Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a religious-right group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity. "The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

"I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept . . . perjury in your highest officials."

[...]

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run. Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

[...]

"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," he said in the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm... not proud of."

The Democratic Party has officially canceled the debate, thanks to one of the few times FAUX News Chairman Roger Ailes used his mouth for something other than eating. Ailes did his best Dennis Miller impersonation and told a bunch of unfunny right-wing jokes, which the Dems are now using as cover to cancel the debate, rather than admit they F'ed up in the first place and that the pressure from truly radical progressives and MoveOn was too much to bear.

The Democratic Party has officially canceled the debate....

Fox News has already proven they have no intention of providing "fair and balanced" coverage of any Democrat in this election.

In recent weeks they have run blatant lies about Senator Obama's background. And Fox was only too happy to give Ann Coulter a platform to spew more hate a few days after her bigoted attack on Senator Edwards and the gay community.

-Is "pro-life," and believes federal judges should overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision as "bad law and bad medical science."

-Opposes gay marriage, but would let states decide whether to allow civil unions. "Marriage is between a man and a woman, and judges shouldn't be allowed to change that."

-Opposes gun control, and praised last week's 2-1 federal appeals decision overturning a long-standing handgun ban. "The court basically said the Constitution means what it says."

-Supports President Bush's decision to increase troops in Iraq. "Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify them. I think we are doing that now," he said. "We've got to give it a chance to work."

-Would pardon former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice now, rather than waiting until all his appeals are exhausted.

Libby is "bearing the political brunt of something that should've never come about," Thompson said, noting that "practically every witness at trial had inconsistent statements."

Thompson said he was not setting a deadline to make a decision and believes he won't be at a disadvantage if he waited until summer. "The lay of the land will be different in a couple of months than it is today, one way or another," he said.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - John Edwards said Thursday his wife¹s cancer has returned, but said he will continue his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly," Edwards told reporters, his wife by his side.

New Mexico Governor and 2008 Dem presidential candidate Bill Richardson was the keynoter at Human Rights Campaign Los Angeles Annual Gala Dinner Saturday night. Let's get to the bottom line:

* He's for a "full domestic partner rights act" bill in New Mexico ("And now, I am fighting for full and equal rights for all domestic partners, including gay and lesbian families."). He also said this:



I don't know WTF this means since he's also on the record standing by his original vote for the federal DOMA in 1996. There was no mention of marriage equality or civil unions in the speech.

* He's for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ("And I just want to say something about 'Don't ask, Don't Tell," it's got to go. It's got to go. If I'm elected president, I will end this disastrous, disrespectful policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'")

* He's committed to proactively dealing with HIV/AIDS.

Davidson decided to play a small prank on the campaign this morning as retribution. Since he’s in control of some of the images on the site, he replaced one that shows contact information with a statement:

Rudy: 9/11. Did I mention 9/11?

Hillary: I was born a poor black child

Obama: I come from a place called Hope

McCain: I'm not a maverick, at least not today

Romney: I'm not a liberal, no matter what my record says

Richardson: I'm not Hillary

Edwards: I sure got a purty mouth!

(Manchester, New Hampshire) Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has introduced the issue of a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage into his campaign.

The former Massachusetts governor tells the Manchester Union newspaper that moves underfoot to repeal a 1913 law he used to block out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying in Massachusetts show the need for an amendment.

...

Romney said that if the old law is repealed it is likely that a same-sex couple from outside Massachusetts will go to the state, get married, and then try to have the courts in their home state validate the marriage. "And that's going to go to the (U.S.) Supreme Court," he told the paper.

"At that stage, the Supreme Court could say it's not valid, it's null and void," Romney said. "But to me the most sure way to preserve the traditional marriage is by having a federal amendment."

Democrat John Edwards is touting prominent gay supporters who have signed on to his presidential campaign, including a former adviser to President Clinton.

Businessman David Mixner is one of 25 people listed on a news release that the Edwards campaign distributed Tuesday, along with a statement from the candidate saying he is honored to have the backing of so many respected gay leaders.

[...]

Edwards is making a push for gay support in the competitive Democratic presidential primary. In February, he came out in support of legislation that would end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents people who are openly gay from serving in the military.

[as have Obama and Ms. Clinton]

[...]

"Don't ask, don't tell" created a rift between President Clinton and Mixner, who raised millions for him among gay and lesbian voters but was later arrested in front of the White House in a protest of the policy. The two later said they patched up their differences and agreed to disagree on the administration's policy.

A group affiliated with the Congressional Black Caucus vowed Tuesday to stick with its plan to co-sponsor a presidential debate with Fox News even though top Democrats have said they will not participate.

"We have extended invitations to all presidential candidates to participate, and we are hopeful that they will accept our invitation," the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute said in a statement.

The CBC Institute's alliance with Fox prompted an outcry from liberal activists who complained the cable news network is biased against Democrats and is racially insensitive in its coverage of black issues.

On Monday, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton joined John Edwards in saying they would skip the debate.

The Gays love Edwards!

(or is it just this nebulous "gay leadership" that supposedly does?)

The following LGBT leaders endorsed Edwards for President:

* Skip Paul, Corporate Executive
* Darren Star, TV Producer
* Julie Johnson, Human Rights Campaign Public Policy Committee Co-Chair
* Eric Stern, Former National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director; Former Democratic National Committee LGBT Outreach Director
* David Mixner, Former Bill Clinton for President Adviser; LGBT activist, fundraiser, author www.davidmixner.com
* Dennis Erdman, TV Producer/ Director
* Mary Snider, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Executive Committee Member
* David Tseng, Kerry-Edwards 2004 National LGBT Advisory Committee Co-Chair; Former Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National Executive Director
* David Mariner, Former Out for Howard Dean Co-Chair; Founder, www.outfordemocracy.org
* James Duff, TV Producer
* Ramon Gardenhire, National Stonewall Democrats Black Caucus Co-Chair; Former DNC LGBT Deputy Outreach Director
* Scott Benson, Majority Leader Minneapolis City Council
* Shane Larson, AFL-CIO Pride @ Work National Executive Board Member; Association of Flight Attendants (AFA)-Communications Workers of America (CWA) Government Affairs Director
* Scott Wiener, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Member; San Francisco Democratic Party Chair* (for identification purposes only)
* Jeff Gardner, Garden State Equality Vice Chair; New Jersey for Democracy Co-Chair
* Lynne Wiggins, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) National Leadership Council Member; Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Governors Member
* Ken Keechl, Broward County Commissioner; Former Dolphin Democrats President
* Linda Elliott, Human Rights Committee Board of Directors Member
* Dave Garrity, Former Democratic National Committee Member
* Mark Periello, Former Human Rights Campaign staff member; Democratic strategist
* Ron Ginsburg, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
* Randall Kelly, LGBT Community Activist; attorney
* Stephanie Kornegay, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
* Robert D. Horvath, Mautner Project Board of Directors Member
* Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT Community Activist; Homeland Security Advisor

Let me be very clear. I am disappointed that none of the major candidates support full marriage equality. I deeply believe that our nation has arrived at a place where it is politically possible for a national campaign to be successful and support marriage equality for the LGBT community. It remains my hope that the major candidates may still come around on this issue and follow the courage of other national leaders such as Senator Russ Feingold.

Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, recently suggested that members of the LGBT community should not endorse any of the major presidential candidates because of their failure to support such a fundamental right for our community. I honestly considered her point.

But today, my politics are driven by my fierce desire to see an end to the war in Iraq. I am reminded daily of our struggle to end the war in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago. The parallels are striking and surreal. And I feel that I must do everything I can to elect a president who understands and shares this world view.

The New York senator also promised to "treat all Americans with dignity and equality no matter who you are and who you love." The pledge was clear bow to California's politically active and influential gay community.

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

(Washington) Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announced Wednesday that it has formed an LGBT steering committee made up of prominent gays to reach out to the community.

It includes New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn; Elizabeth Birch, former Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign; people from the entertainment industry including Greg Berlanti, the creator/producer of TV series “Brothers and Sisters” and Ilene Chaiken, the creator and producer of “The L Word” among others, and various gay people with experience in the federal government including Eldie Acheson, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General and the founding director of Public Policy and Government Affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

In all 65 people will serve on the committee.

“I’ve seen how Hillary Clinton’s experience, commitment, and leadership have made a difference for the LGBT community,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in a statement released by the Clinton campaign.

I have never received a satisfactory answer (political pragmatism doesn't count as an answer, folks) from any of Clinton's gay/lesbian "Dream Team" members that explains why she remained mute on the issue of gay immigration or more generally, but not less urgently, federal recognition of gay and lesbian civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages. And I do not refer to her silence during this campaign, but her silence as an elected official, my U.S. Senator, in fact.

I am unclear why she has not drafted legislation to establish federal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which she seems not to support. She was elected to legislate, not to campaign.

Hillary Clinton is not just a superstar, an icon, a former first lady, a brilliant politician, or an exceptionally intelligent and masterful public speaker, she is also a legislator. And what has she legislated for our community? LOL, as they say. She's been there since January 3, 2001. Six-and-a-half long years of silence, ignoring the pain inflicted on gay and lesbian couples in New York state by discriminatory treatment at the federal level (no, it's not just a "states' rights" issue), standing by while relationships are destroyed, and families of New Yorkers are torn apart. All the while, a thoughtful well-crafted legislation that followed on the heels of similar policy in 12 other countries including Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, was begging for her support. The Permanent Partners Immigration Act had over 120 co-sponsors in the House and 12 in the Senate, but Hillary Clinton was not one of them. Nor did she speak up to condemn the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act signed by her husband into law. (Only now has she dispatched Ethan Geto to explain to us why she feels part of that law is "unfair.") The gay marriage wars have been fought, won and loss in many jurisdictions in the past 6 years, but the U.S. Senator from the state that most likely has the largest lesbian and gay population in the country, has remained silent on how to establish full equality at the federal level for gay and lesbian couples. Silent. (You won't hear me clapping like a trained seal because she worked to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. It simply is not the same as taking proactive steps toward legislating equality.)

For this reason I am disappointed that such an illustrious group has signed up to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The experienced and committed men and women should take Senator Clinton to task for her silence. And they should be vociferous critics of her outrageous and offensive platitude (she couldn't possibly believe it, right?) that the Uniting American Families Act (formerly the Permanent Partners Immigration Act) would result in fraud and overburdening of the bureaucracy. The Senate horse trading on immigration reform is in full swing, where is the Junior Senator from New York working overtime to get UAFA attached to this bill. (Oh, yes she is busy campaigning.)

Pillars of our community, with all due respect, should not be signing up enthusiastically, giving her their early imprimatur and credibility (she already enjoys what appears to be unwavering love fest at HRC) as long as Clinton continues to reject the common sense approach: a statement of support of full and equal marriage rights coupled with introduction of legislation that would extend to all gay and lesbian couples the 1,049 rights currently bestowed under federal only to married opposite sex couples. Gay marriage is the defining civil rights issue of our generation, and our community should hold back its support until a candidate with uncompromising morality and courage to lead on this issue comes calling. We should not and must not rush to support one candidate in the primary simply because conventional wisdom has assessed her as most electable of the lot. We do not need more access, we need more action.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only 2008 presidential candidate who has publicly supported all eight LGBT issues. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the only 2008 presidential candidate who has publicly opposed all eight LGBT issues.

...

“The public statements and voting records of the Democratic candidates show that they are clearly light years ahead of the Republicans on almost every issue important to the LGBT community. Nevertheless, the lack of courage on marriage equality is disturbing on both political and moral grounds. Politically, being for civil unions but against marriage doesn’t bring a single voter over from the other side. Morally, it’s hard to understand how a Democratic candidate can say to people they know individually and to one of the most loyal and generous voting blocs the party has, ‘Sorry, I just can’t go there — you understand, right?’ Actually, we don’t.”

I would consider Larry Kramer a pillar (one among several). I am confident that he is not participating in this steering committee. I can even imagine the colorful terms that would accompany his rejection of such a suggestion... Mr. Kramer would not, I think, be 'polite.'

In the meantime, I don't think it's fair to characterize Senator Obama as any more homophobic than anyone else running for president.

I have great respect and admiration for Barack Obama. My sense is that he respects gay and lesbian people and wants everyone to be treated equally and fairly.

Does he intend to repeal DOMA and grant full legal equality to same-sex marriages? Does he intend to support the move to let the foreign partners of US residents to immigrate? Will the US administration do something for Gay refugees during his presidency?

As president he would have almost no power to do any of these things. Any candidate who suggests that they would do these things if elected president is, well, lying. Much like Mr. Bush's earlier agitations for an amendment barring gay marriage -- I don't believe the president's opinion would ever be asked for on that matter. It's an issue for the Congress and the individual state legislatures.

Mr. Bush's (or Mr. Romney's) views on constitutional amendments though are of little import. Such things must be passed by two-thirds majorities in the Congress. A two-thirds vote may also over-ride a veto. While it is conceivable that a president's opposition might alter a hypothetical vote to over-ride a veto, it is passingly unlikely.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson apologized this week for using a Spanish-language slur for gay people, even as he suggested it smacked of politics that news of his “maricón” moment is surfacing now, more than a year later.

The New Mexico governor used the term as part of a joke instigated by talk show host Don Imus during a March 29, 2006, segment of his “Imus in the Morning” syndicated radio program, simulcast on MSNBC.

...

“Bernard on the staff here has been claiming you’re not really Hispanic so-- that you're just claiming that for some sort of advantage or something,” Imus said to Richardson, tongue clearly in cheek. “You can just answer this yes or no and this will answer that question. Would you agree that Bernard is a maricón?”

Without missing a beat, Richardson replied in Spanish, “Yo creo que Bernardo, sí — es un maricón si él piensa que yo no soy hispano. [General laughter] Was that good enough or what? [General laughter]”

The March 2006 appearance is resurfacing now because of one reader of this blog. Christopher Hubble, a Denver, Colo.-based book publisher and blogger, e-mailed me after I wrote very approvingly of Bill Richardson's gay right record when he announced for president earlier this year.

Like several of the Richardson supporters quoted in the story, I think the Imus appearance raises legitimate questions about Richardson's judgment. He was clearly baited by Imus, but he replied using the same word without missing a beat. He was so anxious to reply he talked over the host. A clip of the appearance is available here.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson apologized this week for using a Spanish-language slur for gay people, even as he suggested it smacked of politics that news of his “maricón” moment is surfacing now, more than a year later. [Emphasis mine.]

“I would never knowingly say or do anything to hurt the GLBT community — a community that I have worked hard for and supported my entire career,” the statement says.

“In the Spanish I grew up speaking, the term means simply ‘gay,’ not positive or negative. It has been brought to my attention that the word also has a hurtful or derogatory connotation, which was never my intent. If I offended anybody, I’m sorry.”

The HRC-Logo press release, dutifully repeated sans scrutiny by dozens of blogs and gay, straight and even anti-gay media outlets, called the forum "historic." How, exactly, do HRC and Logo claim it is "historic"?



That statement is about as true as HRC's claim to have 700,000 members. In fact, the very same organization (under different leadership) hosted a forum of Democratic presidential candidates on July 15, 2003.

You may be among the more than 2 million people who have tuned into YouTube to watch the now infamous “Obamagirl” tribute to presidential candidate Barack Obama.

But you’re probably not among the 1,200 to have watched the drag king rap of Obama saying, “I’m down with the dykes, the straights, and the gays.” Or the 4,400 who have viewed the video of “Nitt Rommey” whose “plan for America” consists of “No homos”?

This is not your father’s presidential campaign. This is 2007, and the ease with which anyone can now create and upload a video onto the World Wide Web, enabling hundreds of people to get an audience for their views on the presidential candidates. And many are using YouTube, the most popular venue for such videos, to highlight candidates’ views on gays.

Finding those videos takes just a little work and many hours of YouTube surfing, and the rewards can be both hilarious and entertaining — or downright frightening.

Hillary Clinton may be a liberal in regard to the issue of gays and lesbians, but organizers apparently realized at some point that in West Virginia holding a fundraiser at a gay bed and breakfast would not be the best message to send. An official invitation circulating on Tuesday said the site has now been changed to the South Branch Inn in Moorefield, a traditional hotel and conference center.

The debate featured questions submitted by web users via YouTube, the popular video sharing site that is also a magnet for lawsuits alleging copyright infringement. Cooper announced that same-sex marriage had emerged as a popular topic among the 3,000 questions submitted. Two such questions made the cut. In the first clip, a lesbian couple from New York asked the Democrats if they would support their right to marry — each other. The second gay-related question came from a North Carolina-based pastor who asked John Edwards to explain why he invokes his religious beliefs to justify opposition to same-sex marriage.

The problem with this taped setup, of course, is that the questioners can’t follow up. Cooper made a few attempts at pressing the candidates, but he simply lacks the gravitas to do the job credibly. Several times, the candidates simply ignored Cooper and continued with their evasive answers.

In their responses, several candidates repeated their support for “equality under the law” for gay couples. In the Democrats’ political parlance, that doesn’t mean actual equality, it means they back civil unions, whatever that means. They never explain what they mean by the term and Cooper didn’t press them for specificity.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only one to enthusiastically and unequivocally support the right of gay couples to marry during the debate, though cantankerous former Sen. Mike Gravel also supports marriage equality. The others, including Sen. Chris Dodd, Gov. Bill Richardson, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, stressed their support for civil unions or domestic partnership rights. Obama even emphasized that he backs full “states’ rights” for gay couples. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn’t asked the question during the debate.

But the issue no one will touch concerns the hundreds of federal rights that convey to married couples. What about those rights? If these candidates support “equality under the law” as they claim, how do they address the issue of the many disparate federal benefits that would be denied to gay couples even if they had access to a state-sanctioned civil union?

The federal government provides more than 1,200 benefits and rights for married couples, including joint tax filings and Social Security survivor benefits. Existing federal law does not recognize gay couples — including those legally married in Massachusetts — and so none of those benefits would confer to same-sex couples in a civil union. Furthermore, a civil union performed in Vermont, Connecticut or New Jersey is meaningless in all other states.

Granting those 1,200 or so rights to committed gay couples would require more than just a federal law recognizing civil unions performed in the states. Legal experts have said lawmakers would need to repeal at least part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by many Democrats and signed by President Clinton in 1996. That law does two things: It defines marriage as a union only between a man and a woman and it allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The part of DOMA that defines marriage as a heterosexual union prevents federal recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in a state and would likely have to be repealed if gay couples were to access those 1,200 benefits.

Our best hope for clarity on these issues arrives Aug. 9, when the Human Rights Campaign and Logo sponsor a Democratic candidates forum (not a debate, because they won’t appear on stage at the same time). It’s a welcome opportunity for the candidates to address a key constituency and probably the only chance gay voters will get to hear precisely what they think on issues important to us.

After progressive (Pam Spaulding) and conservative (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Crain) bloggers fumed over the announcement that HRC and co-sponsor Logo selected HRC director Joe Solmonese and rock star Melissa Etheridge to serve as the sole panelists, HRC secured Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News to moderate and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for the panel.

HRC is expected to announce the update sometime today.

Former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia said Friday he is frustrated with the direction of the presidential race and acknowledged talking with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others about an independent challenge to the major parties.

Queer religious leader endorses a political candidate (not someone I'D endorse), and suddenly the "Interfaith Alliance" feels the need to speak out against religious leaders dabbling (swimming in?) politics.

A sudden epiphany about the importance of the separation of Church'nState?

Why? 'coz it's a Democrat being publicly endorsed all of a sudden, or 'coz it's a queer religious leader doing it?

I question the timing here. But then, I'm a Cynic...

The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan advocacy organization. Founded in 1994 to challenge the radical religious right, TIA remains committed to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in public life by encouraging civic participation, facilitating community activism, and challenging religious political extremism.

Like the other Republicans in the race, Giuliani will not be taking part in tonight's presidential debate on gay issues. But he still has done more to advance gay rights than just about any of the Democrats who will participate, gay activists said.

"Rudy Giuliani is near the top of the list," said Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, who was an activist in New York when Giuliani was mayor.

"The challenge for those of us in the gay rights movement is to look at two things: an elected official's accomplishment while in office and whether they affirm the humanity of gay people," said Foreman.

"On that score, Mayor Giuliani has a good record," he said, citing the city domestic partnership law, state hate crimes law, public support and appointments of gay judges.

Melissa Etheridge wasn’t just fawning over Dennis Kucinich — she was having a genuine epiphany about the Democratic presidential candidate during the LGBT forum in Hollywood sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo, and broadcast live by the network on Aug. 9.

The gays love Hillary. She's not for marriage equality, and her husband instituted Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but man, those boys sweat her anyway. A while back, Newsweek tackled this conundrum, but in next week's issue, gay newsmagazine The Advocate does it better: "Like a blushing schoolgirl, we take the varsity jock’s flirtations at face value, deluding ourselves into believing he’s going to ask us to the prom," explains editor Sean Kennedy. "When in reality he’s just using us to get to our sexy friend who will actually put out." (Hey, there’s a reason these people write all the cleverest shows on television.) Some hopeful gay voters take her carefully worded objections to marriage equality and interpret them as hints that she really, deep down, believes in it. But in the Advocate story, Clinton for the first time makes it aggressively clear that this is not the case. "I would tell you [if it was]," she said to Kennedy. "This is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically." Hear that, gays? She really, really doesn't support gay marriage (or was it not the gays who were supposed to be listening up?).

Op-Ed Columnist
In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?

By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 22, 2007

Right now it’s just a petition drive on its way to becoming a ballot initiative in California. But you should think of it as a tropical depression that could develop into a major storm that blows away the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House next year. And it could become a constitutional crisis.

It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote figures it may have to do it again.

The Presidential Election Reform Act is the name of a devious proposal that Republican operatives have dreamed up to siphon off 20 or more of the 55 electoral votes that the Democrats would get if, as expected, they win California in 2008.

That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the state of Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomes law, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationwide.

Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has suggested that the initiative is a form of dirty pool. While not explicitly opposing it, Mr. Schwarzenegger said it smacks of changing the rules “in the middle of the game.”

Democrats are saying it’s unconstitutional.

The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.

Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of California’s Congressional districts. That would likely throw 20 or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate, even if the Democrat carries the state.

A sign of the bad faith in this proposal is the fact that there is no similar effort by the G.O.P. to apportion electoral votes by Congressional districts in, for example, Texas, a state with 34 electoral votes that is likely to go Republican next year.

Longtime observers in California believe the proponents of this change — lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party statewide and nationally — will have no trouble collecting enough signatures to get it on the ballot in June. The first poll taken on the measure, which is not yet widely understood by voters, showed that it would pass.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional scholars, believes the initiative is blatantly unconstitutional. “Entirely apart from the politics,” he said, “this clearly violates Article II of the Constitution, which very explicitly requires that the electors for president be selected ‘in such manner as the Legislature’ of the state directs.”

In Mr. Tribe’s view, the “one and only way” for California to change the manner in which its electoral votes are apportioned is through an act of the State Legislature.

Professor Tribe is not a disinterested party. He represented Al Gore in the disputed 2000 presidential election. And not all constitutional experts agree that this would be such an easy call. “This is not an open-and-shut case,” said Richard Pildes, a professor at the New York University School of Law.

What is undisputed is that the Democrats will mount a ferocious legal challenge if the ballot initiative passes — “maybe even before it has a chance to pass,” a Democratic source said yesterday — thus opening the door to an ugly constitutional fight reminiscent of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The potential for trouble in the event of a close election is huge. Said Professor Tribe: “This is really a prescription for a possible constitutional crisis in which we have one president if California electors act in accord with the method set out by the State Legislature, and another president if the electors are divided according to this ballot initiative.”

The operatives behind the initiative are experts at causing trouble. The effort is being led by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer who was one of the leaders of the successful effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Politics is not just hardball to this crowd; it’s almost literally a fight to the death.

The proponents of the initiative understand completely that a constitutional crisis could damage the nation’s democratic process and undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election. In their view that’s preferable to a Republican defeat.

California voters would be doing themselves and the nation a favor by soundly defeating this poisonous initiative if it makes it onto the ballot in June.