In Defense of John Edwards' Gay Issues

The senator goes all Kaus-like when the homos are around. Jamie Kirchick is having none of it:

Frankly, I don't see how someone who is admittedly "not comfortable" around any sort of American - whether they be black, Chinese, poor, or gay - is fit to be president.

Matt Zeitlin is persuasive on this point:

It's the basis of the liberal society we should try to cultivate in America that someone can be "uncomfortable" with gays in the private sphere, yet in the public sphere, he can advocate policies he knows are fair and promote social and legal equality, because he thinks these values are important. We shouldn't bash politicians as being not good enough on gay rights if they have common, residual cultural prejudices or even discomfort with gays, yet they still, in their heightened position in the public sphere, advocate on behalf of gays.

Leave Mickey Alone. And who could disagree? Then, alas, we get this lame-ass Democratic talking point:

John Edwards may not be perfect, but let’s not call him a bigot or a dishonest supporter of gay rights, especially when the other party is built on bigotry and disdain for homosexuals.

The rampant homophobia among Christianist Republicans is not a get-off-free card for Democrats. Or did we learn nothing from the Clinton years?