Pastors over policy
If the media are going to focus on candidates’ supporters, we can’t ignore McCain’s anti-gay Hagee
Hillary, the time has come
Clinton’s gay supporters must now line up behind Obama to prevent McCain from making Supreme Court appointments
advertisement
advertisement
EDITORIAL
Hillary for president Gay voters are right to feel reluctant about Clinton’s bid, but she represents best chance to rid White House of GOP’s anti-gay agenda
ANY GAY VOTERS, this one included, are reluctant to trust Bill and Hillary Clinton’s promises on our issues after the euphoria of 1993 turned into the crushing disappointments of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act.
After courting the gay vote back then, Bill Clinton embraced a disastrous policy that has led to the expulsion of 12,000 service members at a time when the military needs all the help it can get. The U.S. military is kicking out brave, competent service members, including dozens of desperately needed Arabic-speaking linguists, solely because they are gay. The military’s gay ban amounts to un-American overt discrimination — a fact apparent to any rational, fair-minded person.
Bill’s transgressions didn’t end there. He signed DOMA and cynically bragged about it in ads that aired on Christian radio stations during his 1996 re-election campaign. More recently, he reportedly urged Sen. John Kerry to support state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage during the 2004 race.
Publicly, we are told that this is not Bill’s campaign for a third term; rather it’s Hillary’s opportunity to shine on her own. But no one is that naïve. Make no mistake that voters will again get a two-fer if Hillary wins.
Despite this complicated history, Hillary Clinton, and most of her Democratic rivals, deserve much credit for evolving quickly on gay rights issues. Just four years ago, Kerry endorsed same-sex marriage bans. Today, all the Democratic candidates have backed some form of relationship recognition for gay couples. Former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson favor repealing all of DOMA, while Clinton has taken the more cautious approach of advocating a repeal only of Section 3, which defines marriage under federal law as a union only between a man and woman. That section prevents same-sex couples who are married or have entered into civil unions from accessing the many federal benefits of marriage. Advocating for its repeal marks major progress for a leading presidential candidate.
On many other high-profile gay issues, there’s not much to distinguish the Democratic contenders. They all support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a gay-inclusive hate crimes law and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
SO, THEN, WHY Hillary? Her chief rival, Obama, has disappointed in the debates, appearing to lack confidence and talking mostly in generalities. George W. Bush has certainly lowered the bar when it comes to expecting experience in our presidential candidates, but Obama was an Illinois state senator just three years ago. Obama’s speeches are often inspirational and he has bravely stood up to homophobic black ministers and advocated for equal treatment of gays. He’s certainly earned his considerable gay support. But the world is a complicated mess: warring religious factions in the Middle East, rising anti-American sentiment around the globe, the dollar in a free-fall. Electing a president with virtually zero experience on the world stage would be a mistake.
By contrast, Clinton has demonstrated a mastery of detail during the campaign. Whatever you think of her, there’s no denying her intellect and willingness to work hard. She knows the issues, the history and players and has repeatedly pledged to work to restore the country’s reputation around the world. That’s a much-needed common sense perspective on where to start in 2009. And with an eight-year record of extensive globetrotting as first lady, she’s well positioned to serve as the diplomat the country needs.
For those who doubt her ability to win over moderate and conservative voters, look at what she accomplished in upstate New York, where she carried “red” counties in a landslide Senate re-election victory. I’ve interviewed elected officials, including conservative Republicans, from those areas and they agree that Clinton is a hard-working and accessible leader with a focus on constituent service. In addition, she worked from day one in the Senate to cultivate relationships with even her most conservative Republican colleagues.
She has promised that gay Americans will have an “open door” to her White House, a welcome change from the non-stop demonizing of gays under Bush.
THE DEMOCRATS RIGHTLY won praise for including a forum on gay issues in the primary campaign season. The leading Republican candidates wouldn’t even attend a debate on black issues, let alone gay ones. The GOP, by continuing to align itself with evangelical Christian extremists, has clearly not learned anything from the failed Bush era. Its standard bearers appear increasingly out of touch — from Mike Huckabee’s shockingly ignorant remarks about “isolating” AIDS patients to Rudy Giuliani’s suddenly nuanced positions on gay rights.
Gay Americans cannot afford another four years of a Republican administration in the White House. Attacking gays and opposing even the most benign forms of incremental rights advances is now part of the GOP playbook, no matter the nominee. Bush has helped block ENDA and the hate crimes bill via veto threats. He has attacked our relationships in his State of the Union address, cruelly pushing for a federal ban on same-sex marriage. He — along with all the Republican candidates for president — supports the antiquated and reckless “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Many supporters of independent candidates argue that there is no longer a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. But on gay issues, that is simply not the case.
As gay Rep. Barney Frank told the Blade last summer, “all the Democrats are very good and all the Republicans are very terrible.” For sure, gay Americans will be vastly better served by any of the Democrats now in the running than any of the Republicans.
But in the end, Hillary Rodham Clinton stands the best chance of sending the Republicans into eight years of a well-deserved political wilderness. She’s smart, tenacious, hard working and willing to cede the spotlight in the interest of bipartisan cooperation. She has marched in our Pride parades, promised unprecedented access to her administration and backed nearly all of our issues.
Clinton has earned the support of gay voters in 2008.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
Peter Yacobellis on 12/29/0712:35 PM:
In 2004 with Hillary as my Senator in New York I spent a semester as a college intern in her communications office. During a one-on-one conversation I had with her about the struggle young LGBT people had with coming out and dealing with un-supportive families and hostile churches, she was quick to remind me about the horrific teen suicide rates among gay teens particularly. She had deep knowledge and true sense of compassion. It gave me chills. She cares and she's going to fix this.
timinchicago on 12/27/074:01 PM:
DOMA DOMA DOMA. they (and you admit, they are one in the same) used it for a reelection tool! That's all i need to know. How can you trust them?
As for the tired "experience" case you make. Same old conventions, same old results. So provincial and narrow is your perspective. see: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157 AND http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157 and http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/12/blade-editor-en.html#comments
Gay and a GOP on 12/27/0711:41 AM:
Yet again Kevin is willing to sell any gay to any Democrat for the lowest return on investment available. Until gays collectively stand up and hold leaders accountable across all fields, this is the best we can ever expect.
beergoggles on 12/24/078:32 PM:
Lets see:
Edwards is for repealing DOMA and supports the UAFA - rest of their positions are the same.
Obama is for repealing DOMA and things the UAFA for gays will make all the gays liars and lawbreakers.
Clinton won't repeal all of DOMA, is against the UAFA.
Not much of a choice there, Edwards is pick one, Obama is pick 2, Hillary is pick 3 based on the equal rights laws they support.
And they are all leagues ahead of Republicans.
TXWhtBoy on 12/24/077:42 PM:
"Former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson favor repealing all of DOMA, while Clinton has taken the more cautious approach of advocating a repeal only of Section 3.."
That comment in itself negates any reason Gay and Lesbian voters would have to support Ms. Clinton.
John Edwards is the obvious choice. His SPOUSE wants full equality. Edwards even admitted during the debates that his opinion is evolving. Clinton has a bad track record and has earned nothing from us.
Don George on 12/23/0710:00 AM:
The LGBT community cannot afford to have a Republican win in 08. With that said everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who has the most experience, who supports repealing all of DOMA vs Section 3. The name of the game is winning and I don't think Hillary can do that when she starts out with 49% negatives. Your editorial would have served the community better if you made the sole criterion WHO CAN WIN. Everything else is irrelevant. If we lose, we're dead!
Don George on 12/23/079:41 AM:
Bill also made "signing statements" modifying legislation when he signed a bill, although not nearly as many as Bush. My question is simple: Did Bill Clinton make a signing statement that would have diminished or nullified either DADT or DOMA? To the best of my knowledge he did not. Whether signing statements are legal or not is not known, but if Bill did not believe in what he was signing, he could have at least reduced their effect with signing statements. Instead he embraced both. QED
Ye Olde Fart on 12/22/075:49 PM:
You may be right about Hillary. But given her husbands record while in the White House I have my doubts.
Steve Charing on 12/22/073:58 PM:
kdogg36: Yes, he is responsible for signing DADT into law. I'm not questioning that. I'm saying he didn't embrace it as if it was something he wanted.
kdogg36 on 12/22/073:55 PM:
Steve: If Congress is trying to shove something down a president's throat
that he truly opposes, the Constitution provides him a method of
communicating this clearly to the world. If he signs the bill, it is fully
appropriate to hold him responsible for it. He signed DADT, and he
positively supported DOMA (as he made clear in an Advocate article at the
time).
Steve Charing on 12/22/073:11 PM:
First, Bill Clinton didn't "embrace" DADT. It was shoved down his throat by Congress and the Joint Chiefs as he had accumulated no political capital to make his executive order stick. Second, electability is not so much dependent on experience as likeability. Look atthe last 4 presidential elections: Clinton-Bush, Clinton-Dole, Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry. Although many factors affected the results, in each election, the more experienced person was defeated by the more likeable. Dems need a win.
Don George on 12/22/072:30 PM:
Kevin, your editorial sounds like it was written by the Clinton team. It repeats the Clinton talking points perfectly. You didn't convince me. You spent a lot of time comparing George Bush to Clinton. Your reference point should have been, it has to be a Democrat, so let's compare Democrats. In that case, both Edwards and Obama do better than she does in national polls as to who can win in Nov. 08 ---- which is what really counts ---- otherwise we get a Republican and we're back to 0.
MikeinDC on 12/22/0712:18 PM:
I think this was a wonderful endorsement. For her sheer level of comfort with LGBT folk, Hillary wins hands down. Moreover, Obama's insistence on McClurkin's participation in a South Carolina rally was the death knell for any support I might have given him; I will skip the top of the ticket in the General Election if he is our nominee. Edwards's reassurance that his daughter is more open to us than he is was hardly reassuring. No, Hillary definitely is the right one for us. Congratulations!
ErikDC on 12/22/0711:31 AM:
Kevin, electing another legacy President would be the mistake. The Bush and Clinton families have monopolized our government for long enough. Such stagnation and familial succession is a grave threat to our democracy.
Bill Jacobs on 12/22/079:14 AM:
After reading your front page article. Richardson clearly has the best record of achievement on LGBT issues-the other candidates are good at talking about them. But then I read Neff's editorial and learn that The Blade endorses Hillary? Did you even read Lou Chibarro's interview? And do you really think Clinton is more electable? I've never heard Hillary have the guts to criticize Barney Frank's exclusion of gender identity like Bill Richardson did. And Richardson gets no mention for that? Hmm.
KScottB on 12/22/075:35 AM:
Hillary's Record: for the war, for DOMA, for DADT. As recently as 2004 hubby Bill was telling Kerry to play the anti-gay card. Now favors only partial repeal of DOMA. This duo has shown again and again that when push comes to shove it's the gays that get pushed off the Clinton bus.
Obama: Against the war, Agn DOMA, for full DOMA repeal now, would legally give all 1,200 federal rights and benefits to gay civil unioned couples.
JMMBC on 12/22/0712:45 AM:
As Joe Solmonese, President of HRC, says, "Hillary is not only a great leader, but an even better friend." She is a strategic partner for the gay community. When the FMA was going down, she summoned gay leaders to the Hill to try to stratergize about how to defeat it. If you want big bang politics, you might have to look elsewhere. But, look up the history of DADT -- we are better off today with it than we were without it. Gays were being prosecuted and questioned then. We forget too easily
jeri . on 12/21/071:39 PM:
oooh, i like those words! demand, and equality! they are even better when they are said together!
shandwerk on 12/21/0711:52 AM:
I have to disagree with your thesis as it is contrary to all of the national polls right now. If, as you claim, you desire is to rid the white house of the republicans than John Edwards is the most viable according to every poll I have seen with head to head match ups with each and every republican candidate. Also, I am tired of the "baby steps" approach that Clinton consistently advocates. DADT was wrong headed as was DOMA. It is time to stop electing apologists and demand equality.
jeri . on 12/21/079:54 AM:
i can't believe you are endorsing hillary. your own description of her represents that she is an extension of her husband, and that her actions - like his - are not trustworthy. in some things, character is EVERYTHING. where were her words of wisdom and her leadership during the ENDA debacle or with the mathew shepherd act? hillary is better at talking about being a leader than she is at acting like a leader. IMHO, she is "the consumate politician" - which is the OPPOSITE of a compliment, somewhere between a thief and liar.
