

[Muttocracy]

17. ...

:thumbsup:

[laylah]

16. I think Elizabeth should

get whatever she asks for. She is one classy lady, a rarity in this day and age.

[JVS]

18. No.

[bigwillq]

19. No

and it was a No before this scandal broke last week.

[donheld]

20. What the hell for?

So you love her. That doesn't get a girl a speaking spot at a national convention.

[emilyg]

22. No. Would be painful for her.

[deacon]

23. Absolutely NOT! They both need to shut up 'till the election is over! n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

24. agreed.

[fujiyama]

25. Hell No!

There is just nothing good to be gained from it.

It would be a distraction allowing the media to focus more attention on the affair by a time at which they will hopefully move on to other things.

Also, I'm kinda of irritated she got behind him and campaigned for him this time, even after knowing this may potentially come back to hit him. I'm with others voicing their anger about him running knowing this could be public at any time. Now, I'm not blaming her for this. God considering what she's been through - and then all this crap with her stinking husband...but at the same time, maybe it's the ambition or whatever else, she did want to first lady very badly it seems.

As for Edwards, we can only wait and see how shady this operation was. That woman got a lot of money for doing very little and showing very few actual skills. And where did the money come from? And why did he go visit Hunter without telling EE? Oh and now he just walks away from his supposed great life's work of ending poverty. I always wanted to believe him, but something about him always struck me as too damn polished and too slick...

[dkf]

26. Isn't Elizabeth in the same exact spot Hillary was in. Why do we shove her under the rug

and then laud Hillary?

I don't get it.

[XemaSab]

27. Hillary is a Senator and the former First Lady

Elizabeth Edwards, popular as she may be, has less of a political resume than Hadassah Lieberman or Joanne Kemp. :shrug:

[dkf]

28. I'm talking about before she became a Senator.

Hillary rode the coattails of Bill's infidelity, wouldn't you say?

[JI7]

29. she was actually first lady and served in a public role

and nobody is saying Elizabeth herself can't ever speak or run for office or wahtever else she may want to do.

but for now, there is no point because the media wont care about what she says but just wonder if she will mention the affair and what she looked like and how she was feeling about it.

the national convention should be about Obama and helping him become President.

it's unlikely Elizabeth wants to speak at this time anyways.

[XemaSab]

30. Hillary is still a former first lady, and a smart one

I don't know if there's a tradition of letting First Ladies speak at the convention, but even if she hadn't been a senator or a candidate for president, I'm sure a lot of people would still be interested in what she had to say. :shrug:

[bigwillq]

36. I disagree in a way

I'm sure some people would be interested in hearing her speak but if she wasn't a senator or a presidential candidate then I don't see the need for her to speak at the convention. Just my opinion, though.

[bowens43]

31. no.

[Danmel]

32. you are kidding, right?

why on earth would we call attention to this mess at the Convention

[B Calm]

33. Only if she speaks about the affair John W McCain had and how he left his wife!

[paparush]

34. Ridiculous proposition. Big Dog is going to claim the spotlight.

ugh

[robcon]

35. No. She participated in John Edwards betrayal of his country and his party.

Edwards betrayed his supporters (voters in the primaries), his volunteers, his donors and the workers in his campaign organization by running for president when the skeleton in his closet might have been exposed, had he been nominated. If he had been nominated before the whole story got out, and then the story was exposed, he would have handed the presidency to John McCain. Edwards was willing to risk the future of the country so he could attempt to be president.

For that betrayal - which Elizabeth knew about, and at least participated by making his and her relationship as an integral part of the Edwards' campaign - Elizabeth should be excluded from the convention, IMO.