What did Elizabeth really say?

This is probably overkill on this topic, but I had to write it anyway.  If it is overkill, just ignore...

Words are funny.  We tend to think of each word as having a distinct and concrete meaning, but so often the sentences we utter cannot be deciphered simply by looking at the words within them.

For example, the follow sentence can be interpreted two (or more) ways:

Thanks a lot, jerk!

If I directed this sentence toward a stranger who had just bumped into me and caused me to spill my drink, it would likely carry a tone of anger and aggression.  However, if I said it to a good friend who had just caused me to spill my drink, it might carry a humorous tone and imply don't worry about it, we're good enough friends that I can tease you about it and then move on.

Which brings us to what Elizabeth Edwards said.

The Web can be liberating. "It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads.

"In some ways, it's the way we have to go," Edwards says. "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it's nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all."

In this case, I think we can all agree that Elizabeth didn't mean exactly what her words say.  She doesn't really want to make John black or make him a woman, and is not really disappointed at her inability to do so.

There have been several interpretations of her real meaning.  Some have said that she implied Obama's only rewarding characteristic was his race and Hillary's only rewarding characteristic was her gender.  Or that she was complaining about John not getting enough attention.  I don't think either of these interpretations are correct.

Personally, I think her meaning was the following:

(A)  Several other candidates have been getting lots of media coverage because their election to the presidency would be a historic (and thus, newsworthy) event.

(B)  While there is nothing wrong with this, it does make it harder for John because he gets relatively little media coverage.

(C)  This has compelled John to reach out to blogs in order to get more media (of one kind or another) coverage.

From what I can see, there is no judgemental message here, either towards the other candidates or towards the media.  It is simply a statement of the situation as she sees it, for better or worse.

And if this is truly her meaning, let's not call Elizabeth's remarks racist or sexist.  I'll be honest, I think Elizabeth is great; on top of being an incredible woman, she's a great friend of the netroots.

I share some of Matt Stoller's reservations about John Edwards, but since both John and Elizabeth are so clearly on our side, why bring them down for nothing?  And more importantly, why waste our time spitting venom at each other over a comment that likely meant no harm?  I'm sure we all have better things to do.