Elizabeth Edwards | Gay Pride | John Edwards | News | San Francisco

Elizabeth Edwards to Appear at San Francisco Gay Pride Event

More news about the Edwards campaign today. Elizabeth Edwards is scheduled to appear at the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club breakfast at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel this weekend.

Eedwards"Organizers say it marks the highest level of presidential campaigning at the annual Gay Pride Parade," according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Political strategist David Mixner, who has given his endorsement to John Edwards presidential campaign, said:

"It certainly is another barrier falling. There's been a taboo on any (candidate)-related Gay Pride events. [However], just like straights at Mardi Gras, there's a wide range of different events, from picnics and political clubs to the parade. The myth of what Pride is will be exploded ... and that taboo will now be removed. And I can't think of a better person to do it than Elizabeth Edwards. She won't let people tell her where she can go and who she can talk to."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. HA! Now there's some Kool-Aid I'll drink. I thumb my nose right back at the recent nay-sayers. Rock on, Elizabeth! Here's wishing you all the best.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jun 22, 2007 12:02:27 PM


  2. Love Elizabeth Edwards but I'd hardly call this meaningful.

    There is a long and odious tradition of candidates and elected officials sending theirs spouses (read: wives) out to extend an olive branch to groups (or send mixed messages on sensitive issues) they're otherwise too cowardly to publicly embrace.

    Besides the gay voters who inevitably mistake the fact that the Clintons, Edwardses, Obamas, Giulianis, Bushes, etc. have many gay friends/acquaintances/staffers as a sign that they will turn out to be better on gay issues than their public rhetoric indicates, does anyone really see these maneuvers as anything other than furtive, hypocritical pandering?

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 22, 2007 12:07:48 PM


  3. The worst of the Democrats are still way ahead than the best of the Republicans. There is no hope for a 3rd party candidate.

    Of course it's pandering, they're politicians, hello!

    But these candidates are pandering to US HOMOS, not to the xenophobic, homophobic, racist bigots that the Republicans are pandering to.

    Who you are pandering to makes as much or bigger difference than whether you are pandering or not.

    Posted by: beergoggles | Jun 22, 2007 1:42:38 PM


  4. Would she be there if that whole "I don't feel comfortable around those people" episode hadn't risen its ugly head? Hmmmm.....

    Posted by: Chris | Jun 22, 2007 1:43:31 PM


  5. Well, this is nice and all, but it would be a hell of a lot nicer if John Edwards would pledge that, as President, he would make certain that GLBT citizens have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, would ensure that federal hate crimes laws include GLBT citizens as a protected class and would abolish Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Of course, that requires someone to be a leader and so far I haven't seen any Presidential candidate do that.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 22, 2007 1:50:35 PM


  6. It's funny. Elizabeth Edwards was supposed to be appearing at this weekend's American Library Association convention in D.C. She pulled out, with little explanation, and gay author Armistead Maupin was tapped as her last minute replacement. I even asked Armistead about that earlier this week, and he was puzzled as to Elizabeth's absence and he had no idea what was up with her. Now, I guess we know. She'll be in Armistead's homebase for Gay Pride, while he's in D.C. for her to chat up the Librarians. Either way, I don't care, but there's a tiny bit of irony in there somewhere that the gay hometown hero who has celebrated the city and its gay citizens for decades is trudging out of town to pinch hit for a straight presidential candidate's wife so that she can go to SF to celebrated Gay Pride with the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club.

    Posted by: MrRoboto | Jun 22, 2007 1:57:29 PM


  7. "Damage control" pure and simple cooked up by pr people


    at the outset of the 2004 presidential campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?" Shrum quotes Edwards as saying, "I'm not comfortable around those people." At that point Elizabeth said, "John, you know that's wrong." Edwards' pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says that Shrum is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about Edwards' lack of exposure to gay people and these issues

    Edwards own man Hickman admits the words were said they were just taken out of context.

    OY VEY

    Fall in line lock step like good little gay robots to the sounds of the bleeting PR machine. Reality is Edwards said "I'm not comfortable around those people" in response to his stance on gay rights. Hickman, edwards own campaign man, admits the words were said just they hadn't had time to go through the robot making pr machine.

    Wake up people

    Posted by: anon | Jun 22, 2007 2:05:52 PM


  8. Beergoggles,

    My point is not that the Edwards campaign is pandering. That's business as usual for every politician.

    But it's hypocritical for John to send Elizabeth out to publicly cozy up to teh gehz if he doesn't have the guts to make that same campaign stop himself.

    It's already clear to anyone with eyes that Elizabeth has balls. The question is will John, the candidate, ever grow a pair?

    If Elizabeth were running, she'd already have my vote locked up.

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 22, 2007 2:23:36 PM


  9. Well ANON, if we're judging presidential candidates with how comfortable they are with gay people, you might as well vote for Rudy since you know he's comfortable with gays enough to stay with them once divorced, but he won't even support civil unions.

    Or you can support someone who might not be as comfortable with gays but doesn't let that stand in the way of supporting:
    - Ending DADT (all Dem candidates)
    - Repealing the part of DOMA that prevents federal recognition of our marriages or civil unions (all Dem candidates)
    - Supporting UAFA (all but Hillary + Obama).

    Posted by: beergoggles | Jun 22, 2007 2:25:08 PM


  10. 24play, ok you have a point there :)

    I'm just looking at it from the perspective of them even bothering to do this at all instead of going on the 700 club with Pat Robertson like what Howard Dean did.

    But when it comes down to it, I don't really care for their genuine approval of who I am or who I marry as long as they support equality. So far Edwards is leading the frontrunners in that.

    Posted by: beergoggles | Jun 22, 2007 2:32:49 PM


  11. I'm not sure about "another taboo falling." Hillary Clinton just walked in at pride in NYC and that is hardly a new development. It makes more sense that Mixner would make it out to be some historic event since, as you point out, he has endorsed Edwards. I wonder why it is John couldn't appear himself.

    Posted by: Bran | Jun 22, 2007 2:33:29 PM


  12. How, exactly, is Edwards leading the "top-tier" candidates in supporting equality?

    Last I heard, Edwards, Obama and Clinton were equally supportive/underwhelming/cowardly, with Hillary maybe a half step behind the other two because she can't bring herself to completely repudiate her husband's good works (DADT and DOMA).

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 22, 2007 2:44:14 PM


  13. Luvs me some Peter, Parker, but you know that any candidate making such a pledge about gay marriage might as well immediately then shoot him/herself in the head.

    As for those imagining that her husband is simply home hiding under the covers when he could be in SF, you have no understanding of political campaign scheduling and how candidates are sling shot from place to place. He was probably booked somewhere else [such as courting big donors as he's still behind in the polls and fundraising] weeks ago, and will be in SF Tuesday night for an event. His track record in this campaign re gay issues is far better than both Hillary and Obama [though they essentially synch up now]. SF Pride is early this year because the actual Stonewall anniversary falls midweek, and it would be easier for her to change her schedule. [Note, too, that she is keynoting an SF HRC event in July.] We're lucky that any serious candidate or candidate spouse is willing to be remotely involved given that SF Pride organizers have had their lunatic fringe heads up their asses for years. A former parade chair wrote this week that everyone should attend naked because he's mad that the local TV station that had broadcast the parade live the last few years isn't this year even though they are showing a TWO HOUR recap that night, and because during live past coverage they've quote "had a 10-second broadcast delay so that they could police the images to make sure no tits, ass, dicks, or cunts sneaked into the picture." Unquote. Truly admirable.

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 22, 2007 2:47:41 PM


  14. The only dem candidate who supports us 100% isn't even running this time. Retired General Wesley Clark. 2000 said 100% equal rights to serve in the millitary for gays, 100% equal marriage rights for gays, and 100% hate crime laws enshrined in federal civil rights laws.

    BUT, the majority of gay people didn't support him so why should the current candidates support us? We obviously as a community are willing to compromise instead of stand with the 1 candidate in 2000 who fully had our back.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 22, 2007 2:56:12 PM


  15. No, there is a Dem candidate who supports us 100%, and he is in the race: It's Dennis Kucinich. http://kucinich.us

    Posted by: DH Pierce | Jun 22, 2007 3:38:01 PM


  16. Thanks DH

    Though you make my point even more to the point that we as a comunity have not and are not supporting the lone candidates that do support us 100%. Instead we compromise and then bitch when the candidates we bow and scrape before turn around and screw us. We are just reaping what we sow.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 22, 2007 4:02:35 PM


  17. It's likely Edwards sends wifey to these events in order to avoid awkward questions over his stance on same-sex marriage.

    However, that still beats Obama's cowardly refusal to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom (even though he seems to visit San Francisco every month to hit them up for money). Or Hillary's attempts to justify her husband's betrayal of the gay community as "transition" policies.

    Quite frankly, after the way the GOP run this country into ground, it should be a cakewalk for the Democrats. The fact that the Dems might actually lose in 2008 is indicative of their piss-poor leadership skills.

    Posted by: John | Jun 22, 2007 4:04:42 PM


  18. 24play,
    It wouldn't be the first time HRC has lied about how the candidates line up on equality to favor Hillary.
    About two months ago, Chris Crain posted Hillary and Obamas positions on the UAFA on his blog and they both hedged on it saying recognizing gay relationships would lead to more immigration fraud than the current spate of hetero immigration fraud. So HRC got busted lying for Hillary and Obama on their questionnaire summary.
    And before that, Hillary wouldn't come out against DOMA until after Obama and Edwards did on the HRC questionnaire and made her look bad.
    So as it stands right now, Edwards is ahead of Hillary and Obama due to his position on the UAFA.

    Also worth noting that Gravel also supports equal marriage (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Mike_Gravel_Love_between_man_and_0509.html), just like Kucinich.

    Posted by: beergoggles | Jun 22, 2007 4:36:43 PM


  19. Why any gay person would pay the minimal $125 entry fee to listen to the wife of a long shot presidential hopeful is beyond me? Then add in the fact that David Mixer(who was a KEY player in creating the fucked up 'Don't Ask,Don't Tell' compromise between Barney Frank and Clinton)is lauding it as an historical event and it's just a big joke.

    Posted by: ShawnSF | Jun 22, 2007 5:29:29 PM


  20. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have NO CHANCE OF EVER BEING ELECTED IN THIS COUNTRY. Stop living in a fantasyland, people.

    Here is what Elizabeth said about Shrum's "memory": http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/uncomfortable_a.html

    If you're going to tell a story, include both sides of it.

    Posted by: SC | Jun 23, 2007 4:39:15 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Flash Forward: Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones« «