Elizabeth Edwards, cancer-stricken wife of former Senator and Democratic Presidential contender John Edwards, came out in support of gay marriage today at a press conference at the San Francisco Pride Parade. She said explicitly, "I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me. I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."

My fellow progressives, this is historic news.  Her comments and her willingness to be open about her views despite knowing that they don't parallel those of her civil union-supporting husband indicate the growing political capital of the LGBT community. Never has a viable top tier presidential candidate come out in support of gay marriage and I admit that I wish John Edwards would have the courage to do the same. However, Elizabeth is as close to her husband like nobody else and the fact that she is so prominent especially with the recent public sympathy over her recurring cancer makes for history. 

I was honestly shocked when I heard the news break just an hour ago on Sunday. It is definitely uplifting. Who knows, maybe she can get John to sign on too, or maybe some other presidential spouses. The best part about it is that Elizabeth blamed John's reluctance to support gay marriage on the grounds that he grew up in a 1950s southern town! That was hysterical yet she couldnt have hit the nail on the dot any better. I love her for it and may she be blessed with good health. 

What do you all think of this? Do you think this will create a shift among the Democratic candidates? Public attitudes?

(Im still getting over my glee in terms of how historic this is and indicative of how far we've come so quickly)

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.

As an openly gay man, I feel compelled to express my views on gay pride parades specifically after attending the Washington DC Capital Pride Parade last Saturday with a few friends. You may hear a lot of criticism from older LGBT people of these events but its rare to find it coming from a young, politically active college student. Before I proceed, dont get me wrong, I will point out the faults of gay pride parades but the actual presence of a parade is necessary for visibility and eventual absorbance into the mainstream of society, which I for one believe the gay community has pretty much reached more or less (as Time magazine famously stated recently with their title "Yup, She's Mainstream" in reference to Ellen DeGeneres.)

I will also point out that my sheer disappointment in DC Pride may have been related to the relatively underwhelming performance of the parade itself in comparison to New York City extravagent Pride which is where I am from. But this isnt the heart of the matter. The frustration and disgust that I feel as a person who constantly hopes for LGBT Equality and Marriage is perpetuated by these images within "the gay community."

Gay Pride Parades are probably the only time in your life that you will find on public display LGBT senior citizens walking in front of a Big Bear float with hairy and practically naked older men who are in front of a delegation of PFLAG members (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), behind a cotingency of "marriage equality" holding 5 year olds with their two moms behind a transsexual with her large, fake, plastic breasts literally out in the open. I am a die-hard liberal with a little L, and a Progressive meaning I do believe in free expression, however, I just feel there is a line between freedom of expression and indecency. Call me conservative, but I just dont find it appropriate for transsexuals with their breasts hanging and men with their penises practically in the air next to small children holding sings that say " I love my two daddies." Its just revolting.

That isnt even that worst aspect of these events. Are we not trying to stop discrimination, prejudice, hatred, ignorance and bigotry? Arent we all on the same team? How is it that such events aimed at visibility are supposed to increase acceptance when stereotypes of gays being ultraeffeminate and sexual deviants are strongly perpetuated by such public displays? Yes, we can exhibit free expression of the variations of genders, sexes and sexual orientations. That is completely fine. But how is it OK to have children as young as toddlers in the same parade as such revolting images? I just dont see how a hairy, 50 year old man in his leather hat and strap ons is beneficial to the greater struggle of acceptance, awareness, and equality under the law.

I have no problem with drag queens and kings. It displays the open expression of femininity and masculinity. However, since when does being LGBT have anything to do with open expression of one's distorted overweight body? Since when does being LGBT have anything to do with women showing their bare breasts to hoardes of crowds some of which look on at the parade as if it were a circus act (one example being my moderately conservative Soviet immigrant parents.) Do you see Puerto Rican women showing their bare breasts during the Puerto Rican Day Parade? Or do you see Vietnam Veterans waving their penises in the air during Memorial Day celebrations? I just dont see the correlation between being part of the LGBT community and sexual perversion. That is exactly what our opponents attack us and label us as and we cannot move forward at a greater pace until gay pride becomes a celebration of our families, our friends, our neighbors, our accomplishments, our identity, and our culture.

If we continue to focus on the sexual aspects of sexual orientation, which I find to be irrelevant when it comes to LGBT Equality since Privacy Rights should be guaranteed and the government should have no role in your personal sex life, then we face the risk of creating a backlash against all the work that we have worked tirelessly to achieve.

Not all stereotypes are true. But some are perpetuated and directly influenced by the afflicted community and it is our duty as LGBT individuals to stand up and demand decency in celebration of who we are as a people. We dont need to have these gut-wrenching images of obese men and women running naked in the streets to show our pride in ourselves. Im not saying we need to conform to "mainstream heterosexual society" and lose a lot of the features that make LGBT individuals different. All I hope for is that we showcase our determination and will to move forward with pride in a universally clean and beneficial way not through bare breasts but through words, actions, and love.

I would love for some input.

So I blog from my desk at the Alliance for Justice in the Dupont Circle area of Washington DC on a Friday in June. I havent written a post in 4 months but I am starting to get a little more motivated to start blogging again. It may be due to my position at AFJ as Outreach/Blog Intern.

Thanks to Campus Progress for hosting a great social gathering on Tuesday at the Science Club in DC by the way. Great way to meet up with old friends!

So I take a new perspective on blogging as a "Washington Insider." As an intern with vast connections from the Hill, to the Democratic National Committee, and to various non-profits, I feel being an intern is a great opportunity to obtain a vast array of perspectives on politics that one wouldnt in, for instance, a dorm room at UVA in Charlottesville, Virginia.

As an intern at AFJ, I have close connections with the latest news on judicial nominations (Leslie Southwick especially), the status and restoration of Habeas Corpus, and the status on progress towards dismantling the conservative agenda specifically pertaining to the Judiciary system.

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?