Ask A Weboy: Why John Edwards Left Me

J in Baltimore asks (with a second from Leigh in Boston): "No, really...did Edwards turn you down for a date or something a while back?"

J, of course, knows my tastes better than anyone... but no, I've never met the man.

But his larger question of what is, as he puts it, "your obsession with this 'Let's kick this loser while he's down' thing," maybe should also get an answer.

First, I'd point out that Edwards is down, not out. And while I, and others, may not see much hope, there's still many months and lots of news cycles to turn things around... or simply obfuscate until people don't know what you stand for.  As I keep saying, I want to like Edwards, he just doesn't give me much to work with.

Further, that lousy answer on the gay marriage question is something I don't think any reasonably conscious gay person should consider acceptable. Edwards suggests the worst kind of condescension with that answer, and he's practiced it (the wording has not changed substantially from when I watched him float similar rhetoric in January this year): the "I think gays are dirty, but by all means, they should have rights." 

Well, thanks, but no, thanks. The mistake of giving Edwards points for "tolerance" is that what he's talking about isn't really tolerant; All of this "blah blah blah my raising" and "blah blah blah my religious upbringing" is indulging in coded rhetoric meant to tell bigots (as other coded Southern referencing does) that their prejudices are just fine and don't need challenging.  And if you think, after all I've been through, that I'm just going to accept that... well, no. Not good enough. Not nearly.

Trust me, I'm as stunned as you may be to realize I've become an angry rad fag about this; especially because I'm in no mood to go husband hunting, if you get my drift, and I've made defending single persons' rights part of my mission. Still, I'd argue Chris Dodd (and even Barack Obama, though the poor man looks so uncomfortable on this it really pains me) is better on this than Edwards is -  I'd rather have someone tell me they're all for gay people but can only go with civil unions than tell me I'm not too sure about gays, but feel free to get married. Step one, you see, is realizing that what we're talking about, really is just about two people, and people who love each other at that.

As I say, I never expected to be angrier than a Pandagon poster about this; but then too, this is personal for me on so many levels - including what my Mother taught me about the appropriate moments for righteous anger - that no, I can't just let it lay, or wait for Edwards to flame out. Aside from my other problems with Edwards, even if he did call, I'd wonder why. Clearly, I'm not his type.

Comments

[Leigh]

Wahoo! Angry Weboy! I love it! And your writing is clear and right. My apologies for tolerating his intolerance.

Have you seen http://mattersofrace.blogspot.com/2007/07/has-anyone-else-seen-this-cover.html> the latest Esquire cover?

Bullshit.

[jinbaltimore]

ahh, identity politics after all. got it.

[jinbaltimore]

so I'm clear now: you've moved from thinking he can't win to you really don't want him to, yes?

and, yikes, Leigh, that is a scary Esquire cover!