How dare Edwards feature a lesbian who works for the HRC in his ad?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3136504&page=1

Edwards made an ad. He had the temerrity to feature a lesbian who works for the HRC in it. Evidently lesbians aren't real people anymore. At least, not if they work for the HRC. I guess the question becomes, at what point do political activists lose their status as people? Shame on Edwards for featuring a lesbian in his ad, after all, we know Edwards should have used real people.

:sarcasm:

you want to question his IWR vote? Fine. He's apologized, but if that apology is insufficient for you, then I understand. However, I wonder what you hope to accomplish by your criticism. Same for any other vote he's made. Legitimate issues.

Why not question his policies or proposals rather than attacking his house, his hair or the way he runs his campaign?

I don't see how you could have been more clear. :)

:)

that caused the poster not to read it in it's entirety...

I recognized that YOU were being sarcastic, but I am tired of the way every one else is so nitpicky when they bash Edwards

being sarcastic or genuinely outraged, if you are outraged, read it a bit more:

"They all volunteered to appear on camera, and none were paid for their services, he said."....

I don't see an issue with that.

Clearly I don't type English, it is as simple as that.

after you added your icon....from a sarcastic side, it's a pretty damn good post!

BTW: Sometimes, though, you just don't know.

glad you liked the post.

I'm sure we all have a time or two depending on our mood of the day...these days you take what humor you can because the reality is for far too many humor is just too limited considering the issues this world is facing daily for far too many and I honestly believe laughter to be something of a gift of sorts and you don't give back gifts, bad manners.

People are really sensitive about all the candidate bashing on here. I'm afraid to submit this because of all the hate directed at me for my screen name.

The sarcasm tag is a good call.

Oh, well.

We have American citizens working for our campaign...and all American citizens are equal. End of story..

Polictical Activist

The ABC piece criticizes the Edwards piece as being dishonest, not anti-gay.
The OP author should recognize such dishonesty.

and not the other political pro if they weren't at least trying to fan anti gay flames? Sorry but I don't buy that featuring the lesbian in their little article was an accident. And on edit, why is someone who works for a gay rights organization not a common folk?

As you say, she's a "political pro"
Spinning this into "ABC hates gays!" is just plain silly.

I agree with him, having such makes it hard for people to be more truthful, I think they put fear in those they work for which is why they are fearful of being themselves, perhaps that job title should become null and void and lets just let the candidates themselves make the decisions on what to say or what not to say, would make it all more interesting I would think. Sometimes I feel that I am watching the "march of the wooden soldiers" when I hear politicians speak, just who talks like that all the time, so stiffly?

To my knowledge the HRC didn't endorse Edwards nor take a position on the war. Thus even an employee of theirs is no more likely to be pro Edwards than anyone else.

hence, as the story says: a D.C. insider.
If you don't want people to check your facts, perhaps you shouldn't supply links?

and a worker for the HRC. She is a worker for the HRC just like being a worker for a union or a company.

No one was being dishonest.

Soon those lesbians will be resistant to garlic and walking around in full sunlight! Quick, get a silver-tipped cane! :sarcasm:

There is no mention of any lesbian anywhere.

which is a pro-gay/lesbian organization.

I hate the damn thing,myself.In fact,just to be safe,everyone should assume that I'm always being sarcastic.

Except when I'm not.

so it is safe to say that for me your safe in that you have me wondering all the time just whether you are serious or not which is why I would hesitate before responding to you...no malice intended, simply an observation and that was a safe post to respond to...

:think:

:)

I admit that I enjoy leaving a little to the imagination of the readers.I get amused watching people reach conclusions about me that are totally wrong,and I feel little urge to correct them usually,for the simple reason that I really don't care too much if people like me or not (you might have picked up on that already).If there's something you really wanted to know about me I'd give you a serious answer (mostly),but I'm not big on offering too much of myself to an unknown mass of crazy bastards like DU. :crazy:

In private I'm much more open...and even nice occasionally.And once someone is a close friend I will do anything for them.Until then though I like keep people at least an arm's length away.I've met some awesome people here,and my best friend is a great DUer,but I'm not here to make friends.If I was I'd only post in the Lounge.

If it makes you feel better,I'm 39 years old and my parents aren't sure of me at all either. :)

a youthful attitude, carry on, though I was serious about my observations of you I was just teasing you a bit.

Actually,your observations were pretty good,and closer than many others I've received,teasing or not. :)

They will hear from me tomorrow. She should be fired immediately. Good grief.

She has every earthly right to support the candidate of her choice. I would be outraged if they did fire her.

run up to a major primary. Donations will dry up. Believe me, I am way down the scale on the anger level and importance level of folks who will contact the HRC.

Assuming she does it on her own time, I fail to see any problem here. I would equally assume that there are HRC employees who support Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Biden, etc.

but I have in the past and do when I can. I stopped giving to them when they endorsed D'Amato but started up again when they went a cycle without endorsing a Republican running against a pro gay Democrat. On edit: I have no problem with their employees voting Republican on their own time, but I do have a problem with the organization doing so. If the HRC endorsed Edwards in the primaries I think it would be a mistake but I don't think an employee of theirs is a problem.

Forgive me, I'm a Brit and all these acronyms get confusing.

LGBTQ friends and family...

Here is there website: http://www.hrc.org/

In the 2006 election, HRC volunteers played a very important role in turning the U.S. Congress blue -- we had our very own HRC volunteer coordinator here in Indiana who organized busloads of HRC supporters to go door-to-door, make calls, and raise funds on behalf of progressive candidates.

:hi:

Seems like a worthwhile group.

Good guys, doing a lot of good work.
http://www.hrc.org/
From "Our Mission Statement"


From "What We Do: An Overview"


The person in the Edwards ad is described by ABC as an HRC top fund raiser.

She's not my favorite candidate so at my first reading of "the" HRC I thought that you were referring to her as an entity which amused me. The Hillary. As in, "It puts the lotion on and then it puts it back in the bucket."

But after I found out what HRC stood for I understood. I still may call her the HRC now. It may be too hard to resist.

"The HRC" campaigns like it's 1992.

Yep feels right. :spank: :D

I'm gonna start using "The HRC" too. I really like it when "the" is used unnecessarily. Like, I live in DC, and technically, George Washington University is "The George Washington University" which I just find funny.

Also, when The HRC recently gave a speech at The HRC, she joked about having the same initials.

If all the people in an advert intended to represent "the people" had been political activists from Washington, or members of any other single demographic, there would be a legitimate complaint to be made.