Centerfield

I thought it was a little awkward, and close to the line, to bring Cheney's daughter into the discussion. But I'm not sure the "anger" over it is more than show.

I seem to recall Cheney himself discussing his daughter's sexual orientation at a campaign event or two. I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly -- and it wasn't mentioned in the story on NBC News tonight -- but if true, it's a legitimate part of the public discussion.

In other words, if she wants privacy, great. But if her dad's discussing it in a campaign context, it's pretty likely she's given the go ahead to talk about it.

I agree. It made me a little uncomfortable. Unlike the VP debate where Cheney was actually sitting there, it seemed out of place there.

In my opinion, Kerry was just trying to let some of those evangelicals out there that didn't know that Cheney has "one of those gays" as a kid so maybe Bush isn't the "true Christian" he claims to be.

I was very turned off by it.

It was a truly cheap shot, outside the "customs and usages" of campaigning.

I didn't think much of it at the time of the debate, and I still don't because Cheney addressed the issue candidly a few weeks ago when he said that he disagreed with Bush regarding a constitutional amendment. That is news. However, I would be naive to think that raising the issue in either this debate or the VP debate was based on anything other any cold, political calculations.

I was traveling and missed the debate. I saw Edwards bring it up last week. Since it's public knowledge, and not at all new info, it doesn't trouble me in general, but maybe in the specific context it could be construed as a cheap shot. I find Cheney's stance honest and much to his credit, so if Kerry is bringing it up, I would tend to think that it could very well be targeted at horrifying some in the Bush camp. But these voters have nowhere to go anyway. OTOH, I don't think it's illegitimate that Bush be made to answer upfront for any policy schisms between him and his running mate...

But what is the calculation?

James Taranto says its gay-baiting

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005755

What, all of a sudden, conservative Republicans are defenders of gay rights?

No, what's happening is that while Bush has not himself gay-baited, the Republican auxiliaries are running gay-baiting campaigns in places like West Virginia, saying that if the Dems take over, they'll ban the Bible and introduce gay marriage. Kerry and Edwards are rightly trying to undermine the gay-baiters by making Mary Cheney a poster child for gay humanity(whether she wants to be one or not, which is certainly hardball).

To me it doesn't matter so much what points the Kerry campaign is trying to score -- the problem is trying to score them by using Cheney's daughter as a political football. She is a person, not a symbol. To rub salt in it, Kerry went on to speak for her. Are they good friends? Is he a mind reader? Bottom line: Kerry shows something unpleasant in being willing to use people for his own purposes. In this case, at cross-purposes with the person in question, since she is, in fact, working for the Bush campaign.

I'm not a big fan of Mr. Bush. But there has been something about Kerry that has rubbed me very wrong through the whole campaign -- and this is a piece of it. In this context, his mother's dying words to him take on a very different quality.

It was a cheap shot. Kids are not fair game, eve grown ones. And it may well backfire. It will actually increase turnout among evangelicals. Ditto with Hispanics. It's not a gay thing, it's a family thing. It's not quite the functional equivalent of publicly teasing someone about a child who committed suicide or was sent to prison, but in the same vein. Kerry and Edwards may have just succeeded in raising Bush and Cheney's sympathy factor with the evangelical base and a key minority.

Among Democratic evangelicals (and that's 35-40% of a group estimated as high as 90 million in America) it could be a major mark against Kerry/Edwards. It's popular on the left to confuse evangelicals with the (much smaller) monolithic Religious Right. Popular, but really stupid. Clinton beat Dole 55-39 among evangelicals in 1996.

Not only did Kerry bring up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation (which is her own private business) - he talked about what she would think and/or say about it!

I doubt that Senator Kerry has had private conversations with Ms. Cheney - so my guess is that HE was just guessing, and doesn't really know.

It was terribly inappropriate. Kerry could have used hundreds of other individuals as "examples" - but did not. He used Mary Cheney because he thought it would further his chances and harm President Bush's.

Crude.

This didn't bother me at all. I thought Kerry sounded like he actually knew and had empathy for gays, while Bush clearly was pandering to the religous right.

I agree with your point of being able to use hundreds of other individuals as examples, Peg. He also could have answered the question without naming names at all.

That said, I agree, Bill, I don't think the "anger" is very genuine. The candidates use their own kids themselves all the time, and Cheney's no exception. Mary's not on stage with the family when it's expedient for her not to be, and she is when the polls indicate that she should be. Edwards trots his little cute-as-a-button toddlers out there in front of those cameras whenever he can (flashbacks to Camelot, anyone?). The Bush twins had a debutante spread in the papers a few months back when Bush's ratings were low (although I'm not sure what that was supposed to accomplish), and Kerry's kids are giving speeches and holding Q&A sessions at colleges on his behalf all the time. If one uses their *own* child for political gain, isn't that reprehensible as well? Where exactly is this don't-exploit-the-kids line that shouldn't be crossed, because I don't think *any* of these politicians have it on their maps.

Interesting to read the different reactions. I was much more uncomfortable with Edwards use of the issue that with Kerry's. (And did you see John Stewart's parody -- Ha!)

I've read a couple of places tonight that Mary Cheney is not merely the VP's daughter, but plays a major role in his campaign. And she IS out, having worked for Coors managing their public relations with the gay/lesbian communities.

Also, when I heard Lynn Cheney's comment about Kerry's not being a good man, I had to laugh as I realized that she might have some background with someone that many consider 'not a good man'.

Oh yeah. And if Kerry's smart, he will issue a public apology now to Mary and the Cheney family for speaking about her sexual orientation during the debate without her consent. He needs to do damage control before this takes on a life of its own. If there's enough of a frenzy over this, and if it's allowed to go on too long, his gains will disappear.

People are reacting as if "lesbian" is bad word. They shouldn't.

I think this is a tempest in a teapot, personally.

Cheney has spoken out about his daughter's sexuality before in interviews...and he's also discussed his views on gay marriage which are at odds with Bush.

Further, Mary Cheney is Director of Vice Presidential Operations for BC04:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/bush/bushorg.html

and has done liason work for the GOP (specifically Coors in Colorado...but it's my understanding she's worked for other GOPers too) as a liason to the gay community. She's put herself out there publicly as a lesbian...as as her family.

It seems to me that the Cheney's are all of a sudden shocked that someone would bring this up...after they put it in the public arena.

Kerry and Edwards didn't need or require Mary Cheney's consent to speak about something that was placed in the public arena by the Cheney's. That's silly.

I agree that the Cheneys' are likely using their indignation in a political manner, but how tone deaf is it for Elizabeth Edwards to fan the flames by saying that they are ashamed of their daughter. It's pretty tacky of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, and the smartest thing they could do is apologize and move on.

If you thought it was ok to mention it, would have been just as ok if Bush would have cited Kerry's first wife, who suffered from depression, as a good example of why his faith based initiatives were so important?

Will,

You're comparing lesbianism to depression. Implicit in your argument is that homosexuality is a bad thing, like depression.

For a liberal gay view on this, see

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/15/mary_cheney/index.html

If someone can find a gay perspective representing the side offended by Kerry's remark, please post.

To me, as someone who's gay, I find the remark offensive in one sense. Kerry had no reason to mention Mary particularly unless it was to highlight what HE believe's is an embarrassment to the GOP

The sad part is this. Mary Cheney is someone who want's to be out of the limelight. I read, in one of the few interviews she gave, that she is very happy working behind the scenes and it has nothing to do with it being something her family wants.

Twice now she has been dragged out by the Democratic Candidates during debates. And I can see no reason why they would feel the need to make a point using a specific person.

The Liberal Gays throw out her name to score political points.

This is all wrong.

She wants her life to be private and they should all leave her alone.

Here's a link Rick

It's about the third or fourth post down.

http://gaypatriot.blogspot.com/

I just did some further thinking (sorry for all the posting)

Ultimately, if you read what he said, all he needed to say was....."I believe the lifestyle isn't a choice"

If he personally knew someone specific he wanted to mention as an example...fine...but he doesn't know Mary Cheney.

Thanks to Donald and the other new voices for stopping by.

Here is the direct link to the post Donald referenced

I didn't see that part of the debate--I was uninterested in the values part and switched to the baseball game (are there any gay baseball players?) but from what I hear, it was probably inappropriate. There should be a line--the Republicans had no business going after Chelsea Clinton and the Dems have no business using Cheney's daughter to score political points.

With respect to Rick's hypothetical, it's an interesting point. But there is a difference. Presumably, most people know that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, so it's not likely to surprise anyone. Plus, most of the Christian conservatives say they hate the sin but don't hate the sinner. So, it's probably not putting the daughter in any physical danger. (Of course, there's lots of yahoos that like to beat up gays, but they are probably more likely to go after male homosexuals.) If Rick's hypothetical assumes that the daughter's conversion to judaism was not known, then mentioning it would have the potential of stirring up anti-semitic feeling and putting her in danger.

Rick,

I wasn't trying to imply that being gay is a bad thing at all, and quite frankly, suffering from depression isn't a character flaw either. The point is that Kerry and Edwards intentially are dragging out a family member to take a cheap shot at Bush.

I think Bush is dead wrong about gay marriage and I'm a proud supporter of gay rights. Given the level of openness in the SF Bay Area, I work and socialize with quite a few gay friends and I sincerely hope the rest of America becomes more like the Bay Area in that respect. If that was the only issue for me, I'd certainly vote for Kerry, but unfortunately, there are much higher considerations this time around.

We can't have an open debate about this if you're going to imply that I'm a homophobe. I don't think that is exactly what you were trying to do, but it's easy to take it that way.

The point isn't whether being gay or depressed is bad, it's the intent the Kerry/Edwards campaign had by using it. Do you really think they were just paying a compliment to Ms. Cheney by mentioning her as Edwards repeated over and over on Hardball last night? No, they were trying to use her as a political ploy to strip off some of Bush's support in what they perceive as intolerant. I think few Bush supporters care whether Dick Cheney's daughter is gay, but I think it says a hell of a lot more on what Kerry and Edwards thinks of conservative religious voters.

Using my example, I have no doubt that people would say Bush was mentioning Kerry's first wife as a cheap shot, and I'd agree with them. They'd say he was taking advantage of a personal matter, trying to strip off the Catholic vote by pointing out Kerry's personal flaws dumping his first wife because he was depressed, and attacking Kerry's character. We'd have an absolute revolt if subsequent to that, Lynne Cheney said that Kerry "was embararrassed about his first wife". Hell, I'd be grabbing my pitch fork and meeting you in the street.

Fortunately, Bush didn't. Unfortunately, the Kerry/Edwards campaign did and they deserve to get slapped around a little about it. I don't think there is any disagreement on their intent, and the intent was bad.

The point is that Kerry and Edwards intentially are dragging out a family member to take a cheap shot at Bush.

I think the issue is quite different from that.

It was risky for either Kerry or Edwards to bring this up, largely because the audience doesn't know the background. Many won't know, for example, that Mary is openly lesbian.

More importantly, many won't know that the Cheneys have spoken publicly about their daughter's sexual orientation in relation to their position on the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Here's an AP article about the town hall meeting in Iowa where Cheney talked about Mary and his views on the constitutional amendment.

This is not an issue of an opponent dragging Mary into the debate. It's an issue of one side offering their daughter as an example first, and then the opposite side using it as an example in the debate.

There's another wrinkle to this, however -- something that makes you wonder how Mary views the issue in relation to her campaign duties. She's probably pretty uncomfortable with the whole thing.

This New York Times article about Cheney's town hall meeting suggests that Mary is quite uncomfortable with the limelight, and wasn't happy about cameras pointing in her direction after her father talked about her at a campaign event.

If Kerry or Edwards knew that, they should have left her alone. If they only knew that Dick Cheney was offering his daughter as an example on this issue, then they could assume there was a green light to discuss it.

As I say, a risky step for them, because few in the audience will look at this background. And even the latest news stories, like the one that ran on NBC last night, fail to mention that Cheney discussed his daughter in a campaign context first.

Risky, yes, but if you know the facts, not necessarily wrong.

William,

You bring up some good points.

If it was risky, as you mention, why do you think they did it? What was the possible positive outcome from the Kerry/Edwards perspective?

That's pretty hard to figure out.

From a political standpoint, you would think they'd be concerned about Cheney perhaps gaining some ground among moderates due to his tolerant stance on this issue and his ability to understand it on a personal level.

So you don't really want to bring it up, from that point of view. Keep Cheney as your bogeyman.

But there's also the fact that Bush and Cheney differ on policy. Highlighting the difference -- that Bush still favors an anti-gay constitutional amendment -- is a political plus, presumably.

Then there's the possibility that evangelical supporters of Bush/Cheney would be uncomfortable about Cheney's views on this, or with his family.

Either of those last two reasons could be a motive. But both are politically misguided. The last one won't work at all, and the previous one can be accomplished without specifically mentioning Mary. Just ask them why they disagree on the constitutional amendment.

I disagree that Mary Cheney wants to be "out of the limelight", if this were true, why would she take such a prominent role in the BC04 Campaign? Further, why would she take prominent liason roles to reach out to the gay community for GOP candidates?

I have a gay brother who's been out for years. When we discussed this last night..he said he was kind of baffled as to what the big deal is. He knew that Dick Cheney had brought up his daughter previously and had spoken out as against Bush's policy. He thought it was curious that the Cheney's seem outraged that after putting this out there themselves.

The larger picture appears to be that Bush did poorly in the debates overall. The BC04 team is trying to deflect from that...putting things into the news cycle that are sallacious to get folks talking about something negative about Kerry...to keep the conversation off them.

They have to stem the tide of Kerry's momentum. I watched Mary Matalin and Dee Dee Myers on Today this morning. Matalin tried to say that BC04 wants to talk about issues but Kerry won't let them (which on it's face is a weird thing to say)...and Myers pointed out that it's BC04 who's talking about it on the stump...and trying to keep it in the news. Matalin couldn't defend that.

Will,

I'm not trying to get PC on you, but I think it's a rhetorical trap to compare homosexuality to a quality perceived as negative. If there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian, then there should be nothing wrong with Kerry bringing it up. It's the fact that most Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality (including me to some extent) which makes it dicey. But the Cheney's make the problem worse by suggesting that Kerry said something bad about their daughter.

Despite Dick Cheney's public embrace of his daughter, which is commendable, I think the Cheney's are still uncomfortable with her sexuality, which is understandable given the generation in which they grew up, and also the political party to which they belong.

We agree on being gay isn't a character flaw. If I left that impression with my example, I apologize to anyone that took it that way.

Personally, I'd be pissed off if I was running for office and an opponent used my 3 year old daughter to score a political point, regardless of whether it was a negative or not. If the response afterwards is that I'm embarrassed about my daughter, I'd be livid.

I agree it's overblown for political reasons, but I also think the Kerry/Edwards campaign was completely tone deaf to think by using Mary Cheney, they were going to score some political points.

I think the underlying point here was that Mary Cheney was already a very big topic of political discussion and debate, albeit in an underground way (www.dearmary.com)regarding gay issues and this election. By Edwards(directly to her father's face) and Kerry invoking Mary-in a sense they are saying what gay activists wish MARY was saying. Basicly, "You want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage (which Cheney actually doesn't support), but you want me (Mary), who is an openly gay person, to work aggresively for your compaign-presumably against my (her) own interests"

As a matter of bad taste, it is usually bad form to use a member of an opponents family in your argument against them. However, there are not often such polarizing issues as gay marriage. To try and find a parallel issue, you don't even have to make the anti-semetic scenario like Rick did (I think its overly simplistic to imply that anti-gay sentiments are the same as anti-semetic, anti-black or even anti-women sentiments). Consider this: one of Kerry's or Edwards' children is an evangelical christian who is openly Pro Life and worked for their compaigns, but makes no reference to her father's support for Pro Choice policies. I doubt Bush or Cheney referencing them during a debate question on abortion would be considered offlimits.

The whole issue smacks of spite (Democrats) and guilt/shame (Republicans)

I may be a bit naive but it seemed to be a positive thing to say. He seemed, (to me) to be trying to get beyond the whole idea of someone being "turned into" being a gay person. Or am I way off base here?

I've just found this entire debate in the media to be quite astounding. i could get on board with a general principle of not to use an opponent's children to score political points--that is, so long as 1) those children are not actively engaged in their parent's campaign (and being paid a great sum for that involvemen), and 2) so long as the parent has not mentioned the child in relation to the political issue in question (which apparently Cheney has). So in this case, I think there was absolutely no "low blow" with regard to bringing up a candidate's family.

Further I don't see why everyone is so concerned about Mary Cheney. Many people seem to imply that there's got to be some civility about how gay issues are mentioned in public. I'm sorry, but as a bisexual woman I think any civility I ever owed Mary Cheney regarding her being a lesbian went right out the window the moment she started helping get elected people who seem so intent on taking away/preventing me from getting rights. Surely I must still respect her as a human being...I still owe her that kind of civility. (Though notice she obviously does not care about respecting my humanity since she's willing to help get Bush re-elected on an anti-gay agenda.) But I don't think that includes sheilding her from taking the heat of being a lesbian and a campaign manager. In fact, I say pour on the heat to the entire Cheney family. A few months back I suggested that Kerry start running an ad aimed at anti-gay Bush backers that pointed out that Cheney flip flopped regarding the FMA and that his daughter is a lesbian whom he has running his campaign.

I admit, though, that I'm no pollster so I have no clue what kind of political fallout could have resulted from such an ad (or will result from Kerry's remark). It might have been a stupid thing to do strategically speaking. But I don't see anything wrong with it morally speaking. If we're going to attack someone for going over the line and disrespecting gay people why the hell are we talking about Kerry? How could anything he said ever compare to what Bush has done? The Cheney's say they're angry and that Kerry is not a good man because he brought up their daughter's sexual orientation, perhaps in hopes it would score him political points? Well I (and probably most of the glbt people in the country) think Bush is not a good man and I am angry at him for TRYING TO WRITE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ME IN THE CONSTITUTION, for refusing to give any clear position on any glbt issue that might anger anti-gay right wingers, for conducting a campaign which is actively promoting homophobia. Wouldn't it be nice if the media would report my responses to Bush's policies the way they're so eager to report the Cheneys' responses to Kerry's statement?

If being gay is not a matter for shame, let's draw a comparision. If Kerry had been asked "if in his opinion women were by nature, equal to men in terms of intelligence", would it have been wrong for Kerry to have said, "why yes. women are. I'm sure that Lynn Cheney would agree." Would this have been a political tactic. OF COURSE! Was this a political debate? OF COURSE. Is it about scoring points and winning? OF COURSE. But one thing in clear. If you trot your wife and your daughter out on stage, put them on the payroll of your campaign, use them as evidence of who you are....they you damn well better be ready for what comes and skip the fake self-righteous reactions. You choose politics, you live with what comes.

Just to make one clarification.

I'll take Kerry's comment about Mary over the GOP's attempt to write into various state Constitutions a narrow discrimination clause any day.

Would it have been "fair game" for Bush to mention that the Kerry daughters would say their father being a bigamist in the eyes of the Catholic church is acceptable, because he knows they love their father?

Would it have been "fair game" for Cheney to speculate that the late Wade Edwards would support raising the driving age, to keep 16 year olds from having stupid accidents? To phrase it as "Wade would say..."? Then accuse Elizabeth Edwards of being ashamed of her son when she took umbrage at the remarks?

Or to congratulate the Edwards on succesful fertility treatment to have "replacement" kids in their 40's, after their son died? After all, Edwards wore that lapel pin honoring Wade Edwards to the VP debate, and made sure the press knew what it represented....

It was a cheap shot at a candidate's family member made explicitly to score political points. That was followed up by the other cheap shot of putting words in that family member's mouth when they weren't the one on stage able to reply. Candidates can speak for their own family. They can not speak for the opponent's family. The subject matter of the cheap shot is irrelevant. It's still a cheap shot (a double, actually) and out of bounds.

I agree with the above. I also think it was pretty tasteless and I’m wondering why Mr. Kerry said “lesbian” as opposed to the more socially accepted “gay”. I noticed he has some problems getting the word out, so I don’t think it was an accident. If he really wasn’t trying to get Mr. Bush’s goat why not use “gay”?

The headlines over this incident are bothering me a lot because they have taken the focus off of the issues including the marriage ban amendment.

I'm upset in the extreme that a prolonged, emotional, visceral, parental backlash will obfuscate what had become a more even playing field. By that I mean that the media is FINALLY fact checking the claims made by both parties instead of just airing the ads and asking what effect they'll have. Now, all the media seems to be able to do is show sound bites pertaining to this story over and over again. It makes me soooo angry.

I don't know any of these people personally. But, I don't think the rules on what's off limits in a political campaign are hard and fast. Some of the things I've seen and heard throughout this campaign as well as others in our history seem extremely distasteful to me.

I think where I come down on this is if it was strategic on the part of Kerry/Edwards, which my observations lead me to believe that it was, it was a major blunder. The campaign had a clear warning not to pursue this avenue after Edwards brought it up in the VP debate. They had great momentum and a platform to continue to hammer home their positions to the American public and they blew it.

I personally think they were trying to highlight the obvious hypocrisy of being tolerant by banning full rights and protection via a constitutional amendment. But, the subtlety will surely be lost on whoever they thought they'd reach with this ploy.

I'm angry at Kerry/Edwards for doing it; I'm angry at Bush/Cheney for seizing on it; and I'm angry at the media for perpetuating it.

who cares about Mary Cheney when Bush has started a religous war?

John Kerry and the Dems miscalculated one thing. The "religious right" deals with gays and lesbians all the time. Don't these people know that? I'm a lesbian, I live in the "Bible Belt". I don't have many friends who weren't raised in a pretty strict religious environment, and these are the people John Kerry was digging at, and these are the people who understand more than he realizes. The "RR" confronts this all the time, and they are faced head on with the fact that they think it's wrong, but here's someone they love who is this way. I've seen it happen so many times..and in most cases - with some exceptions - these people love their kids despite their beliefs, and accept them - but remain convicted in their beliefs, because they believe that serving God is more important than even your own kids. But they don't reject their kids either. It's an interesting phenomenon, but it happens all the time. So what the Dems are too stupid to realize is, they got too personal, and this will rally support from the Religious Right for the Cheneys. Blood is thicker than campaign rhetoric, after all. This will backfire on John Kerry. I dare say there are not many Bush supporters who DON'T know that Mary Cheney is gay. But to think that the whole of the religious right are just a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who never confront this in their own lives and families is folly. This is about FAMILY, and all these people saw is that Kerry used Cheney's daughter to make a political point and to put Bush on the spot. THAT WAS WRONG. You don't use family members in a campaign for cheap fodder. It's a CHEAP SHOT, and he has succeeded in pissing off that part of Bush's base and energizing them, when I think he thought he'd turn them away. It's quite funny, actually. I'm not really for either candidate, and will probably vote for Nader, but I find this all highly amusing.

I felt odd about the comment kerry made on friday. I did as I usually do when unsure of things and do a lot of research. while I don't think it was right for kerry to mention Mary Cheney's name to answer this question-I know I wouldn't-it's not going to change the way I vote. He drew in a lot more understanding than Bush's answer. He should apologize. But maybe then so should Alan Keyes because he said Mary Cheney was a hedonist. Why wasnt Cheney more upset about that. We've got to stop the hypocracy of hate that people display towards gays. If the Bush camp didn't stir the gay card into their moral platform, and if they loved and accepted Mary, why didn't she come on stage during the RNC?

The ensuing hypocrisy by the Cheneys is over the top. Mary Cheney is a hard-nosed opportunist, not some shy maiden.

If Mary Cheney weren't 31, if she hadn't already been paid for years by Coors to act as liaison to the gay community, if she weren't taking big bucks to play a public role in her father's campaing, things would be different. If she had shown any sign of valuing her private life, it would have been different. But that's NOT how it is. Mary Cheney has been cashing in on her gayness and on her father's political power, not exactly the side of angels.

But Kerry is truly a centrist, and I think he meant what he said, that he knows it's hard to balance the love of individuals with allegience to a party or religion.

What Kerry should have said is, "I sympathize with the Cheney family -- it must be terribly hard to make their daughter feel loved when they are working to deny her her full civil rights, working to deny her the security of marriage, the joy of children, the respect of society, which is freely offered to the most depraved, divorced child abusers and murders if they have the approved genitalia."

The Republicans are so asslocked over gayness Kerry simply dosen't view being a lesbian as something to be ashamed of sort of like being a WASP

If we're centrists and most of the country are moderates, why is Kerry experiencing a backlash?

I'd like to know what everyone here thinks.

For all of those who have their underwear in knots over the Kerry Edwards comments about Mary Cheney... I agree with those who find this entire line of discussion to be illogical as Mary Cheney is a public figure, she is part of the campaign machinery and therfore opens herself up to public scrutiny. Where was all of this hand ringing when the revelations about Bill Clinton's brother were made? The religious right spared no venom when attacking Hillary Clinton. Also, there has been a lot of nasty stuff said about the wealth of Ms. Heinz-Kerry. (Which astounds me! Is the insinuation that the Bush's are NOT FILTHY RICH???) Please! The family members of the candiates have been campaign fodder for years. Way back during the Carter years the press and Carter's opponents reported regularly on the escapades of the Carter family. Let's talk about, and focus on, the real shockers... Such as the ENORMOUS DEBT that this administration has accumulated, the fact that the job situation is getting no better, and the fact that there are more Americans without health insurance coverage today than there were yesterday. Let's focus our indignance and moral outrage on the true victims in this picture: the poor, elderly, disabled... Need I say more?

i feel that kerry was right on for mentioning mary cheney's daughter during the debate...
it just goes to show how truely ashamed dick and (his wife's first name just escaped me)really are about their lesbian daughter, and i think this a good pre-curser to how the kerry administration can deal with such issues such as, say, gay marriage, or funding for different LGBTQQ organizations out there that are just barely floundering to recieve grant $$$$ under this current bush (boo!) admin.....
thanx for your time.....
come to sf, it's really fun

Why shouldn't Kerry/Edwards talk about Mary Cheney? For four years, Lynne & Dick have barely mentioned her. And that's incredibly odd for people who are all about family/family values.

Mary Cheney has continued to support her father, despite his views and his opposition to his own child.

IF the argument against Kerry/Edwards had been that Mary wants her privacy, it would have been another matter. But the majority of arguments against Kerry/Edwards mentioning Mary Cheney have been used as if Mary Cheney is some dirty little secret.

And has been pointed out previously, ALL members of a politician/candidate are fodder. Why should Mary Cheney be excluded?