John Edwards Earns Support of Key LGBT Leaders

Eric Stern Posted this News on John Edwards.com this evening---terrific news for Edwards, but more important in standing up for gays, straights--everyone.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/18/12815/8239

As the former DNC Director of LGBT Outreach and a long time legal advocate for social justice, I am proud to join my friend and legendary LGBT activist David Mixner in proudly supporting John Edwards for President. David and I were recently featured in a New York Observer article discussing early LGBT supporters of the 08 candidates. From The New York Observer: "David Mixner, a key gay bundler who is supporting the Edwards campaign, made his decision on the same basis as countless key Democratic donors: the war in Iraq. "This is probably the first election in a while that LGBT issues are not what I'm voting on," said Mr. Mixner, who argued that all three candidates held acceptable positions on civil unions. "It's the first election where other issues are coming to the fore." Mr. Mixner said that he eventually plans on fund-raising for Mr. Edwards, but the campaign's focus seems more concentrated on building a base, not a bank. Nor is the campaigns' gay outreach entirely focused on big fund-raisers.

Eric Stern, a former outreach director to the gay community for the D.N.C. who is now volunteering for Mr. Edwards, said that the campaign was aiming primarily at gay activists in the early primary states. "They recognized that these are the sort of people that are analogous to the county chairs, who really are the party activists in Iowa and New Hampshire," said Mr. Stern. The competition for well-placed activists like Mr. Stern has been fierce. As early as 2005, he was courted by Ann Lewis, a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton, and Steve Hildebrand, now an advisor to Mr. Obama. He eventually signed in May of last year with the Edwards campaign."

You can read the whole story at: http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?ii d=14368&ic=News+Story+1

LBGT groundboots for justice and JRE. How cool. I'm proud to stand with them as an Edwards supporter.

:kick:

Do you suppose that this endorsement will help him in the general election, if he proceeds that far?

And yes, I think endorsements like this can spread throughout in positive ways. You are wondering about the General Election. Of course the Coultergeists will remember this, but if Rudy gets to be the nominee (or McCain or Thompson if he jumps in), the RWN will have to settle down and find other issues to run on--maybe for a change.

and there is no point in appealing to their reason when they themselves hold irrational beliefs so dear.

... that are the bigger challenge. The Democratic slate of challengers is heads and shoulders above the Republican slate this time around.

I think this is a wiser choice.

:kick:

we need more love in our hearts in general. Love is the only way to heal and bring us back together.

Mixner signed on to the Clinton campaign very early on and was very instrumental in helping WJC raise his profile with the gay community.

If Mixner is endorsing Edwards, you can be sure lots of people are taking notice.

As I say, I am worried that the Dem powers have already decided who they will push in the primaries. But if they will just keep it open they will see who can win the general - and what else will matter on Inauguration Day?

he's keeping his nose to the ground and organizing the hell out of Iowa and Nevada. Come late 07/early 08 I think we'll see that he's positioned to win both. All he needs is a respectable showing in NH, takes SC and has the momentum going into Super Tuesday. His campaign has to feel pretty good about where he is.

would know, surely. Wouldn't they? :shrug:

In 2004 they had to know from the getgo it was sewn up for Kerry. But he was running for VP then. I am trying to reassure myself here...

Let's see.

"running far out in left field this time." The media has an agenda, they have talking points, and they will stick to them.

One of them is Edwards is far left. If he does anything that does not seem that way, they ignore it. If he gets endorsed by gay rights groups, they will cover it, because they feel like it fits their agenda for Edwards, especially with what Mann Cunter just said about him.

is not "far left" nor would any of the MSM (with the possible exception of Fox) portray it that way.

Clinton earned the endorsement of Mixner early on in 1992 and it did not alter his MSM image as being a centrist.

This isn't 1950. The world has changed somewhat.

and here's why, NDP.

The Coultergeist was vicious and the RW machines put up with her version of political incorrectness (their version of PC), and yet 9 newspapers dropped her column. Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative, has had lots to say on this issue and most of it how he disagrees with her and her ilk. But further, what he would say is that he despises the comment by Coulter as a telling him and others who are conservative that he is not being considered a full man. Your comment about Coulter suggests similarly or maybe unkind to the gay community as well. It makes her appear as she is a transvest or more masculine compared to Edwards or those she bashed in the gay community--and while you don't probably mean it, the comment implies they are not.

The RW machine will keep ahold of this, but I agree with another blogger that times have changed overall when one looks at Rudy, McCain, Thompson etc, all who have gay friends or colleagues. They are tiptoeing around this one, and Pace ended up being their punching bag.

Thanks. He's gonna make a great candidate for the general election, I think.

his thinking. The Republicans are the ones who pander on this issue to the fundies, and those fundie votes aren't going to any Democrats anyway.

If he becomes president, Edwards will be in the stronger position for extending the circle of inclusion. Bush courted (and got) the fundie vote, and it hasn't done him a lick of good building coalitions. In fact, it's helped divide people against each other.

was their decision maker. "Groundboots", eh? :)

Ground boots in politics can mean going door to door and getting out the message. We've always done that, especially during the American Revolution.

Like it!

n/t

I have 4 times, and while only once I got to engage him for 10 minutes, I perceived he was not only a great guy but a great leader.

I've briefly met Kerry, Cleland and a few others, but not Eddie.

I hate to get "mushy"- but it's just a vibe I get from him and his family- that Edwards is basically a good, decent person.

May I ask which state you reside in?

Just so you know, for me it's still a toss-up b/t Edwards & Obama- I think Edwards is fantastic.

I don't mean this sarcastically. Why are they supporting him over, say, Obama?

Hijackin' again. Your coments have made it clear on numerous occasions what you believe. If the person supports Edwards, you think the person is totally wrong and question the person, and it's always as a required inquisition in this type of approach.

I agree with the post below mine that he sees things differently. Perhaps you should explain your position on "Hide and Lie" in the military.

Get a grip!

and in my view, intimidating, which has been your approach.

Edwards is getting some kudos. Rejoice that the gay community believes he is worthy of them and will help in getting the message out about the LBGT community and how it is wrong for Pace to say what he did and to support Meehan's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and said so as a candidate.

General Clark has yet to announce he is running. With NH changing its debate dates, perhaps he may still jump in. But General Clark is probably aware that 30 Oklahoma state legislators are supporting Edwards in 2008, right?

did you not comprehend?

:eyes:

What do 30 Oklahoma legislators have to do with my question?

It's the constant hijacking of Edwards' threads. You don't see us hijacking other threads in which candidates are lauded or supported as a subject. I don't enter your threads very often not because I don't have the guts, but more out of respect for those who support your compliments towards General Clark or someone else. This thread was initiated by me, so I'm asking you to be more polite and not use subjects like WHY or WHY NOT to sharply question those who may voice for support the candidate I do.

I'm not an Edwards spokesperson, nor do I try. But I try to be somewhat nice on other people's threads. Most of the time, you are here to criticize my comments, but important, more so Edwards if I bring them up as something good for him. I suggest you try to hold up more for integrity instead of subjects like **** in them when it is down to dissecting differences, and to uphold Clark, especially if you think he will run.

I asked a ****ing question nicely. Deal with it!

When did I "hijack" a Edwards thread? Just a few days ago I lauded him for supporting increased foreign aid to ameliorate global poverty. I also lauded him for speaking up that homosexuality was not immoral, as I now recall.

I gotta tell ya, you aren't a great spokesperson for Edwards if that is what you are trying to be.

He didn't do anything for them as a senator and opposes same-sex marriages.

without hesitation.

Obama, on the other hand, when asked if being gay was immoral, ducked the question and then later had to "clarify" his answer through a spokesperson.

Which response tells you what you need to know about a candidate's gut feelings?

That is even more damning, in my view, then Hillary Clinton dodging it once. You could conceivably chalk up HRC's dodge as a gutless mistake. Obama had time to mull it over and chose to refuse to answer the question two additional times.

You are right about what this shows about candidate's gut feelings. If some lack the courage to answer a simple question, how can we expect them to lead the fight for human and civil rights against the Republicans? They seem to be governed by polls on this issue--and our GLBT friends know what that will bring...

When Obama was asked whether homosexuality (in light of Gen. Pace's comments) was immoral he dodged the question, not once, not twice, but thrice. When the same question was posed to Edwards he without hesitation, without the need of huddling with aides and pollsters, said he did not agree with General Pace's view that homosexuality is immoral.

It took the Hillary campaign several hours to issue a statement in which Hillary was attributed to say that she disagreed with General Pace's remarks.

Kudos to John Edwards for an "out of the gut" reply to a question on a core issue to LGBT people.