Edwards hasn't won one single primary and polls the lowest of the three candidates everywhere, yet he's the most viable? Not buying it.
It's sad to see that the rampant sexism in the LGBT movement continues. But, as a gay person, I can tell you that this endorsement is meaningless.
If the folks at Q-Notes thinks that gay women are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, then they're out of their little lavender minds. I mean, Hill's been (mis)labeled a dyke so many times by right-wing whackos that she has honorary status among us. In fact, in honor of Q-Notes endorsement, I'm sending another $100 dollar donation to Senator Clinton.
Q-Notes. Give me a break.
Posted by gay reader at January 16, 2008 12:09 PMi didn't see them say hillary won't win gay women.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 12:39 PMI'm with you, gay reader. As a lesbian, I am supporting Hillary as I see HER as the most viable, most experienced, most capable, and most progressive candidate still standing. That is in addition to her support for gay issues. I am not a one-issue voter, nor are most people in the LGBT community. I don't see that endorsement as having very much affect at all. (Incidentally, recently Obama's negative numbers have actually eclipsed Hillary's. They never seem to measure Edwards, so I don't know how he compares. But it would take a miracle for him to win the nomination at this point, so it's probably academic).