You can't vote in your closet

Barack Obama and homosexuality being two of my favorite political causes, you can probably guess that I was pleased to see this story pop up on my blog feed, announcing that Melissa Etheridge will be one of the co-chairs of the Obama campaign's national voter registration drive. The Times article goes on to list a few of the other co-chairs and attribute it to identity politics:

Also on the list: the R&B star Usher; the rocker Dave Matthews; Kerry Washington, an actress known recently from the “Fantastic Four” movies; Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; and Representative Linda T. Sanchez of California.

The co-chairmen were obviously selected to appeal to the various groups the Democrats are trying to bring on board — young people, blacks, Hispanics.

But wait. Melissa Etheridge is in whatever the RSS feed equivalent of a lede is for this post, and you don't mention the gays? Come on. We know the Democrats more or less take us for granted, and we know that you can't pick out a queer from a voter list the same way you might be able to predict someone's ethnicity or age, but let's be queer - oops, I mean, clear - about something. MELISSA ETHERIDGE IS GAY. She is exactly as gay as Usher is black, which is exactly as much as Dave Matthews is supposed to appeal to young people, at least according to the New York Times. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to chalk this up to overt bias (or even some vague gay-related discomfort), but in case anyone missed that about Melissa, you should know that she's one of us.

Which gives me a great excuse to reprise the most awkward gay moment of the 2008 campaign.

Melissa Etheridge: Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
Bill Richardson: It's a choice. It's... it's...
Melissa Etheridge: I don't know if you understand the question. Do you think I - a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade, we go, 'Ooh, I wanna be gay?'
Bill Richardson: You know, I'm not a scientist.

WORST ANSWER EVER. Maybe the beard will restore his wisdom.

I Thought This Day Would Never Come

Actually, before I get to the reason for this post, I first want to point out that Bill Richardson totally has a Strike Beard going on:

Image from here.

OK, now to the main attraction:
On Fox News this morning, Chris Wallace actually called out his colleagues for being unfair to Barack Obama!

Someone get Satan some mittens; he must be freezing right now.

Also, this gives me a chance to post last year's most entertaining 5 minutes of television (the fireworks start about 2:15 in):

Richardson Endorses Obama!

Richardson just endorsed Obama. Here is the full text. I'm going to sleep.

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Richardson is Out

Looks like Bill Richardson is set to drop out of the race tomorrow. The big question is now who will he endorse, if he does endorse? As I said yesterday, this is his chance to make a bigger impact than he ever had while running. Rumors abounded that he gave second-choice support to Obama in Iowa - will he continue the (alleged) trend and endorse him? Or, being a former Bill Clinton Cabinet member, will he support Hillary? This will all be especially important with the Hispanic vote in Nevada - it could either seal the deal with Obama following his endorsement by the Culinary Union or give Hillary a boost and make the race more interesting.

My guess is that he'll go with Obama if he chooses to endorse. There was just too much talk about him sending support to Obama in Iowa for it to have just been rumors or precinct captains acting alone.

A little debate commentary

Some jumbled and probably biased comments on tonight's debate.

First, points for the format.  I don't think it was particularly fair to exclude Kucinich or Gravel (or Dodd or Biden, who would have been excluded had they not dropped out); it doesn't fit with the principles of the Democratic Party, the principle of an open debate, or the principle of fairness.  That said, it had the tremendous advantage of allowing for a much more in-depth exchange between the candidates.  I don't much like these debates because they're not debates - they are a drawn-out process of Miss America-like interviews, and we all know where that gets us. (Sorry - I know that's old, but I giggle every time.)  This one still had some of the usual question-dodging and platitude-spewing, but there was more of an opportunity for the candidates to respond to each other's claims and draw a clearer contrast between themselves.

Overall I saw no clear victors, although the press seems to have come down somewhat on Obama's side (see pretty favorable coverage, depicting Hillary on the defensive to some extent, at ABC, the Times, and MSNBC).Hillary had definite strong points - a good laugh line with "My feelings are hurt," and a clearly articulated argument that experience is a prerequisite for change - one that the other candidates (particularly Obama, for whom it's most important) did not answer directly. I loved Edwards' defense of why the insider/outsider dynamic in politics is personal for him; he was forceful and compelling, though it may be too little, too late. I also really loved the tirade about Hillary as an agent of the status quo, but for strictly partisan reasons. During the bickering about change versus experience, Obama had some good moments, stepping back from the fray and urging the candidates not to distort each other's records, which allowed him to look like the bigger man, acquire a bit of gravitas, and illustrate the kind of politics that his campaign promises. Richardson had a couple of similar moments (particularly "I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this") and did well referring to his experience.

Of course, every candidate had some issues. While Richardson talked a lot about his executive and diplomatic experience, he didn't form a coherent narrative about it - as policy debate judges like to say, he didn't do the work for his audience, leaving us to connect the dots between, say, Richardson's extensive resume and Hillary's argument about change through experience. Hillary got pretty ticked off when John Edwards accused her of being a force for the status quo, as well as when someone said that Bill Clinton had talked about change and never delivered. The impact of her appearing to go negative - and lose control - depends largely on how she campaigns over the next three days, but this could be very risky, since it's difficult for her to move so rapidly from the clear frontrunner to a candidate on the defensive without appearing to be seriously weakened. Obama failed to answer a lot of the charges that Hillary made against him in the two big categories of flip-flops (on single-payer health care, Iraq funding, the Patriot Act, and the like) and experience. In part this might be because there simply wasn't time for him to jump back in and answer them, but he should have fought harder, spoken more concisely, and directly refuted those charges - I don't think it constitutes a violation of the politics of hope to refute attacks made on your record. Richardson was solid but not nearly as impressive as he needed to be, in my opinion, to make an impression on New Hampshire voters who don't know much about him. He seized the opportunity to play the senior statesman a couple of times (the hostage-negotiation line, for instance), but those were moments, not a theme. Also, he kept pounding the damn table in a way that was picked up by the microphone - if you read the liveblog, you already know that that drove me nuts. Even Edwards' talk about what defines his candidacy - the strident defense of the middle class (funny that there wasn't a word about poverty tonight), the repeated assertion that "this fight is personal for me," the assault on entrenched interests and the defense of change - did more to distinguish him from Clinton than from Obama. A failure to make the latter distinction could quite possibly mean that Edwards' attacks hurt Clinton but don't help himself.

Finally, a big boo to Clinton and Obama for not answering Gibson's last question: what would you take back from this series of presidential debates? Stupid question or not, it's even dumber to blatantly not answer it in a closer that people will probably remember. Even if they had to pick something inane, they should have at least given a direct answer before spewing platitudes, however true, about how much greater the Democrats are than the Republicans.

Overall: not entirely a wash, but also not conclusive enough that three days of good spinning couldn't make this debate work for any candidate's advantage or disadvantage. New Hampshire, here we come.