Talk to a gay man and more often than not you’ll find an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton, whose status as a gay icon derives from her campiness. (Photo by Elise Amendola/AP)
ON
APRIL
9,
Elton
John
headlined
a
Radio
City
Music
Hall
fundraising
concert
for
Hillary
Clinton
that
might
as
well
have
been
a
scene
out
of
the
musical
“Gypsy.”
Inspired
by
the
musicality
of
the
evening,
Hillary
was
given
to
sounding
like
Mama
Rose,
the
archetype
of
the
ruthless
show
business
mom
immortalized
by
Ethel
Merman,
whose
show-stopping
credo,
“Starting
now
it’s
gonna
be
my
turn!”
is
one
of
the
most
famous
lines
in
Broadway
history.
“I’m
still
standing!”
Hillary
declared,
ripping
the
words
from
one
of
John’s
cheesier
’80s
hits.
“To
hell
with
them!”
John
shouted
in
reference
to
all
those
knaves
urging
her
to
bow
out
of
the
race.
It
was
difficult
to
tell
who
was
being
the
bigger
diva.
Elton
John
is
but
the
most
high
profile
gay
supporter
of
Hillary
Clinton
and
he
was
joined
by
most
of
the
country’s
gay
political
establishment.
Talk
to
a
gay
man
and
more
often
than
not
you’ll
find
an
enthusiastic
supporter
of
Hillary
Clinton,
whose
status
as
a
gay
icon
derives
from
her
campiness.
“Hillary,
Viva
la
Diva,”
Michelangelo
Signorile
wrote
in
the
Advocate
nearly
10
years
ago,
comparing
her
to,
among
others,
Judy
Garland
(“We’re
not
in
Arkansas
anymore”),
Madonna
(“constantly
reinventing”
herself)
and
Joan
Collins
(“cool
and
calculating”),
gay
icons
all.
“Hillary,
like
Joan,
is
an
aging
super
star
whose
career
is
on
the
wane,
but
she
refuses
to
exit
the
stage,”
Shaun
Jacob
Halper
recently
gushed
in
the
Huffington
Post,
likening
the
former
first
lady
to
Joan
Crawford.
“That
woman
is
made
of
piss
and
steel,”
a
gay
liberal
friend
of
mine
recently
remarked,
explaining
why
he
supported
Clinton
and
would
sit
out
the
general
election
if
Barack
Obama
won
the
nomination.
He
might
as
well
have
been
describing
Cher.
WHILE
CLINTON’S
POPULARITY
amongst
gay
men
is
mostly
an
anecdotal
observation,
it’s
borne
out
by
poll
data.
A
recent
Hunter
College
poll
found
63
percent
of
gays
supported
Clinton,
with
only
22
percent
favoring
Obama
and
7
percent
John
Edwards.
This
was
one
of
the
more
perplexing
demographic
facts
to
emerge
from
the
Democratic
primary
as
Obama
is
slightly
better
than
Clinton
on
gay
issues.
He
favors
full
repeal
of
the
1996
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
whereas
Clinton
only
supports
revoking
portions
of
it.
Obama
also
does
not
have
to
live
down
the
record
of
Bill
Clinton,
who,
while
president,
signed
into
law
the
“Don’t
Ask,
Don’t
Tell”
ban
on
gay
soldiers,
a
statute
barring
HIV-positive
people
from
entering
the
country
and
bragged
about
his
support
for
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
on
Christian
radio
stations.
While
there
certainly
are
substantive
reasons
for
supporting
Clinton
over
Obama,
in
the
two
states
where
pollsters
asked
for
voters’
sexual
orientation
(California
and
New
York),
Clinton
won
gay
votes
overwhelmingly.
She
has,
by
accident
or
design,
become
a
gay
icon.
GAY
MEN,
GIVEN
their
own
personal
struggles
against
prejudice,
tend
to
sympathize
with
those
on
the
down
and
out.
We
lived
our
own
David
vs.
Goliath
tales
and
often
transpose
them
in
our
art,
literature
and,
regrettably,
political
views.
As
Tina
survived
Ike,
so
has
Hillary
survived
her
own
philandering
and
psychologically
abusive
husband,
not
to
mention
the
Vast
Right
Wing
Conspiracy,
which
in
the
gay
underdog
narrative
is
like
a
schoolyard
full
of
homophobic
bullies.
“Hillary’s
been
a
victim,”
a
gay
Clinton
supporter
told
the
Washington
Post
earlier
this
year.
If
Hillary
Clinton
wasn’t
a
camp
idol
before
she
decided
to
run
for
president,
she
most
certainly
has
become
one
now,
daily
defying
all
that
represents
good
taste.
With
her
ridiculous
claims
(dodging
sniper
fire
in
Bosnia,
comparing
her
plight
to
that
of
the
embattled
opposition
in
Zimbabwe),
oversensitivity
at
every
perceived
slight
and
the
manifest
implausibility
of
her
campaign,
Hillary
became
an
emblem
of
irony.
Like
a
drag
queen,
she
battled
on
as
if
she
didn’t
even
want
to
be
taken
seriously.
All
kidding
aside,
I
find
my
fellow
gays’
love
for
Hillary
incredibly
shallow.
Identifying
with
her
hopelessness
has
become
a
manifestation
of
self-pity.
The
diva
worship
that
she
commands
amongst
legions
of
gay
men
confirms
every
negative
stereotype
about
us:
that
we’re
petty,
superficial
and
worshippers
of
femininity.
Her
status
as
a
gay
icon
would
trouble
me
less
if
she
did
anything
to
justify
it,
that
is,
if
she
actually
went
out
of
her
way
to
stand
up
for
gay
causes
(like
Cyndi
Lauper,
who’s
actually
deserving
of
the
title).
But
Clinton’s
record
on
gay
issues
is
unremarkable
and
she
was
nowhere
to
be
found
while
her
husband
was
throwing
us
over
the
bridge.
It’s
OK
to
worship
Olivia
Newton-John
for
her
star
turn
in
“Xanadu”
or
Jennifer
Holliday
for
telling
you
she’s
not
going
(heaven
knows
I
do).
But
we’re
electing
a
president,
not
a
diva-in-chief,
which
leads
us
to
the
question
of
whether
Hillary
Clinton
should
become
Barack
Obama’s
running
mate.
Do
we
really
want
to
spend
the
next
four
years
listening
to
a
tired
rendering
of
“I
Will
Survive”
on
repeat?
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.
milkor on 7/16/0811:31 AM:
To suggest that people only like Hillary Clinton because she's campy is an insult to us. It is a shallow, petty, superficial, and indeed, self-serving view.
And since when is someone hopeless simply because they lost the nomination? This is a democracy. You're not weak or hopeless because you weren't nominated. Mr Kirchick is no different than schoolyard bullies or packs of dogs who turn on someone when they seem weakened. He wants to identify with a perceived winner at all costs. THAT's true weakness.
Mr Kirchick devalues opinions that are different from his. Very undemocratic indeed!
NC Jason on 7/8/0810:46 AM:
.” I would like to think that this is is, perhaps, one reason why so many Gay men supported her. It was not because they “worshiped femininity,” not that anything is wrong with that, but rather because they appreciated and identified with a candidate who, like them, defied unapologetically gender norms.
NC Jason on 7/8/0810:46 AM:
I am very excited about his campaign and never was as entrenched and either camp. But one cannot argue that he is a relatively “mainstream candidate.” Clinton, on the other hand, is arguably not the “right kind of woman.” In many ways, she defies antiquated gender norms pervasive in our country. She is not Elizabeth Dole – the warm, sugary sweet, Southern debutante, nor does she try to be. She is described as aggressive, assertive and seems to revel in her ability to “play with the boys.”
NC Jason on 7/8/0810:45 AM:
Bill Maher described, perhaps, a convincing reason why I think that Senator Clinton garnered so much support among gay voters. He likened the campaign of Senator Obama to the “campaign” to integrate major league baseball via Jackie Robinson. He described Robinson as the “right kind of black person,” in that he was inoffensive and did not inspire the resistance that, perhaps, a less “mainstream” African-American player might have. Like Robinson, Obama could be described as “the right kind of black candidate.” That is not to take away from his campaign or his credentials. Contunied below. .
SCurry713 on 7/8/086:44 AM:
While she never gave a good reason to vote for her, One of the most convincing reasons for voting for someone else is her husband and the never ending soap opera they both would subject the country to again. I mean how many more interns must we suffer through? And where did this myth that the Clintons are great friends of the GLBT people come from anyway?
Mr Chris on 7/7/083:16 AM:
Nice article, However if the egos of the past can be put beyond her
