|
Last night's results in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries have left Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton out of options. She ran a tough and spirited campaign that will be talked about for a generation. But it’s over.
The time has come for Clinton to adopt a gracious and conciliatory tone, end her campaign and endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
Tuesday night was, indeed, a game changer. Clinton suffered a drubbing in North Carolina — a “big” state, in her terminology — and barely squeaked out a win in Indiana. She needed a convincing win there and a strong finish in the Tar Heel state to convince voters and, more importantly, donors that she still had a chance to win over the dwindling number of uncommitted superdelegates.
As someone who endorsed Clinton early in the campaign (well before the mainstream media went ga-ga over Obama after his Iowa victory), I saw her as the party’s best chance to beat the GOP nominee and the candidate with the most relevant international experience to tackle the myriad crises inflicted on us by George Bush.
Unfortunately, all the talk of experience and competence was belied by a campaign rife with incompetence. From Bill Clinton’s ruinous (and arguably racist) campaign swing through South Carolina, to an obvious failure to craft a strategy past Super Tuesday, her campaign staff made so many miscalculations that Hillary went from a coronation to a shocking defeat.
And her behavior during the recent and infamous ABC News debate was over the line. During that debate, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos grilled Obama over the Rev. Wright controversy and, incredibly, his thoughts on wearing flag pins. Obama was overdue for some more aggressive questioning from the mainstream media, but not on those topics.
Rather than insist on taking the questioning to a higher level, Clinton gleefully joined the Obama bashing that night. The Obama campaign should never have agreed to a debate in which Stephanopoulos was asking the questions. As a veteran of the first Clinton administration, he could hardly be expected to approach the event with any modicum of objectivity. He’s a celebrity talking head, not a journalist.
In sharp contrast to Clinton’s transparent, over-the-top pandering (downing shots with the locals and touting a phony love of guns), Obama has managed to stay above the fray, even during the darkest moments of the Wright saga. He could have gone sharply negative in the run-up to North Carolina and Indiana, as some advised him to do. Instead, he stuck to his own metaphorical guns and rose above the faux controversies and petty attacks. Even in victory Tuesday night, Obama praised Clinton and promised that his supporters would back her if she emerged as the party nominee.
But she didn’t emerge victorious and the time has come for her supporters, gay and straight, to embrace Obama’s campaign for the White House. The stakes are too high to allow primary race disappointments to demoralize Democratic voters. And the stakes for gay voters are higher.
Just yesterday, Sen. John McCain reiterated his intention to appoint conservative justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
In addition, McCain this week announced creation of his “Justice Advisory Committee,” which will offer advice on Supreme Court picks. Among the members of that group is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a staunch conservative and notorious opponent of gay rights.
A McCain presidency would set back the cause of gay rights by a generation. A 50-year-old justice could serve 30 years or more on the high court. With same-sex marriage continuing to roil legislatures and courts across the country, it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on recognition of same-sex relationships.
Last week, I moderated a panel discussion on national politics at the annual Equality Forum in Philadelphia. The most heated exchange of the night came when I asked Patrick Sammon of the Log Cabin Republicans whether his group would endorse McCain. He replied that a decision on an endorsement had not yet been made but that Log Cabin was in talks with McCain’s campaign.
Sammon offered praise for McCain’s opposition to a federal marriage amendment.
Indeed, McCain’s opposition to the odious amendment was important and appreciated. But that’s where his support for gay rights begins and ends. McCain opposes the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and extending the federal hate crimes law to cover gays.
Most disturbingly, he supported his home state of Arizona’s ballot initiative that would have banned not only marriage, but civil unions and even domestic partnerships. That extreme Arizona measure remains the only such referendum to be defeated by voters.
It is unconscionable for Log Cabin to entertain a McCain endorsement. Yes, it can be argued that McCain is better on gay issues than Bush, but that’s not saying much. Let’s not be fooled twice by a supposedly moderate Republican candidate. Bush won in 2000 after a pledge of “compassionate conservatism,” which proved an empty slogan. In its place we saw cruel attacks on gay rights, an effort to pervert the U.S. Constitution to discriminate against gays and even public ridicule of our committed, loving relationships during the State of the Union Address.
Log Cabin’s work is important and, as Sammon pointed out, no civil rights struggle has been won with the support of a single political party. Republican allies are critical to passage of gay rights legislation, especially when Democrats are so prone to going wishy-washy on us after they win elections with near unanimous gay support.
But with the Supreme Court in the balance, no gay voter should pull the lever for McCain in November. Sammon’s predecessor, Patrick Guerriero, took a principled stand — for which he was unfairly criticized by some gay Republicans — and declined to endorse President Bush in 2004. Sammon should follow that example and Log Cabin should resist going to bat for someone who has publicly pledged to appoint justices hostile to gay rights advances.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s gay supporters should take a day to mourn her defeat and then join Obama’s cause. She’s resilient and will bounce back, probably as Senate majority leader, a job much more in line with her skills than that of president.
And Obama should continue to reach out to Hillary’s disaffected supporters and work to unite the party. It’s time for Hillary’s gay donors and volunteers to look past short-term disappointments and consider the long-term impact of a McCain administration. It’s a scary thought that renders all other considerations moot.
 Posted by Kevin Naff,
Washington Blade Editor | May. 7 at
1:38 PM | knaff@washblade.com
Permalink: http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=18153
 E-Mail
this blog post  Sound
Off about this blog
|
Posted by 