More on That Edwards Conference Call

"of which LGBT rights are a part of."

Nice.

Thx for cleaning it up. Oops, clearing it up.

I asked the advisers -- and spokesman Jonathan Prince, who also on the call -- how they thought the "other America" that Edwards wants to represent, "America's disadvantaged class," would feel having their struggles linked to the struggles of gays and lesbians.
......."Okay, I said, how do you think "everyone else" would feel about having their struggles linked to the fight for gay rights?"

thanks, Mrs Lehmann, for making it glaringly obvious where you stand on civil rights for the LBGT community.

I mean, TWO questions trying to create a dicotomy between those who advocate for civil rights for gays, and those who advocate for the poor, women, ethnic minorities, etc....

Free? I assumed a check was in the mail! That's the last redundant preposition I'll ever point out for the likes of you! [shakes fist]

Ana - I have to agree that you are mischaracterizing the 'Two Americas' concept. Now I could be just as wrong as anybody else, but here goes...

The Two Americas idea is primarily about economic class. It does not matter what race, religion, gender, or gender-preferrence. It only matters that that person has become a victim of an economic system that grinds them down and constricts opportunity.

By pursuing your question it gives the impression that you are trying to create division within the '99%' of us who lack political or economic power. Not to be too extreme about it but that is exactly what the rich, Southern landowners did during Reconstruction. By inciting racial hatred and jealousy in poor whites they were able to manipulate the labor market and re-establish their grip on power in the new era. (Their modern descendants continue the tradition through Republican policies)

...Yeah, that's really, really stupid, p_lukasiak. Reread the post. She was suggesting that the southern poor might not appreciate being on the same side as advocates for gay rights. She in no way demeaned the advocates you gratuitously champion in your kneejerk post. If anything, she portrayed them as more enlightened and modern then the rest of the 99% "Other America". Maybe you should take a deep breath and actually read the post before you start the frothfest, rather than immediately trying to spin it.

Ana: respond to your editors in the manner of Winston Churchill: "This is the sort of criticism, up with which I shall not put!"

sorry mikeg, missed the first "of", good catch! (I imagine Winston would've caught the double "of" and found a point at which to stop at.)

"Okay, I said, how do you think "everyone else" would feel about having their struggles linked to the fight for gay rights?"

Why? They might get cooties?

"She was suggesting that the southern poor might not appreciate being on the same side as advocates for gay rights. "

she was forcing the issue....not "suggesting" anything.

Of course she was "forcing the issue"--even though the call was devoted to the "issue" and how the candidates were likely to address it. The main thing we must never forget: Lukisiak is OMNISCIENT! especially when the motives of AMC, er, I mean "Mrs. Lehmann" are in question.

"Of course she was "forcing the issue"--even though the call was devoted to the "issue" and how the candidates were likely to address it."

the "issue" that Mrs Lehmann was forcing was suggesting that Edwards support for gays and lesbians would hurt his campaign -- that he cared more about "gays" than he did about poor people, because support for gays might cost him the election.

The more I hear about Edwards....and the more I see of these subtle (and unsubtle; see "unhealthy influence") attacks on Edwards by the corporate media, the more I like him.

For Mrs Lehmann, gays and lesbians are just a punch line --- or a source of "controversy" to be stirred up that she can exploit rather than dealing with real issues....

I had to read and re-read this post, and I was just about to post that I didn't think it was that bad.However there's was a sentence that just keeps jumping out at me:

"how do you think "everyone else" would feel about having their struggles linked to the fight for gay rights?"

This is a strawman. AMC knows damn well that Edwards 'Two Americas' theme is about economics and that the 'social justice' he's talking about is about economic fairness and not broader issues of 'identity politics'. AMC offers no proof, quotes, or policy positions, that indicate any linkage between the things Edwards is addressing and the issue of 'gay marriage'. While the issue of fly-over America voting against their own self interest in order to strike out at the LGBT community is valid, you were a provocateur here, and your use of a strawman is indicative of that.

Was AMC shocked to learn that this issue of 'gay marriage isn't necessarily an all consuming issue for gay people? That gay people actually have to pay bills and go to the doctor n' stuff, and that they have many of the same economic concerns that the rest of us have? Or is this a further manifestation of AMC's anger at her detractors for not letting her have her cake and eat it too? Her mood seems to have soured lately quite a bit IMO.

My struggles for gay rights have made me the man I am and helped make San Francisco the greatest place to live on the planet. Everything should revolve around the struggle for gay rights because all of us have a gay person inside who wants to come out!

I've read and re-read the post too. And when I come to the concluding paragraph I see this:

The stereotype is certainly among us, and pointing out the commonalities of those in the "everyone else" category also lays out the core argument that most Democratic candidates will be trying to make to their other constituencies about their appearance tonight: The notion that gays and lesbians don't want "special" rights, just the same rights.

I really want the virulent AMC bashers here to explain how this is trivializing gay rights, or treating the issue as a straw man. Unless I'm missing some nuance, isn't the point here that the equality position informing the "Two Americas" position is the straightforward case for gay marriage, partner benefits, antidiscrimination laws, etc? I don't see this as "forcing the issue" so much as connecting the dots that Edwards has been very publicly reluctant to connect on his "journey" in the gay marriage arena. And isn't that sort of connection one of the things one wants journalists to do? Or is it just by definition tained because it comes out of an MSM blogger's mouth?

The issue is that they don't want the same rights, they want special rights. They say they want tolerance (which by definition means something you don't like or agree with but put up with) but what they really want is celebration and legitimization of their lifestyle choice.

"And isn't that sort of connection one of the things one wants journalists to do? Or is it just by definition tained because it comes out of an MSM blogger's mouth?"

Mrs Lehmann HERSELF separates "gays and lesbians" from "everyone else". The fact that she understands that the candidates see things differently is irrelevant to the attitudes she reflects in her own questions. And don't forget her previous post, where an offhand joking remark by a Edwards staffer lead to Mrs Lehmann declaring that, based on Elizabeth Edwards position on gay rights, there was a heretofor unknown "perception" that she had an "unhealthy influence" on her husband.

Now, why would someone who actually "got it" be saying that there is a perception that Elizabeth Edwards influence on her husband is "unhealthy"? Who (besides Mrs Lehmann) has ever suggested that Elizabeth Edwards' potential influence on her husband on the question of gay rights is perceived as "unhealthy".)

If not a single candidate for the Democrat party nomination will stand up to a single element of the Democrat party base (i.e., the pagans, atheists, tree huggers, earth worshippers, flag burners, draft dodgers, feminists, Marxists, socialists, terrorist appeasers, race baiters, race hustlers or the fundamentalist homosexualists) why do their useful idiots in the Washington press corps continue to call these candidates "pragmatists" and "moderates"? Is it the same reason said useful idiots have been calling members of the Democrat party "pragmatists" and "moderates" for the last 80 years?

Uhm, I'm sorry, but the reason I quoted that entire closing paragraph is that it doesn't endorse, by any reasonable reading I can imagine, the notion that "everybody else" and the gay community are in some way fundamentally different. It explicitly says that gay rights are NOT "special"--the conservative code word for doing exactly what you're arguing the poster does (I also don't get this "Mrs Lehmann" business, but whatever)

As for the "unhealthy" business, I also don't see an endorsement of that view in citing it. As for "heretofore unknown"--come on, all sorts of MSM accounts of Elizabeth Edwards have raised the (BS) specter of her exerting a lot of influence on the Edwards campaign. Off the top of my head, I can think of a recent lame NY Times front page story on the topic, to say nothing of more hateful sputterings from Ann Coulter on the others of the right. And if I follow you, you're claiming that a perhaps poorly worded reference to that meme amounts to an endorsement of it? Really? By the same logic, wouldn't the John Edwards YouTube ad about the tiresomely repeated hair cut anecdote anount to an endorsement of that?

"Off the top of my head, I can think of a recent lame NY Times front page story on the topic,"

okay, provide a cite where Elizabeth Edwards influence is described as "unhealthy"

(and if you are going to cite Coulter, what does THAT say about Mrs Lehmann, and her willingness to make the insane rantings of Ann Coulter as part of acceptable discourse in the mainstream media....while responsible progressive voices are shut out from Time? )

"The issue is that they don't want the same rights, they want special rights"

Please back this statement up anon. We're a fact based community, can you please provide a list of 'special rights' you claim gays want?

Still Confused in CA, what you don't seem to understand is that while the GLBT community are a subset of 'everyone else', there has been no specific linkage between the issues of economic fairness for 'everyone else' and gay marriage except in the broadest(and illogical IMO) terms. AMC's assertion that there is explicit linkage is a strawman.

"If not a single candidate for the Democrat party nomination will stand up to a single element of the Democrat party base (i.e., the pagans, atheists, tree huggers, earth worshippers, flag burners, draft dodgers, feminists, Marxists, socialists, terrorist appeasers, race baiters, race hustlers or the fundamentalist homosexualists) why do their useful idiots in the Washington press corps continue to call these candidates "pragmatists" and "moderates"?"

Why would a Dem candidate 'stand up' to its constituencies? I assume by 'stand up' you mean take them to task. Take them to task for what? Not adhering to conservative principles? You seem to hve a very basic mis understanding of what political parties are. Oh and you're bringing up 'draft dodgers' I assume was ironic. So I won't challenge you on Chimpy's, Cheney's, Romney's sons, college Republican's or the conservative community's general lack of enlistment to fight for their country.

Tom, it's DEMOCRATIC Party. Once you use "Democrat Party", the rest of what you have to say is just so much cow flatus.

Can someone on this thread explain to me the wingers usage of 'Clixon' as an epithet against Hillary/Bill? I'm guessing it has to be worth a good laugh.

I don't see any "assertion that there is an explicit linkage"--just a question posed to a campaign on how one argument about fairness and equality (the Two Americas one) squares with a seeming reluctance of the candidate to embrace in another context (gay marriage). Asking a question isn't an "assertion that there is an explicit linkage"--it's asking a question. I don't claim to fully grasp the motivation behind the question, but I don't see ill intent in it, either. We can probably agree there would be a better way to phrase the, but unless you can show where in the content of this post some point is being made to the detriment of gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered equality, I'm not seeing it.

And Mr. L (since we are being formal here, evidently): A quick Google search turned up repeated pieces--in ABC News, Politico, and the aforementioned NYTimes piece, asking variations of the question of whether Elizabeth Edwards was "overshadowing" her husband by disputing statements from Hillary, Ann Coulter, etc. It's true that none appear to use the word "unhealthy," but I think you'd agree that they wouldn't be posing the question with the assumption that it was helping John, er, Mr. Edwards. And there's also a Slate piece that goes on at great--and to my mind, offensive--length about an Edwards campaign ad that purpotedly "exploits" Elizabeth Edwards' cancer, making the "overhsadowing" point along the way. Again, not with the $64,000 "unhealthy" wording, but creepily enough to persuade me that the idea of some Elizabeth undertow harming the Edwards campaign is very much out there. I tried to include the URLs here, but the software isn't letting me. I'm sure they won't meet your standards, in any event--but I'm curious if you could do a similar search to demonstrate where the poster (I'm sorry: Mrs. Lehmann) affirmatively holds the awful political views you're ascribing. Because I'm sorry, they're not here in the posts that get you so worked up

"I don't see any "assertion that there is an explicit linkage"
-Confuseder

'Okay, I said, how do you think "everyone else" would feel about having their struggles linked to the fight for gay rights? '

"I don't see any "assertion that there is an explicit linkage"
-Confuseder

'Okay, I said, how do you think "everyone else" would feel about having their struggles linked to the fight for gay rights? '

-AMC, this post.

"It's true that none appear to use the word "unhealthy," but I think you'd agree that they wouldn't be posing the question with the assumption that it was helping John, er, Mr. Edwards."

there is a HUGE difference between "unhelpful" and "unhealthy"....

"but I'm curious if you could do a similar search to demonstrate where the poster (I'm sorry: Mrs. Lehmann) affirmatively holds the awful political views you're ascribing. Because I'm sorry, they're not here in the posts that get you so worked up"

if you are familiar with her work, you find that she treats gays and lesbians as punchlines -- and is perfectly capable of making a homophobic comment in the name of being "snarky" -- of course, we're all supposed to be in on the "joke"...of COURSE, she's not trying to be offensive, she's just making a joke.

And the thing is, I see no affirmative evidence that she does "get it" (notwithstanding that doubtless 'some of her best friends are gay') --- everything is a joke to her, including gay rights. So when she says something that I consider offensive and/or homophobic, I call her on it.

"Why would a Dem candidate 'stand up' to its constituencies? I assume by 'stand up' you mean take them to task. Take them to task for what?"

Arch, you are correct. I would not expect them to "stand up" to their constituencies any more than I would expect Republicans to "stand up" to their constituencies. My point, though, is that the members of the Washington press corps have never ending orgasms over "Republicans" (i.e., RINOs (e.g., McCain, Hagel, Ann Stone (hahahahaha), the "Republicans" that they always mysteriously discover on the street who claim that they are "leaving the Republican party", etc.)) who differ from the Republican party. Yet, the same useful idiots never seem to have the same orgasms over any Democrat who differs from the Democrat party.

Wow, Tom, first off, as far as writing clearly and concisely...embedding multiple parenthetical statements is extremely confusing, and I used to be a programmer.

Could you provide some examples of "members of the Washington press corps have never ending orgasms over "Republicans...who differ from the Republican party."? I'm not seeing what your seeing, though for a party that marched pretty much lock-step for a decade, party defections would be newsworthy I suppose. I just need you to provide examples because I think at minimum you are exaggerating.

As far as the Dems, it would seem that the news cycle of the past week has been dominated w/ disagreements between Dems on foreign policy issues, and it appears to me that the Washington press is indeed having an orgasm over it, particularly where Obama is concerned. So frankly, on that score, I don't know what you're talking about.

Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Transgender issues ...

how the hell did all these people's issues get compacted into one giant political tsimis? i know lesbian couples who have no stake in bisexual issues, gay parents who don't think men who dress as women or pre-op transsexuals should be referred to as "she." this is really odd.

Again, they have the need to be recognized as having special rights as a way for their lifestyle choice to be legitimized, and if it is pandering you want, then the Democrats will give you all the pandering you need.

Anonymous - Please list the 'special rights' that you claim the LGBT community want. In fact, just give me one example.

And then after this I hope the thread moves on from this point because it is an obvious attempt to distract from the issue raised in the post. That issue is that the media will try to create schisms in the coalition Edwards is trying to rally. In order for the economically down-trodden to prevail they must be able to look beyond the issues that divide them and concentrate their political energies on the system that seeks actively to limit their opportunities.

The GOP will succeed in keeping you in your place, Anonymous, as long as they can nurture your hatred for homosexuals. They will play you like a fiddle.

Special rights like teaching that homosexuality is an appropriate lifestyle choice in school or making a crime committed against a homosexual a so called hate crime and therefore somehow worse than the same crime committed on a non-homosexual for starters.

The homosexual community has the right to be tolerated and enjoy the same legal protections that all Americans have, nothing more and nothing less.

Since I don't equate tolerance with open celebration and endorsement of the lifestyle choice I must be a "hater." Whatever.

Anonymous - Thanks for the reply.

"The homosexual community has the right to be tolerated and enjoy the same legal protections that all Americans have, nothing more and nothing less."

I am glad to hear that you support the homosexual community's desire to marry, adopt, inherit property, make medical decisions, etc. You really had me worried their for a moment.

Terrapin: "You really had me worried their for a moment." For starters, its "there".

Anyway, Anon has a great point. Too often, special interest groups like the LGBT seek special rights and privileges for their own. And I don't think that many people today would have much beef ensuring homosexuals the ability "...adopt, inherit property, make medical decisions, etc.". I believe this is pretty much what Anon meant by "...the right to be tolerated and enjoy the same legal protections that all Americans have, nothing more and nothing less".

Exactly. I have a major problem with the whole concept of "hate crimes" with different penalties for what is the same crime whether it is commited upon one person or another.