« Washington GOP Rep. Richard Curtis Resigns Amid Gay Sex Scandal |
Main
| Towleroad Guide to the Tube #192: Halloween Edition »
10/31/2007
LGBT Supporters of John Edwards Issue Letter to Media
LGBT supporters of John Edwards are making a renewed push for their candidate, in a letter sent to media this afternoon arguing, among other things, that "Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance to regain the White House against all of the top Republican candidates and offers the best chance to help Democrats get elected in some of the toughest races in the country because of his appeal in traditionally 'red' areas." Read the letter here. (PDF)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:35 PM EST by Andy in Democratic Party, Election 2008, John Edwards, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I was appalled by Obama's "have it both ways" with Donnie McClurkin and his views on gays and lesbians. Either bigots are wrong and you don't consort with them, or you agree with them. Further, Obama's Advocate interview was patronizing at best. As a graduate of Yale Divinity School, I can assure Senator Obama that gay men and lesbians are not "hermetically sealed" off from communities of faith. Indeed, it is within churches that we have fought or best battles for equality. And we have fought in the face of people like Donnie McClurkin, and with no help from Senator Obama. Have it both ways? Obama should check that criticism at the gay and lesbian door.
Posted by: Greg | Oct 31, 2007 6:39:36 PM
I was appalled by Obama's "have it both ways" with Donnie McClurkin and his views on gays and lesbians. Either bigots are wrong and you don't consort with them, or you agree with them. Further, Obama's Advocate interview was patronizing at best. As a graduate of Yale Divinity School, I can assure Senator Obama that gay men and lesbians are not "hermetically sealed" off from communities of faith. Indeed, it is within churches that we have fought or best battles for equality. And we have fought in the face of people like Donnie McClurkin, and with no help from Senator Obama. Have it both ways? Obama should check that criticism at the gay and lesbian door.
Posted by: Greg | Oct 31, 2007 6:40:57 PM
In addition to the fact that he's the most electable Democrat in the race, it's easy to see why from a policy perspective gay and lesbian Americans support John Edwards over Hillary or Barack:
First, Barack showed his true colors last week by courting evangelical voters by using a known homophobe as his surrogate. And Donnie McClurkin wasn't the only homophobe on the tour as Mary Mary compared gays and lesbians to murderers and prostitutes. If Barack had really wanted to lead, he would have admitted that he made a mistake and then cancelled the tour. Instead, he tried to sweep it all under the carpet by asking a gay minister to join the tour. Too little, too late.
Second, that episode came on the heels of both Barack and Hillary's failure to respond when General Pace said that gays and lesbains are immoral. Edwards immediately denounced this statement. Hillary and Barack took days to see how they should respond (and only after they saw the public's reaction).
Third, Edwards wants to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Clinton's put it in place and now Hillary is saying that passing DADTwas all part of a long-term strategy to get rid of it. Huh? Talk about "two steps back". She should explain her brilliant strategy to the thousands of proud gay and lesbian Americans who were drummed out of the service because of her support for DADT. Or how about to the American tax payers who have spent millions training those individuals only to have that investment flushed down the toilet of DADT.
Fourth, Edwards wants to repeal ALL of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Hillary only wants to repeal a PORTION of it (she believes that states should still be allowed to discriminate and violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution). Besides, we wouldn't even have DOMA if it weren't for the Clintons. They said that Bill hated "having" to sign DOMA, but then they were up on the air with ads in the South within two weeks boasting of how Bill took the lead to pass DOMA.
Fifth, Hillary is also lying about DOMA and the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). She says that DOMA was all part of an effort to stop the FMA. But there was no FMA until EIGHT years later. She doesn't really expect us to buy that line, does she?
Sixth, Edwards supports ending immigration discrimination against gay and lesbian families by passing the "Uniting American Families Act". Barack and Hillary both oppose the Act. Get this: based on "national security" concerns. Where have we heard that crap before? Go see for yourself; look at their responses to the HRC questionnaire (if you can even find the actual responses any more since the Hillary-loving HRC staff appears to have taken it down and only shows their white-washed summary of the responses in tabular form without any of the details which are what really tell the story. Same thing goes with Hillary's response only favoring partial repeal of DOMA).
Seventh, Edwards supports federally funded needle exchange. Hillary does not, saying that there is not the "political will" to pass it. I thought that she said she wanted to be a leader and that she knew how to work in Washington. I guess that only applies when it comes to getting money from lobbyists, huh?
Eighth, during the 2004 campaign, Bill Clinton took it upon himself to call John Kerry to tell Kerry to support the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Kerry refused to throw us under the bus, but Clinton showed (yet again) what he's made of and where his principles are. And the saddest part is that Hillary boasts that he would be one of her top advisors. With "friends" like that ...
You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The Clintons have fooled us time and time again. Barack has now shown his true colors as well.
It's time for us to wake up and support Edwards. He's the best Democrat in the race and he's also the most electable!
Posted by: Win in 08 | Oct 31, 2007 6:46:28 PM
Elizabeth Edwards kicked of SF gay pride and in her speach stated 100% support for gay marriage then she marched in the parade.
All polls show that Edwards leads in beating any repub where as clinton against repubs has a hard time depending on their candidate.
All pundits in the MSM acknowledge that Edwards won the debate last night and that it is a 2 person race between Edwards and Clinton.
This time in 2003 saw Howard Dean as the anointed inevitable candidate till Iowa. Iowan gays need to toss their support behind Edwards to stop the bush, clinton, bush, clinton revolving door monarchy thing going on.
Ruport murdoch held a fund raiser for hillary. If Ruport ,who hates us, loves her then you know their is something wrong with her.
Posted by: Edwards 08 | Oct 31, 2007 6:53:44 PM
Gay men want John Edwards as President because he is the most fuckable of the candidates. And this is the wrong reason to elect anyone. He is not the best choice!
Posted by: whatever | Oct 31, 2007 7:21:15 PM
Gay men want John Edwards as President because he is the most fuckable of the candidates. And this is the wrong reason to elect anyone. He is not the best choice!
Posted by: whatever | Oct 31, 2007 7:21:53 PM
Great words by all. Edwards will get all my sweat and tears toward '08.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 31, 2007 7:25:19 PM
Yes, 'WHATEVER', you got us pegged. We all are voting for Mr. Edwards so we can fuck him. So my guess is you are voting for Mr. Romney so you can play 'suck my dick in an airport bathroom game'? Go home to you Mother.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 31, 2007 7:31:43 PM
Whatever
Please state reasons why he is not in your opinion the best choice
Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind
Posted by: Edwards 08 | Oct 31, 2007 7:43:57 PM
Win 08, I agree that Edwards is looking better and better but I don't think it does any of us any good to support any candidate for the wrong reasons rather than the right ones.
As I've written before, the sound and fury over repeal/don't repeal Section 2 of DOMA is moot in terms of which candidate to support and 95% moot in purely functional terms.
Section 2 basically only says that, for instance, Montana doesn't have to recognize in terms of their state laws/benefits a gay marriage ceremony two gay resident Montanians might have received in Massachusetts or a domestic partnership ceremony from New Hampshire. It doesn't say Montana CANNOT recognize it; just that they don't have to. The shorthand is "state's rights."
Hillary's current position on Section 2 may be silly strategically when both Edwards and Obama say repeal it but their FUNCTIONAL positions are no different. She says keep Section 2 to maintain the traditional honoring of state's rights while Edwards and Obama say repeal it BUT still support any state's right to do what they want. It's like saying, vote for us because we're getting rid of the gun but we'll still let states kill you with a rifle. Dead, as you may have heard, is dead either way.
There does appear, sadly, to be a difference between the way the three candidates are playing with it, however, and it has the same bad smell of the McClurkin scandal.
In August, Obama's campaign sent Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe out to the media to condemn Hillary for her "symbolic insult" to gays for not supporting Section 2 repeal while admitting that Obama still supports states' right to do whatever they want with or without Section 2.
Doesn't that sound awfully like his and his campaign's talking out of both sides of their mouth about professional gay bashers like Donnie McClurkin? Uh, yeah, we love the gays and Donnie's wrong but, hey, out tent is big enough for bigots, too. We might even give them a VIP seat; let them host a rally for us and stomp and sing and preach about how God's gonna punish the gays.
The good news is that I've yet to see anything remotely similar to Obama's "Hillary's insulting you while I'll screw you anyway" from Edwards.
The secondary moot part about Section 2 of DOMA is that all but about 4 states don't need it anyway. They've already passed their own versions of DOMA and/or banned marriage equality specifically.
To continue to attempt to be fair to everyone, Obama's and Hillary's positions on immigration, at least in the HRC questionnaire you mentioned, are clearly pro benefits for real same gender relationships and say NOTHING about national security:
"HRC QUESTION: Would you support the Uniting American Families Act which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?
OBAMA ANSWER: Support. As someone who believes that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as married couples and that our immigration laws should unite families, I support the Uniting American Families Act in concept. But I also believe that changes need to be made to the bill to minimize the potential for fraud and abuse of the immigration system."
"HILLARY'S ANSWER: Support.In the current immigration debate, I'm fighting to ensure our immigration policies respect and reunify families that have been waiting for years. While I'm supportive of this proposal in principle, I have been concerned about fraud and believe implementation of this provision could strain the capacity of our Citizenship and Immigration Services."
You also misunderstand what Hillary said about the compromise of DOMA. She talked about offsetting a POTENTIAL attempt to amend the Constitution not one already introduced in Congress.
Whatever happened in the past, and I would disagree with some of your characterizations, ALL THREE CANDIDATES EQUALLY support ending DADTDP. I’ve helped raise money for SLDN, and would again, but, unfortunately, they’ve used a lot of “relative truth” in attempting to overthrow DADTDP. I’m old enough to have worked against the antigay military policy that preceded it so I know it WAS worse. Clinton tried to admit gays by Executive Order with virtually no help being offered by gay professional groups and Congress and the Pentagon bent him over, spread his cheeks, and the bastard child called DADTDP was born. Less ugly and mean than its older siblings [no locking gays up in military psych wards anymore], but still something that must be terminated.
And, careful with the Bill Clinton told Kerry to support a constitutional ban story. I believe Clinton has denied it [and Kerry had almost as many faces of his own on gay issues in 04 as Obama] and the source was Bob Shrum, the same guy who smeared Edwards as allegedly “uncomfortable with gay people” in NINE YEARS ago. I don’t believe Shrum about either claim—the "greatest losing Presidential campaign advisor of all time” has more axes to grind than the Spanish Inquisition. At least he’s had the decency to say that he no longer believes Edwards is that way, but, typically that disclaimer has gotten far less press than the original claim.
Thanks.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 31, 2007 8:24:04 PM
Edwards08 wrote, "In addition to the fact that he's the most electable Democrat in the race"
Most electable? Why?
because he's a white male? An ambulance chaser? 'Do as I say, not as I do' when it comes to energy conservation? Filthy rich? A pretty boy, as 'whatever' says?
Just don't let it be that n*gger or that c*nt b*tch, right? You want someone you feel comfortable with, and with whom you identify most, right?
Tell me, Win in 08, how else do you self-identify besides as an LGBT?
As for "not 'hermetically sealed" off from communities of faith", nice trying to have it both way -- when that is EXACTLY what the mainstream gay group supporters have been advocating through cries of 'Donnie McClurkin should be removed from the stage', 'Donnie McClurkin is David Duke/Hitler', and the various anti-Christian/anti-gospel bombs that have been dropped here and elsewhere about how primitive, barbarian, irrelevant religion is. Too few cries of dialogue. Very many calls of 'cut them off! they don't belong in the party! we don't need them! we don't want them!'.... from gays.
Besides, here the fuller quote:
"Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them."
People who take this paragraph as being anti-gay need serious help.
Posted by: Nita | Oct 31, 2007 8:39:46 PM
And people who take that paragraph as an actual description of what Obama was orchestrating should go to the FRONT of the "Serious Help" line!
Whatever else he's done before, Obama didn't create any "dialogue" Sunday night. He gave the stage over to a professional gay basher who exploited it to preach his two-faced demonization of gays in the name of God once again to 3000 people. There is every reason to assume, and interviews of those attending mostly demonstrate, that they left with the same homophobia with which they arrived, if not MORE!
Letting gay white minister Sidden throw a kiss to us at the beginning did nothing to ease the pain of the rape by McClurkin that followed.
And, with all due respect, all you're doing is repeating Obama's disingenous excuses. "Yes, I invited a rapist in the house and let him run free and, as many warned me, he did rape you. But I love you, baby. I love you! Isn't that enough?"
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 31, 2007 8:55:07 PM
Nita
Because he is speaking a populist message that resonates with the majority of americs. the majority of americans who are sick and tired of corporations in america being ranked higher than citizens. His walking union picket lines 2,000+ times. The majority of america is pro union. His health care plan vs hillary's mandate to buy insurance from an insurance company to have a job. etc
Nice try on race bating. No, the reason is his populist message resonates with the vast majority of america.
Posted by: Edwards 08 | Oct 31, 2007 9:10:41 PM
I forgot to add , with 73+% of america wanting us out of Iraq
Edwards "I will remove all us troops from iraq within my first year in office."
vs
Hillary "I will pull back troop levels in iraq and keep a strong enough force to fight Al Queda there"
Though Al queda isn't really there but I guess like bush she expects us to be too stupid to figure it out. Al Qaeda that attacked America is saudi arabian manned and financed. What is in Iraq isn't even spelled the same. LOL al qaida
do you understand that?
9/11 = Al Qaeda
Iraq = Al qaida
9/11= Al Qaeda = saudi arabians
Iraq = al Qaida = Iraqis fighting an invader
Different groups
Do you understand the bait and switch?
al qaeda..........al qaida
It is a no brainer when 73+% of america want us out of Iraq. That is a big reason why in all national polls, edwards outperforms clitnon when matched against every repub candidate. Thus the most electable
Posted by: Edwards 08 | Oct 31, 2007 9:17:38 PM
Jimmyboyo, can you please use one fucking screename?
Posted by: Jason | Oct 31, 2007 11:08:02 PM
As a Gay male and former Republican. The only chance we have right now is Democrates.So,I will support any democrate nominee. I careless whatever the are saying or doing now. My chance with them are greater than that of Republicans.
Posted by: Pete | Nov 1, 2007 11:09:16 AM
Sad - America has NO viable candidtaes for President in favor of actual equality for gays. And "separate-but-equal" civil unions is NOT equality, any more than separate drinking fountains was for African Americans. I despair of your country.
Signed, legally married for 4 years.
Posted by: Strepsi | Nov 1, 2007 2:58:42 PM
Happy Anniversary, Stepsi, but "equality for gays" involves much, much more than "marriage" and we have three "viable candidates for President" who support all of them.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Nov 1, 2007 3:47:23 PM
Edwards is better than Obama or Hillary, he didn't vote aye on Kyl/Lieberman...or hire a closeted spokesqueer to SPIT ON the entire LGBT community. Elizabeth and Cate Edwards support marriage equality, ANY other candidates families do that?
I've been SPIT ON and kicked off Huffington Post by two vile straight Obama supporters Sean Gardner and zhonni. I was Qbear at HuffPo.
When they enrage me I STAY ENRAGED, I have pretty good spitting distance myself.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/bus.jpg
I recommend Edward's letter to LGBT community on queerty and Pam's House Blend, and gaywired has an editorial BYE BYE BARACK.
Posted by: underbear1 | Nov 1, 2007 5:16:41 PM
The primaries votes will trump all the polls but it looks as if Obama has self destructed. Clinton continues to march in lockstep with the Republicans and the christian totalitarians. Hillary Clinton's chokehold on the nomination means she'll be the next president unless she or the Democrats repeat the phenomenal blunders that were a trademark of their 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
Johnny Reid Edwards, on the other hand is doing all he can to distance himself from Clinton and to masquerade as the friend of labor and GLBT folks.
It won’t work. Look at his list of GLBT supporters. Bill Clinton supporters returning for another beating, business and corporate ‘leaders’, a gaggle of self-styled “leaders”, a rockpile of Stonewall Democrats and a “Homeland Security Advisor”.
Edwards voted for the oil piracy and subsequent invasion of Iraq while he sat on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Like Clinton, there is no way he didn’t know Bush et al were lying.
He cosponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and voted Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. He justified the genocidal war which has cost over 650,000 Iraqi lives saying that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."
Almost everybody but the President and Congress disagreed and knew it was a lie in 2002-2203.
As late as 2004 Edwards told Tim Russert that “I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution."
By 2004 everybody but Edwards and Kerry knew it was a lie. Edwards was a member of Clintons Dixiecrat New Democrat Coalition who voted for the anti-constitutional Paytriot Act.
After losing the 2004 election by refusing to confront the Republicans and call for an immediate and total withdrawal, giving unqualified support to GLBT, immigrant, union and minority rights Edwards went back to business and joined the Wall Street investment firm Fortress Investment Group as a senior adviser and consultant. Fortress owned a sub-prime mortgage company that foreclosed on Katrina victims, charging exorbitant fees and interest and foreclosing when their victims ran out of money. After being exposed in the press he claimed he ‘knew nothing’, took his investments and profits and ran.
He and all the Democratic candidates have records that show their real politics. During elections they endlessly repeat lies to fool the gullible. But they have a problem; the Democrats shafted ENDA and replaced it with their counterfeit toothless version. Then a startling development took place - the vast majority of GLBT activists, thinkers and leaders rejected the (mis)leadership of the Democrats and fought back.
It appears that the time when people see through the deceit of the Democrat/Republican ‘lesser evil’ game is closer than we think. The overwhelming, honest militancy to the GLBT rejection of the Frank/Pelosi betrayal jump started a search to find an independent voice for our movement. It will take us a while to nurture that voice but the seeds have been planted.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Nov 1, 2007 7:22:36 PM