Salon has a long interview with Elizabeth Edwards today. She says John Edwards is a better candidate for women than Hillary.

Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is.

And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women.

I think they are both good advocates for women. But I'm more interested in them being strong advocates for all Democratic issues than on issues solely affecting women. I don't see how we could go wrong with either Hillary or John Edwards.

Update: Ana Marie Cox weighs in and notes Drudge's false headline on this.