It’s not just Barack Obama. The Democrats of the 21st century will use whatever means necessary, even ones which transgress the norms of political discourse. In his memoir, the most pro-gay Vice President in U.S. history, reminds us how his 2004 rival attempted to use that good man’s daughter as a wedge issue in their debate:
There was one subject on which he [John Edwards] had done some planning. A little over halfway through the debate, moderate Gwen Ifill asked us about the the president’s proposal for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Edwards opened his answer this way: “Let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children.” I was furious with that response. What gave him the right to make pronouncements about my family? But you never want to let the other guy get under your skin, so I kept my anger in check. When Ifill asked me if I’d like to respond, I said, “Well, GEn, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate it very much.” “That’s it?” Gwen said. “That’s it,” I said.
When Edwards’s running mate brought up Mary Cheney’s sexuality in the presidential debate a week later, her father concluded that
. . . it was obvious that there was a concerted effort by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to remind viewers that my daughter Mary was gay, to bring her into the debate and into the campaign. I don’t recall another instance of a candidate for the presidency attempting to use the child of an opponent for political gain. Later that evening, when Fox’s Chris Wallace asked Kerry’s campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, about the remark, she replied that my daughter was “fair game.”
Lynne was furious. She hadn’t been scheduled to speak at the post-debate rally we were attending, but she took the podium anyway, and let John Kerry have it. “The only thing I can conclude,” she said, “is that he is not a good man. I’m speaking as a mom. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.” She was exactly right, and I told the crowd I sure was glad she was on our side.
Not a cheap and tawdry political trick, but a tactic revealing the prejudices of the Kerry-Edwards Democrats, assuming that knowledge of Mary’s sexuality would cause social conservatives to balk at voting for him.
Nothing has really chaged that much. Lenin’s useful idiots of his time are the same useful idiots for Obama now.
Only the century is changed.
It was “a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
It was as low class as you can get and reeked of evil intent.
It was an attempt to “tar” Cheney with the assumed hate of being associated with homosexuality.
Edwards revealed an enormous hole in in his soul and by the time Mary Beth Cahill pronounced Mary Cheney’s sexuality to be “fair game,” it is made clear that any Democrat campaign efforts to woo the gay vote was calculated hypocrisy.
I love the Cheneys! All of them are extremely smart and classy people. That debate was epic. John Edwards proved what a callow, lightweight moron he really was. Cheney reminded me of someone flicking a piece of lint off his suit.
I was a senior in high school at the time and I remember watching the debate where Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter. As I remember it there was an audible reaction from the audience, a negative reaction. I don’t think the tactic of talking about Mary Cheney served Kerry in any positive way with voters, so I hope the Cheney’s can take comfort in that.
“They” say time will tell. Where are these men today? The esteemed American patriot Cheney and the phony narcissistic “Breck girl” Edwards. Their life journeys say it all: Class vs. Crass.