The media frenzy on Edwards' affair is bizarre and irrational. Here are more important things that the media might focus on instead.

Cindy Sheehan Made It Onto the Ballot

Tibetans in India, Nepal protest "blood" Olympics

Russia attacks Georgian city, peace efforts stepped up

Climate change: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist

Anthrax investigation not over

Prominent Myanmar human rights activist arrested

Calif. Senate OKs Harvey Milk Day

U.S. Attorney Scandal Probe Enters White House Circle

Our sexually repressed society can be so pathetic sometimes. So many people in the media and their audiences really, really need to get laid.

I should also point out that the corporate media are far more interested in the sexual exploits of Democrats than Republicans.

 

On 2/1/08, The Advocate reported that many Edwards supporters have switched to Obama now that Edwards has dropped out of the race.

A critical mass of John Edwards’s LGBT steering committee is going public with support for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton. Twenty-two members of the Edwards campaign’s original 59-person gay and lesbian committee will now be working for Obama victories next Tuesday and throughout the rest of the primary season.

The article mentioned a lot of insider stuff, but it left out the obvious subtext. LGBT activists who were involved in the queer community at the time of the beginning of the Clinton administration remember how the Clintons broke important promises on lifting the miltary ban and on a "Manhattan Project" to cure AIDS.

The Clinton Administration never even tried to implement that "Manhattan Project." On the military ban, they created a fraudulently labeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which was designed to increase the number of military witchhunts and discharges. DADT did just that and even resulted in undercover MPs in gay bars in Washington, DC.

When Melissa Etheridge mentioned during the Logo/HRC debates that Bill Clinton was guilty of "throwing us under the bus," she was speaking for a huge constituency of queers who recognize how we were screwed over by the Clintons in the past and know not to trust any Clinton in the future.

Here is the list of former queer Edwards supporters now siding with the Obama campaign.

Below is the full List of former Edwards supporters who are now publicly supporting Obama as provided by Eric Stern:

Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California)

David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York)

Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona)

Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif.

David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party

Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado)

Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia)

Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California)

Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland)

Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president

Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance

Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif.)

Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee)

Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas)

Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group

Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts)

Michael Shannon, national security expert (D.C.)

Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats

Robert D. Horvath Jr., member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D.C.)

Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D.C.)

All organizations listed for identification purposes only.

I've had mixed feelings about John Edwards during this campaign. His rhetoric this time out has been refreshingly honest and surprisingly progressive. However, he ran as a conservative Democrat in 2004 and had a conservative record during his term in the Senate.

However, he has accomplished something big and admirable recently, putting a major focus on the national shame of so many veterans being homeless.



Of course, Bill O'Reilly deserves credit for unintentionally publicizing the issue by foolishly denying that there are 200,000 homeless veterans in this country. O'Reilly made a jackass of himself as usual, but the controversy he generated is making many face a problem that often has been avoided. The folks at FoxAttacks.com deserve credit for the above video publicizing the controversy, and more importantly, publicizing one of our most hideous national failure.

Progressive Democrats of America released the results of their straw poll yesterday:

Kucinich 41%
Edwards 26%
Barak Obama 13%
Clinton 9%
Bill Richardson 5%
Joe Biden 3%
Chris Dodd 1%
Mike Gravel (less than 1%)

Despite an eight candidate field, Kucinich was fairly close to winning an outright majority in the poll and left the second place candidate far behind. Clinton couldn't break the single digits.

This shows that Ms. Clinton is very weak among progressives, even though she could become the first woman president, and, at least at the PDA events I've attended, most of the people in the organization are women. Clinton's conservative policies have alienated liberals and progressives in the party.

The poll results also offer a window into what Americans' political views might be like in the absence of right-wing corporate media propaganda. PDA members tend to be much better informed and get their information from a much broader pool of sources than the general public.

An exchange between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in today's Democratic presidential debate shows that Ms. Clinton is starting to see political danger in her vote for war with Iran.

"Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that's supposed to be diplomacy?" Edwards interjected. "This has to be considered in the context that Senator Clinton has said she agrees with George Bush terminology that we're in a global war on terror, then she voted to declare a military group in Iran a terrorist organization. What possible conclusion can you reach other than we are at war?"

Clinton objected. "You know I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far," said the New York senator. She is locked in a tight three-way race with Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, and Obama, a senator from Illinois, in this first-voting state.

"None of us is advocating a rush to war," Clinton said.

In the weird world of politics, telling the truth is often considered something that "goes way too far." Iran's Revolutionary Guard is an arm of the Iranian state. Declaring it a terrorist organization at a time when this country is at a state of war with all terrorist organizations is a de facto war authorization by Congress, though a somewhat sneaky one. For Hillary Clinton to deny that the vote was anything other than an effort to start a war with Iran insults the intelligence of Democratic primary voters.

Another statement by Ms. Clinton at the debate shows that her testing of political winds has moved her in a different direction than when she voted for war with Iran.

I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran and I think that's what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy using both carrots and sticks.

This invokes mixed emotions on my part. It is good to see that the efforts to sell a lunatic war with Iran are failing to win over the American people. On the other hand, Ms. Clinton's lying about her vote brings back bad memories of her horrible, horrible husband lying on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the deceptively named version of the military ban which succeeded in increasing the numbers of discharges and witchhunts for queers in the military.

It also reminds me of how Bill Clinton repeatedly lied about NAFTA, trying to claim that NAFTA would create American jobs, rather than exporting them, and exporting US jobs is exactly what NAFTA did. The dishonesty of the Clintons may not be on the same level of that of the Bushes, but our country deserves more ethical leadership than merely being less mendacious than the leader of an unelected regime and a father who was involved in Iran-Contra.

As detailed in a fairly recent New York Times article, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are taking positions on the Iraq war that will result in tens of thousands of US troops staying their and occupying that country. Obama and Clinton are being more open about it, while Edwards is being sneaky. He is saying that he will take US troops out of Iraq but would have troops return (or presumably stay) if Shi'a Muslims committed genocide against the Sunni Muslims.

This sounds noble, but it ignores the fact that such genocide already is occurring and the occupation is not deterring it. The Sunnis also are busy bombing Shi'a civilians, especially during religious events. Edwards has set a condition that will keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. Even worse, our troops are being forced to make the situation more horrific by killing many Iraqis.

It is time to let these three politicians know that all US troops need to come home from Iraq, not just some of them. The occupation of Iraq by a large foreign power is destabilizing the country and adding to the carnage.

Contact the Edwards Campaign

Contact the Clinton Campaign

Contact the Obama Campaign

Matt Stoller of Open Left deserves a lot of credit for his Tighten the Leash on the Blue Dog Democrats Campaign. He has put together a list of rightist House “Democrats” who are wholly deserving of primary challenges in 2008. Here is that list.

Jason Altmire, PA-04
Brian Baird, WA-03 (he didn't vote for FISA, but he just switched his position and now supports the surge)
John Barrow, GA-12
Melissa Bean, IL-08
Dan Boren, OK-02
Leonard Boswell, IA-03
Alan Boyd, FL-02
Chris Carney, PA-10
Ben Chandler, KY-06
Jim Cooper, TN-05
Jim Costa, CA-20
Bud Cramer, AL-05
Henry Cuellar, TX-28
Lamar Davis, TN-04
Joe Donnelly, IN-02
Chet Edwards, TX-17
Brad Ellsworth, IN-08
Bob Etheridge, NC-02
Bart Gordon, TN-06
Stephanie Herseth, SD-AL
Baron Hill, IN-09
Nick Lampson, TX-22
Dan Lipinski, IL-03
Jim Marshall, GA-08
Jim Matheson, UT-02
Mike McIntyre, NC-07
Charlie Melancon, LA-03
Colin Peterson, MN-07
Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL
Ciro Rodriguez, TX-23
Mike Ross, AR-04
John Salazar, CO-03
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Vic Snyder, AR-02
Zack Space, OH-18
John Tanner, TN-08
Gene Taylor, MS-04
Tim Walz, MN-01
Charlie Wilson, OH-06

You have to wonder if this is enough. The three most prominent “Democratic” presidential candidates, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, all support keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq to continue Bush's illegal and unAmerican occupation. The many important similarities in political views of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are downright scary.

Congressional Democrats could easily stop the war by refusing to fund it, yet they continue to support the war by paying for it with our tax money. Congress refuses to even try to impeach Cheney or Bush despite their many crimes against US law and crimes against humanity. Democrats in Congress continue to illegally expand Bush's wiretapping powers, despite the fact that the Bush regime had more than enough intelligence information to prevent then 911 attacks.

It is starting to look like November 2008 will be a good time to boycott the Democratic Party entirely and stick to progressive Green and Independent candidates. How much more of this corrupt, right-wing garbage are liberals supposed to accept from the Democratic Party before we finally stand up for ourselves?

Ordinarily, I would object to having candidates interviewed in a talk show format rather than in a debate format where they can challenge each others views. However, there is a specific concern that queers are stuck with trying to ascertain in presidential candidates:

How comfortable are they with us and being around us?

This may sound shallow, but it reflects political reality. Bill Clinton's painfully obvious discomfort with us and even talking about us made it even more difficult for us to challenge the military ban while he was president. Our chances of getting meaningful results on queer issues will be enhanced with a politician whose comfort with us leads the general public to be less uncomfortable about progress on our legislative priorities.

The talk show format was a strenuous test for most heteros and it should have been. Very few heteros, much less hetero politicians, have been in a room surrounded by queers, with few or no straight people. The absence of the other candidates in the room made it an even more difficult test.

How did they do?

1. Dennis Kucinich: Not only was Kucinich great on queer issues, he was comfortable and genuinely happy to be there. Part of it had to do with the fact that he was with an audience that agreed with him on the issues being debated, of course. But, being able to see queers primarily as a friendly audience of people he likes puts him miles ahead of most politicians. Kucinich was engaged with the audience in a way no other candidate came close to demonstrating. He made sure to look at people sitting in all parts of the room, empathizing with people who got less desirable seats and their natural desire to feel included.

2. Barack Obama and Mike Gravel (tie): Both of them were at ease in the setting and happy to be there. They weren't as engaged as Kucinich, but that says more about Kucinich than anything else. They even were able to relax and be themselves as hetero minorities in a queer environment.

4. John Edwards: He was occasionally awkward around queers, even squirming a bit in his chair, but he obviously was moved by the going to the queer center in L.A. and seeing that queer youth who were kicked out of their homes. I think this may genuinely change his view on queer people as individuals and make him a better person.

5. Hillary Clinton: She often was stiff and very tense around the panelists and tried to ignore the audience except when she was using one of them as a prop. She had a disdainful attitude that suggested she felt she was entitled to our lowly support, regardless of what she had done or might do in the future. Clinton's smile showed more hostility than warmth. She also seemed to think we were gullible and would fall for the weakest spin on issues such as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell.” She showed a Bush-like inability to acknowledge mistakes. The best that could be said was that she showed up and did not say anything overtly homophobic.

6. Bill Richardson: He is an oddity. The abstract idea of lgbt equality obviously is more important to him than his visceral dislike and discomfort being around people who are not heterosexual. His performance and the reactions to it said a lot about him, American society, and the queer community.

What about the Democratic no-shows?

The absence of Dodd and Biden was disturbing to say the least. One would think that trailing candidates would have a strong incentive to show up to a forum with a large national audience of Democratic voters. Obviously, their issues with homosexuality trumped political expediency.

What about the Republicans?

The refusal of every Republican to accept an invitation to attend a similar event by the same sponsors speaks volumes about just how fanatical the homophobia is in that party.

There is constant repetition in the corporate media of the claim that John Edwards' wealth makes it hypocritical for him to make poverty an issue in his campaign. That is senseless. Their is no "hypocrisy" in wealthy people being concerned about the less fortunate.

Empathy is not hypocrisy.

Edwards is not my first choice for the Democratic nomination. He isn't as strong in his position against the Iraq war as he should be, and his healthcare plan will not help middle class and poor Americans nearly as much as single-payer. But, that does not mean that I, or anyone else, should blindly accept ridiculous spin that undermines efforts to fight poverty.

A comment John Edwards made in 1998 is getting a lot of media thanks to a tell-all book by an unhappy former staffer, Robert Shrum.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

An irony embedded in this whole thing is that the pundit who broke the story, Howard Kurtz, is homophobic, among other things.

Much of the blog discussion has been on Edwards saying that he was uncomfortable around us, but the thing that is creepier to me was the “those people” part. We know who “those people” are, especially in the Dixiecrat context: people in a despised minority.

We can hope that Edwards has advanced in his thinking since then. However, there are other Democratic presidential candidates who are better on queer issues (e.g., Kucinich and Richardson). So far, Edwards certainly is not giving queers much reason to support him.

Edwards' position on Iraq has been a bit slimy too. He tries to sound anti-war by saying congressional Democrats should have pushed harder on legislation to drag the war out all the way to 2008 when he should be calling for an immediate cutoff of all funds. If Edwards were serious in opposition to this nutty war in Iraq, Edwards would call for US troops withdrawals to start immediately and be finished in weeks. (It only took a couple of weeks to get our troops into the Iraq occupation quagmire. There is no reason why it should take that much longer to get them out, especially since they would face little opposition among Iraqis for leaving.)