John Edwards on Leno: 'Not quite where Elizabeth is yet'

still waiting

I don't expect any response or comment from the Obama or Clinton campaigns...they have set their course...silence or deferral (states should decide) on marriage equality.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:22:00 PM CDT

Transformative moment

I think you've got something there, Pam.  Rarely is anything a surprise in a campaign like this so I wouldn't be shocked if he is elected to eventually say that his wife had a remarkable influence on him "getting there."

Sure, he's playing it both ways.  He knows damn good and well there are many, many people out there who hate to see their friends and family discriminated against, but haven't gotten the balls yet to do anything proactively about it.  He's playing the whole emotionally and spiritually torn up bit to the hilt.

My gut is telling me that he is "there" already, but for fear of damaging his campaign (since when is equality supposed to be a damaging thing?), he can't/won't outright say so.  He's letting his wife do the dirty work so he can come clean later.  At least that's what my instincts tell me.

---

by: callie @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:24:18 PM CDT

I agree

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.  

---

by: Dianne @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Puh-leeze

How am I supposed to respect a candidate who hasn't discussed one of the most divisive social issues of the day with his wife?

It's as believable as Clarence Thomas saying he hadn't really thought about Roe v. Wade or however the hell he tried to finesse that question.

Or, more to the point, Hillary claiming she believed this dishonest administration about Iraq when her vote was clearly motivated by her fear of not being re-elected.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM CDT

Agreed. This is horseshit.

It is insult to our intelligence for Edwards to sit there and pretend Elizabeth's appearance and remarks were not fully discussed and premeditated by the campaign. This whole things is very Clintonesque; an attempt to cover your ass on all sides of an issue.

---

by: Josh @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:49:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not insulting us

I don't think Edwards is insulting *our* intelligence at all. I think he realizes most of us are very intelligent and can read between the lines. I believe he is saying the "due to my upbrining I'm not there yet" crap for the irrational, non-thinking bible-thumping, homobigot sheeple.

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.  

---

by: Dianne @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:38:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you really think Elizabeth's

words were not cleared with the campaign ahead of time? Do you really think he was 'surprised' upon hearing her words as he said? It is a political calculation sending her out to say that. We all know it. Why pretend otherwise?

---

by: Josh @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 15:22:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I highly

doubt that the words were cleared ahead of time.  If that was true, it would have been in the body of the speech itself and not in response to a questions in the press conference.  I was there when Marinucci asked the question.  It was right in line with what she had said earlier, but it did not come off as a calculated statement at all.  Heck, I didn't even recognize the significance of it until I read it in the paper the next day.

I have heard that the Edwards campaign has a difficult time controlling what comes out of Elizabeth's mouth.  This is a perfect example.

---

by: juls @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:55:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep

It's all being very carefully planned and controlled, of course.  A presidential candidate's spouse doesn't just show up at a pride parade and make off-hand remarks without the campaign's knowledge and approval.

What I really don't like about John Edwards' statements on this issue is the implication that he doesn't make moral/ethical decisions based on reason and principle, but rather on "I just don't quite feel like it" sorts of nonsense.  If establishing legal equality is the right thing to do, say why.  If it's the wrong thing to do, say why.

And, honestly, Elizabeth's statements are of the same variety--even though we like her answer better.  I want to hear about fairness, justice, the needs of the individual, and the needs of society.  NOT how "comfortable" or how "not there yet" someone is.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 13:10:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, exactly.

I also find the sentiment "not there yet" particularly perplexing. Is he talking about himself not having evolved to that position? Is he talking about society? I am having trouble with that. If something is right, it's right. It doesn't take "evolving."

---

by: DonDigby @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:24:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't surprise me

of her statements, after all, judging by past posts and comments She actually does read the blend and seems to care about the plight of our small community.  As always I wish her  the best.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:34:08 PM CDT

A Bill/Hill type marriage?

Another Bill and Hillary couple, keeping thoughts and lies from each other?  Sounds like it.

Make alot of noise. Life is short.

---

by: Charley6 @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:41:45 PM CDT

The Operative Wortd Is "Yet"

Note that Edwards said he's "not there yet." If anything indicates he knows he's behind the historical curve, that "yet" does.

Whether he gets "there" while the campaign continues is another matter. Stay tuned for polls on that one.

(Oh, and you can make book on this: All the leading Democrats are way the hell ahead of where candidates were at this point before the last presidential election. That's not a sign of enlightenment; that's a sign of polls -- public and private. And the Republicans are doing their own polling, and that's why you've heard very little gay-bashing out of them so far.)

---

by: S1 @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 13:06:14 PM CDT

Just wait until <i>after</i> the primaries

The Democratic candidates are all going to change their tunes rather drastically, I imagine.

"Shhhh....  We love you, but you know how scary you are.  Now go run and hide until after the elections are over.  There's, you know, actually important stuff at stake, and we can't have you people f*cking it all up."

I hope I'm wrong, of course.

That said, it is what it is.  In my opinion, we should all pour our passion (and time and money) into elections for our respective state legislature--or other states' legislatures when there are critical opporunities to flip control to the good guys.  Let the political celebrities play their games while we build from the ground up.


"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 13:21:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TIp toe through the Tulips

Yes, my fellow Blendors, we are the tulips and they are the toes. Which one would you rather be?

---

by: Pta @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:23:52 PM CDT

i'm thinking

the crickets will be chirping for a while...
BTW Pam, Nadine needs some counsel on blog matters for Equality Florida.
nadine@eqfl.org
how's THAT for a hint.
:)~

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:39:26 PM CDT

Not where Elizabeth is

And that place would be "a solid moral conviction free from the constraints of pandering to electors."

I was liking Edwards, up until some of this stuff hit.  Now I've gotta go full tilt into Gore/Richardson '08 (maybe John can be AG).

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:53:09 PM CDT

it think it's a really smart move

of course they've discussed it!  but the point is that they're moving their private discussion into the public realm and airing out certain prejudices that edwards really possesses--what a novel idea!  we should be encouraging this, and i think it demonstrates a great capacity in edwards to perhaps effectively persuade a few people that such personal feelings of bigotry can and should be reconciled for the greater good. 

way too many people on both sides of a marriage equality issue like this will look to each candidate to have one solid answer, for EVERYTHING, and those same people will use that answer to accept or reject that candidate, regardless of their positions on any other issue whatsoever.  what!!--he wants the gays to be able to get married?  NEXT!!

this dialogue might be staged for the public, but i have no doubt that it is a re-enactment of what occured in private, this reconciliation of faith, prejudice, and personal experience.  i think it shows he has a great capacity for listening and reasoning, and that it's a refreshing stance from every other candidate out there.  we don't have to embrace him, but we shouldn't kick him around for it, either.  patience, my pets. 

now if he doesn't come around by the primaries, THEN it's time to kick him. 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 14:59:55 PM CDT

This really diminishes my respect for Edwards...

I really, REALLY, like Edwards.  But, this is such an obvious lie on his part.  It does not change my support for him, I still plan to vote for him if he's on the ballot.  And, I know all politicians are liars, but please, be a little less obvious about it.

---

by: Storm @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 15:37:08 PM CDT

Not good enough.

Is it just me or does it seem like, with the constant barrage of pro-Edwards posts lately, when it comes to an Edwards endorsement, Pam is in a similar position to Edwards, close but "just not there" yet.

I think most of us are resigned to the fact that we are going to have to vote for someone who is less than ideal on many issues, not just gay rights. However, when it comes to whom we endorse (or semi-endorse), shouldn't we set the bar a little higher? I am really disappointed with all the LGBT leaders who have endorsed Edwards, especially David Mixner. Didn't he learn anything from his support of Bill Clinton?

Edwards has still not explained why his religious convictions should have anything to do with who is entitled to a civil marriage. How can any LGBT person support him or any other candidate without first demanding they answer that question? If marriage is a "sacrament" then why are atheists allowed to marry? And should the government be involved in other sacraments such as baptism? If not, then why is marriage an exception? His religion also believes that homosexuality is a sin, worthy of the death penalty no less. He says he doesn't agree with that. Then what is the basis for his opposition to same-sex marriage?

I would have more respect for him if he just came out and said that while he personally supports marriage equality, most of the country is not there yet and pushing it too soon might lead to a backlash and so he favors a more incremental approach. That is a position I could live with, as long as it is coupled with support for full federal benefits in all states, whether they have enacted marriage equality, civil unions, domestic partnerships or nothing at all (through the creation of a federal registry for same-sex couples). It's the last part that no candidate has committed to (or even been asked about from what I can tell). That is the minimum we should accept before giving our endorsement to anyone, at least at this stage in the primaries.

---

by: claudew @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 15:50:30 PM CDT

Masculinity problem

Edwards is falling into the same trap that was laid for John Kerry. He snidely accused of being too effeminate, or too image-conscious, or even called a "faggot" outright and he fights back by trying to prove that he really IS a man's man.

His handlers tell him has to be careful to hold the gays at arms length so he doesn't get tainted with an unpresidential image. The problem is, there is nothing less manly than a man worrying about how manly he looks. It looked ridiculous when it was Al Gore trying to dress like an "alpha male". It looked ridiculous when it was John Kerry riding in on a motorcycle. It looks ridiculous now. It only makes it seem like he has something to hide by being less than straightforward (er, gayforward)

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 15:58:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Word.

Maybe we'll get to see Edwards on CNN playing tackle football with the guys.  That'd convince me that he's 100% all-man.  But not, you know, in the gay way.

I'm a feminist, but let me take a stab at this: You know what society thinks a masculine trait is?  Being decisive.  Leading by the strength of your convictions.

It's bullsh*t that leadership is considered a man's trait (where as strong women are just bitches), but that said, maybe if Edwards wants to win over the "manly" crowd, he should step up to the plate and be the decider-guy.  Alternatively, he could bare knuckle box Lindsey Graham.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:21:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Elizabeth Edwards for President

She'd have my vote.  Period.

---

by: Hype-Jersey @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 17:59:13 PM CDT

Yet?

This is a convenient, politically savvy way to court multiple viewpoints on the issue - with John empathizing with the "not quite there yet" crowd while Elizabeth speaks up for true equality. Political strategy, sure.  But it is encouraging at least to hear a discussion of full marriage equality in a way that sounds like a given, eventually (that yet is definitely suggestive).  I look forward to hearing the other candidates get to that place, and beyond.

Equal Justice Under Law

---

by: AJ @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 14:15:28 PM CDT