Of dirty tricks and old wounds

As some warn victory, some downfall,
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred

-Bob Dylan, "It's All Right Ma, I'm Only Bleeding"

After a rather nasty e-mail exchange I had this morning, I'm curious about what others think of this.

I was reading an acquaintance's blog post about Obama's possible running mates. John Edwards was listed among them (rather disingenuously, since he has already said he doesn't want the VP slot again), and he was immediately shot down as a poor choice because he "attacked Cheney for having a gay daughter" in 2004.

Now, I already felt Edwards would not be the best choice for Obama, mainly because he didn't do a particularly good job as the VP nominee in 2004. (I hate to have to say that, and I did support him for president this time around, but it's true all the same.) But the claim that he "attacked" Cheney is just ludicrous in my opinion. For what it's worth, here is an account of the exchange in question. And the "offending" remark from Edwards:

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, who want their children to be happy.

Now, I do see how that can be seen as a bit passive-aggressive. It reminds me a bit of Clinton's brilliant comeback against Bush Sr. in the first 1992 debate regarding the "issue" of his patriotism ("But a senator from Connecticut stood up to Joe McCarthy, named Prescott Bush! Your father was right...") Both were obviously more about rousing the base than addressing the real issue at hand. But then again, one could argue that there was no "real issue" in the first place in both cases: Clinton's patriotism was only ever in doubt among people who hated his politics, and unfortunately, Kerry and Edwards were only marginally less hostile to gay rights than Bush and Cheney were. But still, does that make it "an attack for having a gay daughter"?

I don't see how, unless you're a homophobe. I really don't. I do think it's fair to call it an attack on someone for being a bigot against a group that includes a member of his family, but why is attacking that a bad thing? More to the point, why is an Obama supporter making excuses for Cheney's bigotry? I see it all too often, really: people who claim to be Democrats - or at least not Republicans - will feel compelled to regurgitate GOP propaganda like that. I call them the "I'm not a Republican but" crowd, and I really wish I could understand what inspires them. For one thing, maybe people like me could get through to them better if we could understand their perspective.

I did try to reason with this person about that. It didn't work, but this person did, I think, end up revealing a bit more than intended. Apparently Edwards was unreasonable because we can still love our children even if we "don't approve of their lifestyles." True, but that still doesn't make the above an attack on somebody for having a gay relative.

In any case, that exchange having devolved into a round of gratuitous insults without finding any common ground, I am curious as to what others think. I'm a bit disappointed that I wasn't able to make my own case any more articulately (is that a word?) than I did, but I guess that's what happens when two people look at the exact same quotation and see two completely different things. Was I off base? If so, why?

Oh, and the final parting shot from my friend? "It's my blog and I can write what I want there!" Yes, yes you can.