UPDATED: Um, since we all agree that none of the main Dem candidates is likely to endorse gay marriage, anyone care to comment on, you know, anything else?
A few thoughts:
1. When I Googled “John Edwards 2008,” it came up after “JohnnyEdwards2008” – which isn’t his. I assume that’s short term, that the new website hasn’t been live long enough to shoot up to the top slot.
2. Anyway, the real website is kind of busy and video heavy. Interesting choice. The poor folks he wants to rally tend to have dial up modems.
3. John Edwards “appearance” on Daily Kos is highlighted on the home page.
Interesting that he went to Kos of his announcement. What would Emily Rooney say? Will Hillary and Barack do that?
4. If the website and Kos thread are any indication of what’s to come, seems the campaign folks believe wife Elizabeth is a major strategic asset – she made tons of Kos comments – and will deploy her big time.
Jujitsu possibilities – she uses “everywoman” persona (particularly on diet/weight) combined with cancer survivor to both reduce Bill Clinton effect AND amp up Hillary’s negatives with Dem voters like my mom who find her “cold.”
5. Here’s his pitch:
Provide moral leadership in the world
Strengthen our middle class and end poverty
Guarantee universal health care for every American
Lead the fight against global warming
Get America and other countries off our addiction to oil
Elsewhere he summarizes this way:
The next president faces tremendous challenges — from poverty and lack of health care, to energy and global warming, to fixing the mess in Iraq.
6. Two observations:
a. Nothing directly about terrorism. Nothing directly about non-Iraq national security issues.
b. As we know by now, each candidate needs to telegraph “something” about “values.” Edwards plays his “moral” card NOT directly on poverty (where you might have expected it). Instead, he frames things so he can lead with Abu Gharib and global warming, a naked appeal to the would-be Gore voters.
7. So what do you think of his website? What does it tell you about how he hopes to defeat Clinton and Obama?
The other day in New Hamphire he was asked about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans and quoted saying:
<
p>
“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”
<
p>
Maybe he hasn’t been asked the right question: “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”
<
p>
If he answers “no” then his talk of “moral” and civic leadership is less than hollow.
<
p>
If he answers “yes”, then he must commit to pushing for the logical next step of full civil rights for all citizens. That is, repeal of DOMA, DADT, and bully pulpeting for marriage equality and immigration equality.
No. No they don’t.
<
p>
Dare to discriminate. It’s a phrase my high school history teacher used all the time. Discrimination isn’t bad — discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc. is what can lead to trouble.
<
p>
But, there are times when American Citizens don’t deserve equal treatment under the law. Minors have substantially limited rights and responsibilities. In general, freed citizens with criminal records don’t have equal voting rights. Blind citizens get tax breaks, as do citizens with dependents.
<
p>
There are oodles of good reasons to not treat American citizens equally under the law. There are also some lousy reasons, including sexual preference in my opinion.
<
p>
Still, it irks me when the civil rights folks clamor for “equal treatment under the law” when what they really want is recognized civil rights. Furthermore, while it is important to push civil rights and equality in the political arena, we aren’t nearly as strong without at least a sympathetic ear in leadership positions, and so forcing Democratic politicians into stances that simply can’t win them the votes necessary is foolish in my opinion.
<
p>
John Edwards stated he wants to move equality further in our direction. Methinks its far more savvy to show him support and encouragement than to gripe.
support and encouragement really got us far, didn’t it? Politicians need to be pushed on some issues, or they won’t move on them. That’s not rocket science.
<
p>
What is the beef with encouraging Edwards to take this issue seriously? If you’re tired of my whining about unequal civil rights, help me make the case to the pols that this issues needs to be addressed, if only so you can have a bit of peace. And feel free to use your own approach and terminology. Don’tlike the equal protection angle? Propose a fresh one then. And I say that sincerely, not as a snark.
Frame it with civil rights. Drop the “American citizen” angle, and drop the “equal protection” angle.
<
p>
There’s been interesting discussions on BMG regarding the status of marriage as a civil right, and those discussions are important for the 1% of folks who think hard about that sort of thing, myself included. For the other 99%, framing it as a civil right is a slam dunk. It puts it on the same framework as the civil rights crusades for women and blacks — two groups who’s minority power was lessened as they gained the legal status afforded white men.
<
p>
As for the Bill Clinton angle, there was progress. Don’t ask/don’t tell is progress from a complete ban of gays in the military, for example. Did Clinton take us to complete equality under the law for homosexuals? Of course not. As for DOMA, his veto would have been overridden anyway, so Clinton triangulated in an effort to accomplish the most good for the most people by maintaining his popularity and hence his leadership compass.
<
p>
I agree that we must push our political leaders toward truth and justice, even when it’s unpopular. However, putting them in awkward, unpopular positions before they’re elected can easily backfire.
Thanks, stomv.
1. I’m curious why you think taking the “American citizen” angle on LGBT people should be dropped.
2. You said “putting them in awkward, unpopular positions before they’re elected can easily backfire.” Perhaps. But I think not. If a candidate is strong overall, their LGBT stance will matter much to non-LGBT voters. But for the sake of arguement: You seem to advocate taking the “trust me” approach. Let them get into office with a wink towards LGBT rights, and trust them to follow through. Well, at the national level this has been a perrennial chumpmaker for LGBT rights supporters. The pols seldom follow through in a meaningful way unless they were actively pro-LGBT prior to running. So…what’s the middle ground? I’ve been communicating with the campaigns directly, which is safely non-public. But given the whipped up state of interest over marriage thanks to the Repubs and even our Mitt, you know all candidates will be asked the “M” question in public. If not by supporters, then certainly by opponents. How do we finesse the public side of this without, as you say, having it backfire? I think the best way is for the candidate to do what Deval did – commit to equality right off and then firmly talk about what matters to most people, which is anything other than LGBT equality (although that annoys me, because equality should be important to evenyone. But I know we don’t vote in that world…).
<
p>
My hypothesis is that the Repubs have a nice red herring with marriage equality. It really doesn;t matter to voters when stacked up against other issues in a single candidate (it does matter a lot as a GOTV mechanism when in the form of const. amendment – but that’s another story…). But the Repubs have got the Dems all scared that it’s a deciding factor. ANd this snowballs with any latent homophobia held by the candidate. The repubs are doing a great job playing on latent dem homophobia. So perhaps our own (privately stated) question to Dem candidates should be: how does it feel to realize you’re being played like a well-tuned latent bigot by the Repubs?
“If a candidate is strong overall, their LGBT stance will matter much to non-LGBT voters.”
<
p>
should read
<
p>
“If a candidate is strong overall, their LGBT stance will NOT matter much to non-LGBT voters.
1. Do non-American citizens living in America not deserve these protections? What about green card holders, permanent residents, visa holders, tourists, undocumented workers, and any other kind of non-US citizen currently in America? If it’s a basic fundamental fairness you seek (and I suspect that you do… I sure do) then limiting it to US citizen seems contrary to the big idea.
<
p>
2. I think you’re very wrong about the statement “If a candidate is strong overall, their LGBT stance will (not) matter much to non-LGBT voters.” In so-called moderate states, campaigns often swing on the three Gs… God, Guns, and Gays. It’s a sad reality. A lot of it is in framing, but the GOP candidate will always reframe the pro-equality candidate as a “fag lover.” That simply doesn’t fly in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio — all of which are places I’ve lived. Sure, a Dem presidential candidate doesn’t need any of those three to win, but being competitive in those three forces the GOP to be a bit more defensive and makes it much easier for the Dem in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.
<
p>
Your claim that at a national level this has been a perennial chumpmaker is, I think, incorrect. Don’t ask/don’t tell was an expansion of gay rights. DOMA went the other way. The GOP hasn’t been able to get a US Constitutional amendment out of the gate — gay rights holding fast. The massive state initiatives to restrict gay rights aren’t national in that sense.
<
p>
But given the whipped up state of interest over marriage thanks to the Repubs and even our Mitt, you know all candidates will be asked the “M” question in public. If not by supporters, then certainly by opponents. How do we finesse the public side of this without, as you say, having it backfire?
<
p>
Talk about civil rights and dignity. Everyone deserves these things. Talk about stability of families — the ability for the “other parent” to pick up the kids at school, visit each other in the hospital, make medical decisions for each other… the kinds of things married couples take for granted and have never considered what their family life would be without.
<
p>
Another intermediate alternative is to chip away at the heterosexual marriage requirement of some of the rights and privileges reserved for marriage. Make it easier for non-married couples to do the sorts of things I listed above, at the federal level.
<
p>
In my opinion, you’re not going to get 100% gay rights all at once, nationwide. It’s just not going to happen that way. Instead, I think success will come from chipping away. Get civil unions in another state. Make sexual orientation a protected status with respect to employment, like race or age. Get federal legislation allowing for easier “power of attorney” type actions for recognized partners, marriage or not. By breaking down these small barriers, you’ll help gay people “behave” more and more like the rest of the population on day to day tasks. As Americans realize that a rising tide raises all boats — or, at the very least, doesn’t sink any boats — they’ll be more and more accepting of gays, instead of merely tolerating them (or worse).
<
p>
I completely respect your decision about funding candidates who won’t ‘come out’ and fully support gay rights. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who I won’t actively support due to their inaction on my pet issues. At the same time, just remember that you’ve got a much better chance at positive change from a friendly wishy-washy politician than an openly hostile one.
In the above comment, there should be a < / i > italics close at the end of the first italicized paragraph (ending with “backfire?”).
After 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of GHWBush, Clinton felt like sunlight beaming in after a horrible storm. Despite what the Right said, Clinton was hardly a liberal. I subscribed to The Nation throughout his term: Clinton was not the editors’ friend.
<
p>
Had we pushed Clinton harder, he would have triangulated even more adeptly.
<
p>
By contrast, Edwards is really running as a progressive.
<
p>
There’s also a Southern angle here. Do you know about the argument brewing (the Mudcat Sanders v. Thomas Schaller argument if you like) as to whether the Democratic Party should keep trying to win in the South or sink more resources into the Mountain States? In the South, gay marriage is totally toxic. Did you notice how Ford’s and Webb’s campaigns handled this issue? Not pretty.
<
p>
By contrast, the Mountain States tend to be more libertarian. The issue is not quite as toxic there. Edwards’ ambitions probably include trying to win Southern votes, so that’s why you’ll be seeing oddly tortured answers from him.
<
p>
By contrast, Obama has been trying hard to pry some born-agains from the Republican column. The way he’s been doing this — which implies that Democrats don’t respect believers — has been clumsy. I’m also not sure I can say that Obama, despite his Iraq position, is such a progressive. He’s a moving speaker, but he has votes that give me a lot of pause.
<
p>
If I thought the President was the key to this issue, I’d be much more comfortable with Edwards than Obama.
<
p>
2. What does “immigration equality” mean?
Obama: “And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
http://obama.senate….
Clinton: http://www.newsmax.c…
Basically, the usual waffling. Take a look:
“If you go the next step and say, ‘But I want what is called marriage,’ you’re going to have a problem,” Clinton said. She said her decision not to support same-sex unions on a federal level is a strategic one designed to make Republicans appear intolerant.
<
p>
Strategic decisions. Yippee.
I’m satisfied that not everything Obama believes personally as a matter of his own faith, would be something he would try to force upon the American public at large. From the Chicago Tribune:
<
p>
then Obama should be behind marriage, not civil unions. Why put gays, and only gays, into a newfangled institution unless you are discriminating against them? And the whole “states rights” approach to “allowing” marriage equality implies to me that he wouldn’t advocate for the repeal of the Federal defense of marriage act. Thus, he would still be supporting discrimination of gay couples, because federal-level marriage benefits are substantial (social security, family and medical leave act, immigration, etc.).
1. No, not unless their constituency pushes them to do so. I and other LGBT citizens have stopped supporting such candidates, both financially and volunteer-wise. We let them know the reason, and that our support will resume when they commit to recognizing the fullness of our citizenship.
<
p>
2. Sorry for the unexplained terminology. Immigration equality refers in general to two things, the ability of an American to sponsor their non-American same-sex/gender partner for a green card or citizenship (this is available to married heterosexuals only), and the ability of HIV-positive people to travel to or immigrate to the US (forbidden since 1987 with rare wavers). More info and further definitions at immigrationequality.org
Who? Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?
<
p>
I’m serious. Could either of them become front-runners?
Yes, Kicinich is pro-LGBT rights. DOn’t know aboout the other guy – havn’t heard of him. My opinion is that if they don’t become front runners, it won’t be because of their support of LGBT civil rights. It’ll be because the larger package doesn’t do it for most people. This is why I think it’s a cop out for candidates not to get behind LGBT civil rights – I think that it won’t hurt them unless they’re a dud candidate anyway. Didn’t hurt Deval in the least.
Didn’t mean to imply that candidates were weak because of LGBT-just that all the front-runners are disappointingly weak on this issue.
Kucinich and abortion rights have only recently become acquainted. That filled me with reluctance.
I wasn;’t aware of that so went and found this article which backs your claim. Sort of puts choice supporters in the position most LGBT people are in with candidates. That is, the “I voted against you repeatedly in the past, but trust me, I’ve changed.” Hmm. Do you know how his votes have stacked up since he declared his change of heart?
Might I suggest you might want to read the wonderful Katha Pollitt on this rather than the odious National Review?
<
p>
I’m not at all sure though whether Kucinich has reformed his ways. I gotta say barring funds from women in jail who wish to have an abortion really is putting ideology above humanity.
Hi Laurel,
<
p>
You are right that maybe he hasn’t been asked the right question. Of course we all deserve equality under the law, but none of us should have a right to conceive with someone of our same sex. We should only be allowed to conceive by joining our natural gamete with someone’s of the other sex. Egg and Sperm. All other forms of attempting to conceive, including cloning, genetic engineering, same-sex conception, human-animal conception, should be outlawed.
<
p>
So, this difference in the rights of same-sex and both sex couples requires happens to be the central right of marriage. Whether or not to allow two people to conceive together is not a new issue – it is and always has been the issue behind wheter or not to allow two people to marry. The huge risk of defects from genetic engineering required for same-sex conception and the cost, and the fact that it is completely unnecessary and frivolous and sends terrible messages about adoption and other non-biological families – these things are all “supportable basis” to deny marriage to same-sex couples. We all should be denied this equally, we all should only be allowed to marry someone of the other sex.
<
p>
Edwards might just be way ahead of us here, and he might be ready to explain why he thinks we shoudl not allow same-sx marriage right now, at least while same-sex conception is so obviously dangerous and controversial. I forsee everyone agreeing to that much, at least for now, and some candidates saying that they believe research should continue so that eventually scivil unions can be given conception rights and turned into marriages, and others saying that it will always be unethical and so research should be stopped and we should reconcile ourselves instead to the permanence of gender and marriage between a man and a woman.
but I must disagree with
<
p>
Whether or not to allow two people to conceive together is not a new issue – it is and always has been the issue behind wheter or not to allow two people to marry.
<
p>
“The” issue? Nonsense. After all, there are plenty of people who marry and will never have children — seniors, sterile people, etc. Is it a relevant issue? Of course, as demonstrated by incest laws.
<
p>
Marriage and conception are positively correlated, but there is no causality. Bastard children are conceived all the time, and plenty of engaged couples marry knowing full well that they won’t conceive.
<
p>
All of that being said, legalizing gay marriage and criminalizing same-sex conception aren’t mutually exclusive, and since the latter requires a scientific laboratory, not difficult to enforce either.
After all, there are plenty of people who marry and will never have children — seniors, sterile people, etc. Is it a relevant issue? Of course, as demonstrated by incest laws.
<
p>
Whether or not they can or want to conceive children, if they are married, they have the right to attempt it. If we won’t let them attempt it, they cannot get married. Marriage is how we grant and enforce conception rights. Siblings are not allowed to get married because they are not allowed to conceive children together.
<
p>
Marriage and conception are positively correlated, but there is no causality. Bastard children are conceived all the time, and plenty of engaged couples marry knowing full well that they won’t conceive.
<
p>
People that conceive with someone they are not married to conceive without having the right to. Because we don’t want to punish the child or the mother, we no longer use the term “bastard child”, and we now use paternity tests to enforce paternal obligations whether the couple was married or not.
<
p>
All of that being said, legalizing gay marriage and criminalizing same-sex conception aren’t mutually exclusive, and since the latter requires a scientific laboratory, not difficult to enforce either.
<
p>
Well, they are mutually exclusive if we want to preserve the meaning of marriage. Currently, there are no marriages, and there never have been any marriages, that were prohibited from conceiving children together. But the legal combination of SSM and also a ban on SSC would absolutely change everyone’s marriage. For the first time, marriages could be prohibited from procreating. It would strip marriage of its guarantee that the couple is allowed to conceive children together. That would mean that any marriage could be told that it may not conceive because their conception would be too risky and they could be forced to use “better” genes.
[blockquote]If we won’t let them attempt it, they cannot get married.[/blockquote]
<
p>
Attempting to conceive a child does not require marriage, and marriage does not require attempting to conceive. “We” have no right to restrict consenting adults from sexual intercourse, and the courts have made the shift toward recognizing this (see Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102.)
<
p>
[blockquote]People that conceive with someone they are not married to conceive without having the right to.[/blockquote]
<
p>
Absolutely false. Complete nonsense. Adults in the United States have the legal right to safe sexual intercourse with consenting adults. Safe is necessary due to the illegality of knowingly having an STD and having intercourse with someone who doesn’t know of that condition.
<
p>
[blockquote]
stomv: All of that being said, legalizing gay marriage and criminalizing same-sex conception aren’t mutually exclusive, and since the latter requires a scientific laboratory, not difficult to enforce either.
<
p>
John Howard: Well, they are mutually exclusive if we want to preserve the meaning of marriage.[/quote]
<
p>
Apparently, our meanings differ. Since we’re talking about a state institution and not a religious one, my view: two adults who enter a binding partnership and agree to share a long list of rights and responsibilities with respect to each other. Homosexuals meet these standards just as easily (or with as much difficulty!) as heterosexuals. What about incest? I’d point out that due to the huge social cost due to risk of serious medical problems as a result of incest, its a reasonable restriction — as would be genetic combination of same-sex gametes.
<
p>
[blockquote]But the legal combination of SSM and also a ban on SSC would absolutely change everyone’s marriage. For the first time, marriages could be prohibited from procreating. It would strip marriage of its guarantee that the couple is allowed to conceive children together. That would mean that any marriage could be told that it may not conceive because their conception would be too risky and they could be forced to use “better” genes. [/blockquote]
<
p>
I understand where you’re going with this, but I think your proposal is fantasyland, for a few reasons. First of all, most people are heterosexual, and therefore its reasonable to assume that even if homosexual marriage were legal and socially acceptable the world over, we’d still have many more heterosexual marriages within the United States. It’d be unlikely that such a simple fundamental right as natural procreation would be rendered illegal by our representative government. Furthermore, there’s the question of enforcement — chastity belts for hundreds of millions of Americans.
<
p>
Instead of spinning the idea as “restricting reproductive rights” consider using the frame “expanding marriage rights”. At the end of the day, both plans have the same result: any adult can have consensual sex with another adult , heterosexuals are free to conceive using natural or artificial means, and homosexuals can’t combine gametes. The end result is the same, except that under your plan homosexuals don’t have the same tools helpful for a stable, healthy family life provided to heterosexuals, but under my plan of gay marriage and a ban on SSC, they do.
stomv, my suggestion is to enact Civil Unions to give all the benefits and protections of marriage but not to give conception rights. This would reflect the difference in rights between hetero and homosexual couples.
<
p>
Attempting to conceive a child does not require marriage, and marriage does not require attempting to conceive.
<
p>
OK, but take a longer look at what I said. Couples that are prohibited from conceiving together cannot get married. Siblings, children, and, after the ban on non egg and sperm conception, same-sex couples. Marriage grants a right, it says that this couple is allowed to have children together. It doesn’t require it, it allows it. No marriage can be told that it may not conceive.
<
p>
Lawrence was not about heterosexuals, or sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse cannot be done in private, because there is always a chance that it will not only become public, but will become a member of the public nine months later. The public has an interest in preventing unethical conception even if it is consensual, and encouraging responsible conception.
<
p>
You are hilarious with your assertion that there is a right to have “safe” intercourse with consenting adults. Nope, but there is a right to marry the person of our choice (except for some public relatinships where there is supportable basis to prohibit such marriages), and our right to conceive is contained in the marriage (though not explicitly, which is why it could be lost if marriage is changed.)
<
p>
I feel like I’m repeating myself. Let me ask you, though. Do you agree that people should not have a right to conceive with someone of their same sex?
<
p>
Marriage is orthogonal to the right to conceive. Every adult*, married or not, has the legal right to attempt to conceive through sexual intercourse, even with people to which he or she isn’t married.
<
p>
Therefore, marriage has nothing to do with the right to attempt to conceive through sexual intercourse. Age and consent are the only requirements.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m glad I amuse you. Show me a law, any law, that claims otherwise. You’re making assertions about marriage and intercourse that simply have no legal connection. Maybe they did at one time, but they simply don’t anymore. So I ask you again, show some law that restricts sexual relationships between consenting adults.
<
p>
<
p>
You are. Instead of responding to my claims, arguments, or requests, you’re just repeating your illogical claims. Do I agree that people of the same sex should not have the right to conceive? More precisely, do I think that same sex gametes should be genetically modified to create life? At this point and time, no. I don’t know enough about it, and in this particular case, I’d argue society is better safe than sorry, in the same vein as incestuous marriage. But then, I’m not a genetic scientist, and I have no idea what the current research suggests regarding the viability and health of an embryo created from two gametes of the same sex.
<
p> * regarding sexual relations, this age varies by state
If not, maybe you should concentrate on that, because that is actually happening NOW, EVERYWHERE. Although it appears that the children produced in this way are normal so far, we will not really know until enough of them have gone through an entire life span (if they get that far) to verify that the method is safe. Until this verification happens, each new test tube baby is still an experiment. Aren’t you outraged by this? WHat are you doing to stop it?
IVF is natural conception. Yes, there is a higher risk of many birth defects, and yes, it does cheapen the miracle of child birth and coarsen the culture, and I would support a ban on it, but there are reasons that I don’t see it happening. First of all, as you say, that we are already doing it, so there will be lots of resistance from mothers that want to use it, and there are lots of healthy kids to counter any argument that we should stop it. There is also matter of privacy rights, not only medical privacy but also bedroom privacy. Same-sex conception is not a privacy issue (sex is public) and not a medical procedure. Same-sex conception hasn’t been done yet, so it is much easier to prohibit than it would be if there were couples already conceiving that way.
Originally on Blue Hampshire, spread from there, is the photo of Edwards in front of a sign that reads
<
p>
“Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow.”
<
p>
In a tactical sense, a clear shot at Obama. In a strategic sense, an announcement that he’s trying to move beyond the young, dewy-eyed optimist vibe and enter into the “I have plans and get results” camp. Which must be awfully uncomfortable for people who process love for both Deval and Edwards.
Interesting point. I wonder if that’s the reason for Edwards’ “One Corps.” Check it out on his website.
<
p>
He’s actually breaking out of the “traditional web political advocacy” model (i.e., the one which is 6 months old). In addition to the normal PAC stuff (letters to editor, calling talk radio, stuffing envelopes), “One Corps” actually tries to tackle “an issue” (poverty).
<
p>
My question: is the purpose of One Corps really to make a big difference on an issue, or to create a veneer of “results” on top of PAC business as usual?
<
p>
I.e., Deval talked about “we have x,000 grass roots who are working to get me elected” (“traditional”) and Edwards would say “we have x,000 grass roots who are working to end poverty, heck, we just donated 100,000 cans of food.”
<
p>
Here’s an Edwards group in Boston, they’ve raised 107 cans for a food drive. Um, okay.
I like his stand on taxes – wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts. I like his call for sacrifice. To fix global warming, poverty, and the deficit will require sacrifice. We need to hear that message. I think he can bring in the historic Democratic vote in the critical swing states like Missouri, Ohio, and Florida.
If you haven’t yet, take a look at Barack Obama’s Web site. It’s got a very nice design – enough options to make you feel like there’s meat there, but not so many options as to be too busy and overwhelming. The look to me says excellence in appearance, seriousness of content and emotionally soothing — which is in synch with an Obama campaign and very well may be what voters are looking for this year.
<
p>
Note: I’m not a Web designer, but I make my living working on the Web. In my opinion, Edwards’ Web site isn’t a great design – he’s got clashing color schemes (vibrant red & blue; along with pastel blues and tan). What is the emotional statement he’s trying to convey to his users? Frenetic? I don’t get a sense that’s been thought out. I suppose his site is also somewhat the look of, say, a myspace, but I’m not sure a presidential candidate wants to zoom in on the same demographic as myspace (since a big chunk of myspace users are too young to vote).
<
p>
I also wonder about the wisdom of the photograph on the first “about us” page, showing Edwards talking to a bunch of middle-age white guys. No women or minorities in the photo. No young people. It seems to be saying: John’s the candidate of the southern white middle-age bubba vote, and not the rest of you. I don’t think that’s true, I believe he’ll run a more inclusive campaign than that, but I think his campaign has to be more careful about imagery and what unspoken, unrealized message it sends. They ought to put the photo of smiling John Edwards talking to a more mixed crowd, which is on the “about John” page, on that opening page as well. You can’t assume people are going to keep clicking through.
<
p>
Just as it’s more important than many people realize that candidates connect with voters on an emotional level, not merely agree with them on a checklist of issues, I think it’s useful if a Web site can make an emotional, visceral statement to users that you want it to make.
<
p>
I agree. I also like that Obama has a prominent “Register ti Vote” button right up there at the top. Little thinkgs like that do say a lot about priorities, whether they;re meant to or not.
So he’s right there with Obama on the “I won;t go where my religion doesn;t lead me” circuit. And I will note that religion, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice…
<
p>
This transcript was excerpt from a 12/31 interview on CBS News
—
Stephanopoulos: You got a few boos in New Hampshire. The issue is gay marriage.
<
p>
Edwards: There were no boos.
<
p>
Stephanopoulos: OK, well, that’s what I read. We can go back to the videotape. But when you say&
<
p>
Edwards: I’ll be honest, I didn’t hear them, if there were.
<
p>
Stephanopoulos: But more important, more important, at that time, you said it’s the single hardest issue for you.
<
p>
Edwards: It is.
<
p>
Stephanopoulos: Why?
<
p>
Edwards: Because I’m 53 years old. I grew up in a small town in the rural south. I was raised in the southern Baptist church. And so I have a belief system that arises from that.
<
p>
It’s part of who I am. I can’t make it disappear. And what I said when I was asked about this in Portsmouth, New Hampshire//
<
p>
[John Edwards in New Hampshire: I personally feel great conflict about that. I don’t know the answer, I wish I did. I think from my perspective it’s very easy for me to say civil unions, yes, partnership benefits yes, but it is something that I struggle with.]
<
p>
Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I’m just not there yet, me, I’m not there yet.
<
p>
Stephanopoulos: Are you?
<
p>
Elizabeth Edwards: Well, it’s not particularly important whether I am, but I guess I come from a more eclectic background and so it’s less problematic, I think, probably for me.
<
p>
But I think both sides of this argument understand the desire for equality and equal treatment. I don’t think there is anybody who is for or against it who doesn’t understand it and I don’t think there’s anybody who is for or against it who doesn’t understand the trouble people have, because it just seems something that they’ve not been around.
<
p>
Of course, they haven’t, because we haven’t had it in this country.
<
p>
[John Edwards in New Hampshire: My daughter who is 24 and goes to school in Cambridge — her generation and all of her friends believe this issue will completely disappear with their generation.]
<
p>
Elizabeth Edwards: And I have to say she’s talked to children on both sides of the aisle who are her age, the children of our senators and politicians on both sides of the aisle and people who are her age, regardless of the political affiliation of their parents, all believe exactly the same thing.
<
p>
This issue will not exist when they are the people who are sitting in these seats.
<
p>
Stephanopoulos: So you can imagine changing your mind, but you’re not there.
<
p>
Edwards: I’m not there.
I intentionally choose to go to a college that has a lot of conservatives and libertarians and I am convinced that by the time my generation takes the reigns of power gay rights, civil rights, affirmitive action, abortion, most of those issues wont be central to the American debate anymore since we have for the most part settled them. There is consensus even among my Republican and libertarian friends that gay rights, civil rights, are all necessary, and a liberalizing trend when it comes to social controversies in general.
Angie Paccione ran against Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) this past November. She’s brilliant. Edwards and other front runners could learn something about how not to be afraid of our founding principles. Watch.
“Edwards Declares War On Hope (and it’s about time)”:
<
p>
http://www.bluehamps…