Elizabeth Edwards spoke at the Alice B Toklas Pride breakfast today, and spent a few minutes afterward talking to a half-dozen local bloggers, including me, Brian Leubitz from Calitics, Juls Rosen from Working California, Beth Spotswood from SF Gate, Paul Hogarth from Beyond Chron and Elaine Santore from Fog City Journal.

Elizabeth Edwards Speaks

In the press conference before she spoke to us, Edwards made history by supporting gay marriage, as the Chronicle reports. She also was faced with a series of questions about some passages from political consultant Bob Shrum’s book. She endeared herself to the bloggers in the crowd by referring the questioner to YouTube to see her point-by-point refutation of Shrum.

She hit what seemed to me to be her only false note when asked why she was appearing at the breakfast, but not marching in the parade. She claimed she needed to jet off to LA, and then on to Seattle (or something), before coming back to San Francisco. It may be true, but it was the only time she seemed not to be speaking from the heart.

As should not surprise anyone, the questions asked in the blogger meeting were more focused on policy than on the symbolism of what she was doing. She addressed the question of her husband’s legacy from his term in the Senate by pointing to his support of community reinvestment and his leadership against impeachment. She pointed out that he fought against a welfare reform bill that “was triangulation and capitulation by president Clinton.” She admitted that her husband’s vote for the war was “a misjudgment”, and said that he told her his experience at the 2003 California Democratic Convention–where he was booed for his support for the war–was a terrible experience.

When asked about health care, she defended the campaign’s somewhat-incremental approach on the basis that “we’re not going to jump to single payer health care. John’s plan will force the private insurers to compete against single-payer.” I am not sure I buy this.

I complimented her on the campaign’s willingness to address class issues, and asked what their priorities would be, once in office, to address the growing gap between rich and poor in the US. She pointed to four things: Raise the minimum wage; strengthen unions by levelling the legal playing field (and actually enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect organizing); economically integrating housing; and prodviding public, “green collar”, “stepping stone” jobs.

I am certainly in favor of the first two programs, and it’s hard to argue against the last (although I don’t see anything inherent in “green-collar” jobs that will make them non-exportable), but the concept of housing vouchers brought me up a little short. Her theory is that one of the barriers to better-off folks caring about poor people in the US is that when they hear there are 37 million poor people in the US, it’s too big a number. Their idea is that one of the big drivers in the success we’ve had in overcoming racim in the south is simply getting to know people of different races (She put it, somewhat rosily, that “if there’s an African American family living on your block, you’re not a bigot”). Their program, then, is to push for economic integration.

It’s kind of an interesting idea, and it at least doesn’t try to blame some sort of “culture of poverty” or other such BS. The devil is in the details, of course, and in this kind of program there are a ton of details to work out. Not to mention the risk of ending up giving people vouchers for housing that does not exist. Overall, though, I was somewhat impressed with Mrs. Edwards. She seemed mostly genuine, and seems to have an excellent grasp of the issues involved. She was clear about the times that she wasn’t in complete agreement with her husband, and overall seemed to be an informed, engaged person who is also willing to work on her spouse’s campaign as an actual partner, rather than window dressing.