. . . the real mistake here is thinking that all problems have a political solution. In fact, most of the social problems that people have faced throughout history have been ameliorated or solved through the voluntary workings of civil society and the market process. We didn’t relieve ourselves of the burden of backbreaking labor, or bring the world closer together through a series of transportation revolutions, by passing laws; we worked, saved, invested, and created economic progress.

in noting how the “voluntary workings of civil society and the market process” have helped ameliorate social problems, David offers (though I’m sure he’d disagree with the adjective I use) a good synopsis of a conservative approach to “gay rights” (which Bruce and I have blogged about).

While gay activists have been wrangling whether to include transgender individuals in the Employmen Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), a growing number of corporations has been adopting nondiscrimination policies and offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners of their employees. With discrimination against gay people on the wane in the private sector, such legislation is becoming a solution without a problem.

As David might put it, the market process has ameliorated whatever problem there was. With gay people becoming increasingly visible in contemporary society, corporations understand that is makes good business sense to treat us fairly. Some might say that this is a crass policy designed to increase profits, but the fact remains that gay people enjoy better treatment in the private sector than they do in most (supposedly more noble) governmental agencies.

Even the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) acknowledges this, writing in its most recent State of the Workplace:

Today, nearly 90 percent of the Fortune 500-ranked corporations include workplace protections based on sexual orientation, going beyond the patchwork of states and localities that ban such discrimination.

A conservative approach would combine a Burkean regard to the circumstances of the situation with a libertarian belief that the private sector can more readily address social change than can government at its various levels.

In this case, the circumstances of the situations show the merits of a libertarian approach. Even in the Bush era, the social situation has been improving for gay Americans, with greater social acceptance and more private organizations reaching out to gay and lesbian employees and clients.

We don’t need government programs to address the social challenges of gay men and lesbians living increasingly openly in American society. We just need the government to get out of the way and stop preventing institutions and individuals from addressing their concerns in their own way.

That should be the heart of any gay conservative agenda. And not some bland appeals to the socialist-sounding idea of equality. It’s freedom Americans conservatives are after and have been at least since we adopted Barry Goldwater as our standard bearer.

The more we turn to government, the less we do to solve our own problems and the more power we cede to the state, according us less freedom to respond responsibly to social change.

While my Mom and I do differ on politics, we both agree on the Democratic contenders, her views in accord with my view that if the Democrats had a strong nominee, my party would be toast this year.

I wonder if there are more Democrats like my mother, familiar with the political landscape and the issues of the day, but dissatisfied with their choices in the current presidential contest. To be sure, we’ve read how supporters of one (of the two remaining) candidate are reluctant or unwilling to support the other should their man (or woman as the case may be) fail to win their party’s nod.  But, I have only heard passing reference to Democrats looking for a alternative to Obama an Hillary, most in context of the movement to draft Al Gore.

There do seem to be pretty strong divisions among the Democrats. They may be unified in their hatred of George W. Bush, but they’re divided amongst themselves. Despite the favorable political climate this year, the Democrats do seem in disarray.

No wonder they’re so eager to make John McCain into the new Bush. Bush-hatred seems to the the only thing uniting all too many of them.

I wonder if there are more Democrats like my Mom who realize that the only way for the Democrats to profit from this favorable political climate is to find a stronger candidate than one of the two remaining contenders.

A GayPatriotic milestone if there ever was one!

As always, thanks to our great readers for another notable milestone!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I grant the Mayor’s analogy is a little over the top, but it seems he’s mocking the notion of redefining marriage from its traditional understanding as a union of one man and one woman to a bond of love between two individuals. If we depart from the traditional understanding of the insitution as a union of two individual of differing genders, where, then, he (as well as many others) asks, do we draw the line?

Sensible gay marriage advocates would say we draw the line at the union of two consenting adults in a monogamous bond. But, other advocates don’t want to set such strictures on the institution, in fact they don’t see it as an institution. They would rather redefine it.

No matter how much we dress up our arguments, we can’t change the historical and sociological meaning of marriage. While, various cultures accepted polygamy (mostly polygyny, one man to more than one wife, but also rarely polyandry where a woman has more than one husband), that tended to be limited to the upper classes. Even then, the man was married to each of his wives; the women were not married to each other. Gender difference still defined the institution.

As I have studied cultures recognizing same-sex unions, I have observed that that societies which (up until the 1990s) consecrated same-sex unions called them something different than marriage. Yes, there were cultures (notably many Native American tribes) which called same-sex unions marriage, but they required one of the partners to live in the guise of the opposite sex and accept the roles assigned to that gender in an order far more sexually stratified than contemporary Western society.

If an Athapaskan woman, for example, wanted to take a bride, she would have to wear male clothing, kill a female bear and tie its ovaries to her belt while she lived and socialized with the men of the tribe. She would become a hunter.  Her bride could not hunt with her, but would stay home, running the household, living and dressing as a woman.

Thus, even those cultures recognizing same-sex marriage saw sexual difference as a defining aspect of instution.

As we have that necessary conversation on gay marriage, we need to understand the reality of that institution. Sexual difference is part of that reality.

If you don’t believe me, turn to any study on marriage and you will see that, traditionally understood, marriage ceremonies involved the ritual joining together of two individuals from different groups.

The media has focused on the vast sums her rival, Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, has raised.  But, thanks in large part to her husband’s operation and appearances, she also raised a considerable chunk of change. Just over a year ago, the Washington Post reported that she had shattered the record for fundraising at that point in a presidential election (first quarter of the year before the vote).

As of March 31, she had raised nearly $190 million. And while not devoting significant resources to the caucus states (as did her Senator) and while he “vastly outspent” her in recent contests, her “campaign had started April with more than $10 million in unpaid debts.”

She doesn’t seem to have spent her money very effectively. Maybe that’s why she’s so enamoured with government programs. Like them, her campaign takes in lots of money, but to little positive effect.

I have long believed her personality would make it difficult for Mrs. Clinton to win. In this campaign, as Karl Rove put it she “came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned.” Contrast that with Obama’s charismatic presence, making it even more difficult for her to convince people of her ability to lead and unie the nation.

To be sure, in the debates (and some of her TV interviews–a format she had shunned in the early days of the campaign), she impressed many (including yours truly) with her intelligence and command of the issues. But, it didn’t seem to make much difference.

That may have a lot to with the kind of campaign she ran. In Time, Karen Tumulty identifies the Five Mistakes Hillary Made. This is a good essay, where Tumulty identifies only the flaws in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. There was far more to her loss than mistakes on the trail.

To be sure, had Mrs. Clinton run a better campaign, she might have been able to pull it off. In addition to her personality, I think two other factors accounted for her loss, the first related to her character, that being the issue of trust. And the second being the media.

As to this issue of trust. I’ve explored this before (on many occasions). Combined with her shifting campaign themes, her misrepresentations of her own record created, then reinforced an image of a politician who would do or say anything to get elected.

Finally, there’s the issue of media bias. Newsweek’s Evan Thomas once said it gave the Democrats a 15-point bump in a general election matchup against the Republicans. The media tilt toward Obama may not have given him a bump that large, but it certainly made his path to the nomination easier.

It’s not just that the media helped Obama, it’s also that the Clintons have used to kid-glove treatment from the media and weren’t prepared for running a campaign with the media against them.

Would Hllary be the presumptive Democratic nominee had she run a better campaign? Had she had a fall back strategy had she failed to deliver a knockout punch on Super Tuesday and been organized n the caucus states? Probable, but not certain. For, she still has the problem of her prickly personality and the public perception of her honesty.

ADDENDA: In a post on Hillary’s loss, Glenn Reynolds links Mickey Kaus’ “two -factor explanation:”

after Pennsylvania, she seemed to be surging. The CW became that she could win big in Indiana and come close in N.C. She had the opposite of mutnemom–actual momentum. That’s a killer! Voters were forced to contemplate her actualy (sic) becoming President (instead of worrying about Obama as President)

Let me repeat to emphasize: she lost when people contemplated her becoming president. Factors into my personality analysis. Charles Krauthammer echoed that point:

With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.

is realistic enough to know he will fall behind Mr. Obama once the Democratic nomination is settled. He’s steeled himself and his team for that moment. And he’s comforted by a belief that there will be plenty of time to recapture the lead. Mr. McCain saw Gerald Ford come from 30 points down to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter in 1976, and watched George H.W. Bush overcome a 17-point deficit in the summer to hammer Michael Dukakis in the fall of 1988.

The polls are already starting to show this, with Obama inching ahead in most surveys.

Now that the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is all but over (Jay Cost offers a dissenting view to this conventional wisdom), an Obama surge should suggest his potential for success this fall.

As I learned in researching a previous post on polling, polls in May and June tend to show the candidate of the party out of power running far ahead of the candidate of the incumbent party when that latter party has been in power for eight years.

Yet, in the most recent of those elections (2000, 1988 and 1976), the candidate of the incumbent party was able to close the gap by the November election in 2000 and 1976 while reversing the numbers in 1988 and retaining the White House for his party.

Only one polls (CBS/New York Times which tends to skew in favor of the Democrats) shows Obama with the kind of lead challengers like George W. Bush in 2000, Mike Dukakis Jimmy Carter enjoyed in 1988 and 1976 respectively. But, the month is still young. Next week’s polls should provide a better gage.

Should the CBS/NYT poll be a harbinger and other polls should similar margins for the Illinois Democrat, expect him to be a stronger candidate that some forecast. Still, even if Obama bests McCain by large margins, it will not necessarily be time for Republicans to panic.

Should, however, most polls continue show a tight race, even with Obama slightly ahead, if history is any guide, John McCain should win this fall.

Provided of course, he doesn’t get cocky and runs an aggressive campaign.

Will the most recent Democratic president losing favor with a broad swath of his party’s rank and file, will he be speaking at their August confab in Denver?

And given the incumbent Republican president’s low approval ratings, will the GOP want him to speak a week later in St. Paul?

Given Bill’s quest for the limelight, I’m sure he’ll find a way to finagle his way onto the agenda of the Democratic National Convention, but Bush will bow out from speaking at the Republican convention, part of it will be his own decency, realizing it’s no longer his turn to shine and part will be the party’s interest in making this an election about the next four years not the preceding eight.

I don’t know when I first became aware that others had similar feelings for this greater singer and actress. She has touched so many of us such that we feel she was actually part of our lives.

Maybe it’s that I saw Mary Poppins when I was very young, remembering later in life few specific scenes, but retaining an image of her portrayal of the eponymous eccentric, but empathetic governess. And The Sound of Music has been one of my favorite movies since I first saw it at a special screening at the Carousel Theater on Reading Road in Cincinnati.

Yes, I can still remember the theater where I first saw that movie. I can even tell you that I was sitting in the back in the center section on the right side, near an aisle.

So much do I love Julie Andrews that when I bought her her book, Home: A Memoir of My Early Years, last week, I moved it to the top of a large pile of books to read. I started reading it right away. Not only did it keep me up all night, but it was something I looked forward to reading every night of the week for as long as I needed to finish it.

I couldn’t put it down, felt as connected to it — and as part of her shows — as I once felt she was a part of my life. And this despite the fact that it’s not very well written.

That is perhaps the book’s only flaw. Julie Andrews tends to write in simple declarative sentences, using the verb “to be” a little too much. But, she succeeds in telling her story such that I will be first in line to buy her sequel (she leaves off as she’s about to start filming Mary Poppins). And I recommend this book, very highly, especially to those who have been touched by this great lady and/or are eager to learn more about Broadway toward the end of its Golden Age.

She once sang (in a song which I understood was written especially for her) that somewhere in her youth or childhood, she must have done something good. And it seems she did very much good in her childhood, even under very difficult circumstances. Her mother was not faithful to her father, engaging in at least two extramarital affairs. Indeed, those affairs prevented her from devoting her primary attention to her family.

While Julie only hints at the pain this caused her, she doesn’t really say so explicitly. But, she clearly shows a preference for her father whom she describes in glowing terms:

He seemed to know a lot about a lot of things. He loved language and grammar and math. He loved to study, and would sit at his desk, one hand to his brow, as her pored over the pages. Study, for him, was essential. . . .

Dad was never demonstrative. He rarely pulled me to him or hugged me or sat me on his knee. Yet I never doubted his love for me. He expressed his affection in many small ways, like sharing the poems, or reading to me, or giving the gift of his companionship, going for walks together.

When her parents divorced and her mother remarried, a young Julie went to live with them, taking her stepfather’s name.  She cherished the time she spent with her Dad, looking forward to their visits.

Perhaps she was so believable as a governess on screen because Julie Andrews in her own life felt a special connection to children in need of the maternal attention she longed for in her own childhood. She wanted to ensure they had the childhood she lacked.

After she moved away from her father, she describes her “awakening” in the London home she shared with her aloof mother and stepfather as suddenly growing from “child to adult-child in a matter of days.” She was five years old.

She was taking care of her younger brothers and looking after the household before she was in her teens.

What she lacked in maternal affection, she found in her mentors and was blessed with a series of musical and theatrical tutors, instructors and other guides (some legends in their own right) who helped her develop her natural talent into theatrical and cinematic success. Her mother may have been aloof and her stepfather alcoholic, but they did recognize her gifts and made sure young Julie had the instruction she needed to use them.

There was her colorful voice teacher, Lilian Stiles-Allen, who seems like a character out of Dickens. Wearing ankle-length skirts, a velvet cloak and beret and walking with a cane, “Madame” (as Julie called her), “was imposing, yet gentle and kind [with] the loveliest, most mellifluous voice.”

While “Madame” — and so many others — helped her get to Broadway, it was Moss Hart who, while rehearsing My Fair Lady, helped her complete the transition from shy, English girl to charismatic, international star. She wasn’t getting Eliza right and at one point, costar Rex Harrison wanted her fired. But, legendary Broadway director Moss Hart intervened, dismissing the company for forty-eight hours to work solely with Julie.

“Did he know how much I yearned for guidance?” she asks before experiencing his humanity:

I do have a sense that he recognized and empathized with a lost soul. He came from a background of poverty and difficult circumstances. He knew what it was like to yearn for a way out, and he had received help from mentors who cared. I suspect that his instincts were so attuned, so generous, that he understood and reached out to give me one big chance, in hopes that I had the equipment to cut it.

And cut it she did. And more. Much more. Much, much, much more.

Together, they went through every scene. “Moss bullied, cajoled, scolded, and encouraged:”

By the end of the forty-eight hours, that good man had stripped my feelings bare, and disposed of my girlish inadequacy; he had molded, kneaded, and helped me become the character of Eliza. He made her part of my soul.

The world owes a debt of gratitude to Moss Hart for helping Julie Andrews realize Eliza.  Had she not, she would likely not have become the star of stage and screen who has touched so many of us.

It wasn’t just her mentors who shaped her, it was also her friends. Throughout her life, she has been blessed with so many. Ever since learning how close she was to another one-time Broadway star whom I adored in my childhood, I have delighted in her friendship with Carol Burnett, getting goosebumps last night when I read of their first meeting. (Kind of that Beaches thing–how some gay men are drawn to stories of strong friendships between women.)

Going to diner with Carol after seeing her star in Once Upon a Mattress, Julie and she

chatted on and on. It was as if we suddenly discovered we were living on the same block. We bonded instantly . . . . We also seem to have an instinct, one for the other, as to how our brains work, our thoughts, feelings. It’s always been understood that we are chums: we probably were in a past life as well . . . . [W]hen we do get together, we always pick up where we left off and never stop talking.

There is so much in this book, anecdotes about working Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, her friendship with T.H. White (she thought he was a repressed homosexual), her impression of Walt Disney, even her crushes for various stars of stage and screen whose fame she would later eclipse. Not just that, there are the stories from her difficult childhood, her stepfather’s sexual advances and his drunken binges.

She details troubles she had with her own voice and the many people who furthered her career by their kindness. There is a certain innocence to her voice, the way she relates certain anecdotes, particularly her attraction to men and the various sexual advances to which she was subject.

Through it all, she constantly shows her gratitude to those who helped her, implying that without them she would not have succeeded. She doesn’t take her success for granted as do so many others with considerably less talent than she.

When she’s on stage and everything goes right:

Then I think there is no more magical feeling, no one luckier than I. It is to do with the joy of being a vessel, being used, using oneself fully and totally in the service of something that brings wonder.

As I read her book, I could feel that wonder. Last night, as I realized I had only a few pages left I didn’t want it to end. I wanted to keep reading, wanting to keep Julie Andrews in my life. So, as I began this piece, I went over to my CD cabinet and picked out a few albums to listen to as I write — and while I drive.

For Julie Andrews really has brought such wonder to so many of us. And is grateful that God gave her the gifts to do so and the mentors to realize those gifts. That is perhaps why so many of us believe we have a personal relationship with this great lady.

And why I recommend you read her book, listen to her recordings and watch her movies.

- B. Daniel Blatt

After reading it, I wrote back, taking issue issue with some of his points and standing “by my prediction that McCain will do better than 30% of the gay vote provided Obama is the Democratic nominee–and am even willing to bet a dinner (with wine) on it.” He took the bet.

As usual with anything Kevin has written, this post is well-worth reading even as I disagree with many of his major points. I disagree with him that the gay political movement is a “civil rights struggle.” If it is, then it’s over. By the traditional understanding of civil rights, we have them in the sense that we can participate fully in civil society. We can vote in elections, express our views publicly, associate with individuals of our own choosing and other wise carry about our lives freely as do our straight peers.

The problem is that most states (and the federal government) do not recognize our partnerships and the military still discriminates against openly gay individuals. We need legislation recognizing those unions and overturning that ban. But, note, these are privileges the state grants not rights it denies.

As to the issue of the McCain vote, I don’t think the issues Kevin raises, particularly the Supreme Court, will matter much to gay Americans considering a vote for the Arizona Senator. While many of them, including yours truly, wish the presumptive GOP nominee would push to repeal DADT, we understand that our candidates don’t have to be perfect.

The gay Democrats and Independents (as well as a near unanimity of gay Republicans) likely to vote for McCain will do so because of his overall record. They see that while his record on gay issues is far from perfect, he did lead the opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 while the then-presumptive GOP presidential nominee, George W. Bush, gaining a reputation for attacking gays and losing support in our community.

Still, many gays and lesbians stuck with him that year, largely because of his leadership in the War on Terror. And John McCain is not tarred by his support for that pernicious proposal to amend the constitution.
Finally, I disagree with Kevin that a “McCain presidency would set back the cause of gay rights by a generation.” Kevin bases this largely on the Supreme Court justices a President McCain would nominate. It’s unfortunate that too many gay activists look to the Supreme Court as did those in the Civil Rights’ movement. The issues are so different today. We don’t need favorable Supreme Court rulings to improve our position in civil society; that’s already happening spontaneously.

Now, all we need do is make sure the court doesn’t strike down laws state legislatures have enacted recognizing gay unions. And John McCain indicates that he would appoint judges who don’t legislate from the bench, showing respect for conservative justices who have deferred to state legislatures.

Thus, unlike Kevin, I don’t think it’s “unconscionable for Log Cabin to entertain a McCain endorsement.” Yes, his support of the 2006 Arizona referendum is troubling, but he has shown a greater degree of tolerance for gay Americans than had any of his rivals for the Republican nomination (save Rudy).

Perfect John McCain ain’t, but good enough he is. And many Americans, including a large number who backed John Kerry in 2004, will find themselves pulling the lever for the GOP nominee this fall, largely because they better trust him to lead our great nation than they do his likely Democratic rival.

And I gotta hope enough of them do so I can enjoy a nice dinner in good company this fall–at someone else’s expense.

One of the reasons I am such a fan of Rudy Giuliani is that he was a true conservative on the issues which mattered most to me, cutting spending and protecting citizens as Mayor and advocating a tough stand against terrorism as a presidential candidate. While conservative on this issues, he was liberal on social issues, having many gay friends and signing, in 1994, the Big Apple’s then-landmark domestic partnership program into law.

It seems that the new Tory Mayor of London has a lot in common with the former Republican Mayor of New York. Via the Washington Blade’s blogwatch, we learn that Boris Johnson has appointed Richard Barnes, an openly gay man “as one of his deputy mayors.” And Barnes isn’t the only gay person this Tory has tapped:

Another gay Tory Assembly Member, Brian Coleman, has been appointed Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

Sir Simon Milton, leader of Westminster Council, becomes a Senior Adviser on Planning. Knighted in the 2006 New Year’s Honours List, he publicly declared his sexuality and married his long-term partner Councillor Robert Davis at The Ritz hotel last year.

The New Mayor even plans to attend London’s Pride celebration later this year.

It looks like gay conservatives may have a new hero across the pond, a principled conservative who reaches out to and recognizes the accomplishments of men and women like us. Seems that we have more to celebrate than “Red Ken” being voted out.

Kudos, Boris!

Hugh wrote he didn’t expect Hillary “to bail, at least not until the final primaries are held and the Tony Rezko trial verdict in. (Final arguments open Monday.)” He observed:

. . . if Rezko is convicted and is facing a long stretch in jail, won’t he have to think long and hard about naming names in order to limit his years in federal prison? Clearly Rezko and Obama are close. That’s a huge potential nightmare for the Dems, and Team Hillary won’t be shy about underscoring the dangers of an unfolding scandal consuming Chicago politics.

While it may be a little far-fetched, it’s still within the realm of possibility that Rezko has some damaging information on the likely Democratic ominee. Perhaps, Hillary is clinging to this as her last best hope to return to the White House.

Just as some lefty bloggers assumed Scooter Libby would implicate the Vice President, some in the Hillary camp may well be hoping that Rezko implicates Obama.

What a delicious irony that would be, if some scandal brings Obama’s presidential bid to a halt and puts Hillary on the path to the White House when numerous scandals failed to prevent her husband from getting there and failed to evict him from that prestigious property before his lease was up.

As I read David Blankenhorn’s book this past week, his description of some of these advocates reminded me of my own encounters. They saw marriage as just a relationship between two people, nothing more than a “right.” They scorned monogamy and delighted in the institution’s decline.

Few saw the conversation on gay marriage as part of a means to strengthen the institution. Indeed, some expressly sought to weaken it.

I found it difficult to take seriously advocates whose understanding of marriage as a right defined by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia, banning “miscegenation” laws, as if the concept originated in jurisprudence and its social and ritual aspects irrelevant.

That all changed when I started reading Jonathan Rauch’s Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, particularly the chapter, “What Marriage is For” (which I have praised numerous times on this blog). He got at the meaning of this institution.

As fate would have it, at the same time I was reading the book, Jonathan was in LA. I went to hear him speak at A Different Light bookstore where he offered two anecdotes which showed that like Blankenhorn, he understood the debate on gay marriage involved the issue of marriage itself.

First, he mentioned a straight couple who came up to him after his talk and thanked him for reminding them what marriage was all about it; his words thus served to strengthen their marital bond. Then, he mentioned how when he presents the very same issues to gay activists, many who had a similar positive reaction, while his words caused others to question their own support for gay marriage. If marriage involves retreating from sexual liberation, they didn’t want it.

Given what that institution entails and some of the mores of our community, a real conversation on marriage is likely to trouble many gay people who favor a more libertine approach to sexuality.

If we really want gay marriage, we need to address that attitude.

Unless we do, we won’t be engaged in a conversation on marriage, but instead be redefining marriage to mean little more than two people who shack up together. Let’s hope more people like Jonathan Rauch come forward to get beyond the bland platitudes promoting “marriage equality” and point out the real benefits of marriage the institution.

Perhaps more people might favor gay marriage if its advocates could better articulate their understanding of and appreciation for this ancient social institution. But, then I’ve been saying that for about as long as I’ve been blogging.

I expect McCain to hold the gay votes George W. Bush drew in 2004 and pick up about 10-20% of John Kerry’s vote. That would mean the GOP nominee will take somewhere between 30 and 38% of the measured gay vote. His actual gay vote (as was Bush’s) will, in my view, be higher.

Given how much grief we gay Republicans take from our peers for our politics, many of our fellows prefer not to discuss politics. When approached by exit pollsters, they would be less likely to take the time to answer their surveys than would be gay Democrats. That’s why, I believe, George W. Bush may have gotten as much as 30% of the gay vote in 2004 and why McCain could get as much as 40%.

Yet, it seems this year there is less stigma attached to a vote for John McCain. I say this noting the number of gay Democrats (and Democrat-leaners) who have publicly said they would for McCain. It’s not just that they’ve told me. Other friends, some Democrats, have reported that a a good number of their fellows have said they prefer McCain to Obama.

No gay outreach is necessary. These people are aware of John McCain’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and have seen enough of Barack Obama not to trust him.

The real question is whether McCain’s increased share of the gay vote will make a difference. It could help secure his margin in Florida and make him more competitive in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A lot depends on how other demographic groups break. If Obama continues to do poorly among Catholics, the gay vote could tip the balance in these states–and possibly others as well.

But, hours later, you find that no one else really takes notice.

Other times, you’ll hack out a post to find your getting links up the wazoo (sometimes without sending out a similar e-mail (as I did with this post which survived the hijacking of our blogspot site).

Yesterday after beginning research on a post I was writing (anticipating Hillary’s success in Indiana), outlining the episodes in her life which defined her as a narrow partisan, I thought I chanced onto a huge story.

One of those episodes was her decision to skip the funeral of one of her predecessors as First Lady. So, I contacted the Nixon Library (amazingly friendly & helpful people), confirming within a matter of minutes that Mrs. Clinton had not attended Mrs. Nixon’s funeral.

Then, I googled Mrs. Clinton’s White House schedule for the date of the funeral (June 26, 1993) and found she had attended a political fundraiser that day. It was as if I had hit pay dirt. It seemed big news to me that the then-First Lady would prefer a partisan event to a religious ceremony honoring a woman who had transcended her husband’s partisanship to serve as a unifying national figure during her tenure as First Lady.

I wrote out my post, e-mail a number of bloggers. Only Pajamas picked it up. Maybe it was the interest in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Or maybe it was just that the story wasn’t as big as I had thought it was.

Indeed, one of our regular readers, normally sober in his comments and supportive of my notions, thought I had gone overboard. And I wondered if I had.

I believed this was a story because it showed (as I put it in the original post) that “Mrs. Clinton prefers Democratic politics to paying homage to one of her predecessors.“  Just five months into her tenure as First Lady when Pat Nixon passed and already a divisive figure, Hillary Clinton had the chance to show real class, rising above partisan differences to honor one of her predecessors, the wife to her husband’s most controversial contemporary predecessors. A predecessor from the opposing political party.

Had she attended the funeral, she would have shown that she was First Lady to all Americans, not just the partisan wife of a Democratic president.

Maybe this issue struck me because I always liked Pat Nixon. She is the first First Lady I remember growing up. I have always been impressed by the strength she showed during her husband’s tumultuous final months in office. Indeed, in standing by her husband, she may well have spared the nation a worse crisis. He could more easily resign the presidency, knowing his wife (and daughters) supported him. Indeed, she held him together in those difficult months after he left office.

I thought it was an issue that when First Lady, Hillary Clinton chose to skip her funeral to attend a political fundraiser.

Other bloggers did not.

Or maybe it was just a question of timing.

Anyway, there are a number of interesting issues here, not least of which is the speed with which I was able to confirm Hillary’s absence (thanks to the good folks at the Nixon Library) and figure out what she was doing that day (thanks to the web). While fifteen years ago, I might have been able to learn quickly about that absence, it may have taken considerably more time to track down the latter information.

How the web changes things.

This is also a sign of the democracy of the web. Important stories can percolate up from blogs, even ones smaller than this. While we don’t have editors who determine the merits of a story, other bloggers often serve that role. A newspaper editor may scotch a zealous reporter’s story idea. Were that reporter a blogger, he might be able to get his idea out there. Perhaps the story would have met the same fate had an editor rejected it. Or perhaps it would have found a wider audience.

The long and the short of it is that we just don’t know on our own what stories will resonate. And that there may be just as many hands necessary to promote a story in the blogosphere as there were when (what we now call) traditional media dominated.

It’s just that now there are a greater diversity of hands pushing a greater variety of stories.

Yesterday, I thought Hillary might emerge from yesterday’s primaries in the driver’s seat for the Democratic nomination. She had had a good two weeks, raising $10 million online in the twenty-four hours after her Pennsylvania victory, getting good reviews from her interview with Bill O’Reilly (and an audience of 10 million viewers), drawing large & enthusiastic crowds at her campaign appearances, earning admiration from erstwhile adversaries and rising in most polls.

At the same time, her opponent had a rough two weeks, with media focus on his former pastor and people taking notice of his contradictory explanations of his relationship with that unhappy man. I thought that ol’ Clinton luck was kicking in and she’d Indiana easily while keeping Obama’s margin in the single digits.

But, then Tarheel or Hoosier State Democrat. When they voted yesterday, things started to change.

Last night, when I went to bed, I expected to wake up to learn she had dropped out, but when I flipped on FoxNews, heard she was campaigning in West Virginia.

My best guess is that it was the trust issue which did her in. Only 54% of Democrats in Indiana think she’s honest and trustworthy. (44% do not.)* That coupled with her changing campaign persona may have factored into yesterday’s outcome.

I hate to break this to my conservative friends eager for a drawn out contest, but it’s over. It’s over. Mighty Clinton has struck out.

———

*Jim Geraghty links the CNN exit polls which show that only 49% of Democrats think she’s honest and trustworthy and references a Washington Post article showing an “erosion of trust” in the former First Lady.

UPDATE: Hugh says HIllary won’t quit. The Corner’s James Robbins writes:

It will only end if Hillary Clinton loses the will to keep fighting. It all comes down to her inner strength, her belief in herself and her destiny. Right now the only person who can prevent Hillary from taking this all the way is Hillary.

Perhaps, Democrats in those states saw her as did I, a politician pandering and leaving principle by the wayside. They just didn’t trust someone who seemed to believe only in her own ambition.

She might not have won the narrow margin she did in the Hoosier State had it not been for her longtime nemesis of the airwaves. According to Byron York, the Obama campaign contends that “just under 7% of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a ‘Limbaugh Effect.’“

Not to mention the last-minute deciders breaking for her 56-44 in Indiana. Seems this time the polls underestimated Obama’s support. If those deciding in the past few days broke for her, he must have led among those who decided before this weekend, something we only saw in one or two polls.

She didn’t get a big enough margin of victory in Indiana to maintain the bounce she got out of the Keystone State, but then she didn’t see to get much bounce from that victory.

Watching the speeches, I thought both candidates went out way too long. It seems the victory speech has become a stump speech. She seemed a little melancholy. At one time, I actually thought she was going to call it quits. Her husband looked particularly glum. Commentators on Fox agreed while Kathryn Jean Lopex wrote that he and Chelsea had the look of “a loved one with when you’re proud of them as they face a loss/embarrassment bravely.“

She may stay in to win next week in Kentucky and West Virginia, but for all intents and purposes, it’s over. Hillary Clinton has lost the Democratic nomination. And she may not be in the position she’s in now had she not been as overconfident as she was last fall, banking on knocking out her opponents by early February.

Reader Heather linked Jay Cost’s analysis of the Democratic race. He noted that Obama prepared for the caucuses, but Hillary didn’t. He netted 139 delegates in those “low-turnout affairs.“

On logo just before Super Tuesday, she referred to the (then-)recent Los Angeles debate as the last one of so many, as if she would not have to endure another. She likely assumed she would wins enough races in the coming primaries to leave the field to herself. She wouldn’t need do the tedious work of organizing in those pesky caucuses.

Had she done so, tonight’s results might have had different implications. She might not have needed a big victory in a state which borders her opponent’s home state.

It’s too soon to tell if she’s going to stay and fight this one out. She would likely do quite well in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, but the real question is now is whether it would matter.

And another question is why did he outperform the polls this time? That late-deciders tend to break against him does not bode well for his fall matchup against John McCain when most polls show a large pool of undecided voters in a contest between the two men.

Eleven years later, when funeral services for Pat Nixon, wife of a former Republican president, were held on June 26, 1993 at her husband’s library and birthplace in Yorba Linda, California, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was in Washington, attending a fundraiser for Mary Sue Terry, then the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia, at the residence of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller.

Mrs. Clinton prefers Democratic politics to paying homage to one of her predecessors.

[Her response to George Stephanopoulos’ question on the gas tax] wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.

Shameless. She’ll say or do anything to get elected.

Even in her latest incarnation as what Brooks terms, “an alpha dog leader,” an incarnation which has earned her some admiration on the right, she continues to campaign not as an principled leader committed to improving the world, but as a pandering politician eager to please an audience.

Recall, that on saving her campaign from oblivion by winning in New Hampshire, she didn’t extol the virtues of standing on principle, but said, “I listened to you and in the process, I found my own voice.” She doesn’t find her voice through a lifetime of experience and thoughtful reflection, but in listening to others. A voice dependent on the whims of others.

Perhaps for a politician this is a good thing, to reflect he needs of his constituents, but shouldn’t a leader have a voice, an identity, different from that of the masses? For without a solid sense of one’s own identity, of core values, such an individual could not offer steadfast leadership in times of crisis.

Her phoniness is not just in her pandering, how she shifts her views to reflect the political needs of the moment, it’s also her appearance. Watching her arm gestures in the last debate, I thought she looked like a marionette, moving her arms on the command of some unseen political consultant to look more engaged. Now, look at the picture in this article where she points at someone in the audience. Again, it looks like something Bill told her to do so she could appear to connect with the audience.

Every time I see her on TV doing that pointy thing, it just seems contrived.

While Obama is struggling now, one reason he has emerged as an effective challenger to Mrs. Clinton is that he appears genuine. Or, as David Brooks put it, he “still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives.” Whereas his opponent scorns personal reflection to mimic the multitude.

Hardly someone we want as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

Today’s gay marriage debate is an invaluable opportunity for Americans to have a serious national discussion about marriage’s meaning and future.

The greatest criticism I make of gay marriage advocates is that most are unwilling to have that conversation. They’ve reduced the discussion to a debate over rights and equality without considering the history of marriage and the very ideas the social institution embodies. Blankenhorn addresses these issues. It one reason I recommend his book.

To be sure, there are exceptions to this rule, gay marriage advocates who do consider the institution’s meaning. It’s just too bad they’re not more prominent in the debate. Instead we’re subject to those who blather on with their trite and treacly tirades against those who would deny their right to shack up with the individual of their choosing.

All too many neglect to address the social benefits of marriage and the obligations which inhere in this ancient institution. And the transformation it effects on those who agree to submit to its strictures.

—-
*I use this adjective despite finding some flaws in the book. Blankenhorn repeats himself a bit overmuch in the second half and does not adequately address the point some gay marriage advocates, Jonathan Rauch most particularly, make about how expanding marriage to includ same-sex union could strengthen this ancient institution. That said, he offers a valuable argument backed up by much research. It’s why I recommend the book and believe it merits at least one review on this blog.