HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum: Where’s the Vision?

Visible Vote 08The HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum last night didn’t bring any surprises, but was nonetheless a significant moment in LGBT history. We are a constituency that major candidates must take time to cultivate, even more so than in 2004. Below are my thoughts on the forum. For a more detailed blow-by-blow of the action, visit Visible Vote ’08, which also has links to many other prominent political bloggers.

Barack Obama seemed comfortable and well informed talking about LGBT issues. He distinguished between “a weak version of civil unions” and “a strong version at the federal level,” which he would enact. This gets points over Hillary’s “leave it to the states” stance. He also conveyed the most palpable sense of being passionate about justice and equality, without the touchy-feeliness of Kucinich and Gravel. He reminded us he doesn’t just talk about LGBT issues when at LGBT functions, but has done so in many speeches, including one in front of black ministers.

Obama didn’t explain why he doesn’t support full marriage equality, though he did say that if he were advising the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s, he would tell them to focus on voting rights before anti-miscegenation laws. This seems like a variant on Richardson’s “do what is achievable” position. Hillary took this approach, too, when explaining why she didn’t push for a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It wouldn’t have happened with a Republican Congress and Bush as President, she said. I’ll allow some room for the need to “play politics” to get things done in Washington. I’ll also concede that this may be an acceptable excuse for a legislator (whether or not it is true in this case). The role of a president, however, is not to do what is achievable. It is to inspire us as a country to achieve more than we think possible. (Or maybe I’ve just been watching too many old episodes of The West Wing.)

Edwards, too, seemed comfortable and dynamic. He has more of a politician’s slickness than Obama, though, and that always makes me inclined to doubt him, even when he’s probably being sincere. (Hillary has the same effect.) He said his universal health care plan would include benefits for LGBT couples. He raised the issue of homeless LGBT youth without prompting.

More notably, he is the only one of the candidates who shifted his position on anything during the Forum. When asked what about his religious beliefs prevents him from supporting same-sex marriage, he admitted he was wrong to say that. He believes in equality, and will not impose his faith belief on the American people. This does not mean his position on marriage equality has changed—and he was upfront about that—but asserted he will work for civil unions and a repeal of DOMA.

Edwards also spoke at the most length about LGBT families with children, prompted by a question from lesbian mom Melissa Etheridge. She told him that when her children started school, she found herself explaining to their classmates that some children have two moms, others have two dads, and others have one of each, or just one. They were all fine with it, she affirmed. She then asked if we should teach students in the public school system about LGBT families. He responded, “Sure we should,” and went on to talk about why we should explain that LGBT families are families like any others. He segued into the need for foster care and adoption rights for LGBT families. Very smooth, very in touch. I was disappointed none of the other candidates talked about these issues as well.

I’ll remove a few points from Edwards’ score, however, for his answer to moderator Margaret Carlson’s follow-up question regarding the age at which students should be taught about LGBT families. He said he doesn’t know, and hasn’t thought about it. The answer is simple, John: Teach it at the age when students are likely to encounter peers from LGBT families—that is, from day one. Melissa’s explanation that families come in all configurations is simple enough for even preschoolers to grasp. It’s what LGBT parents tell their own children.

Here’s the clip of the exchange about schools and families:

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, who followed Edwards, said what we want to hear. Both are as pro-LGBT as possible. Is either one electable? No. Kucinich sounded like a spiritual guru when he concluded his remarks with “I send you great love.” Gravel likewise asserted “I will have the courage to call on people to express themselves with what counts, and that is love.” Nice sentiments—refreshing, even, in the often cold world of politics, but almost too saccharine. Obama spoke of hope, but didn’t dwell on it in the same way. Kucinich and Gravel seemed out of touch with the practicalities of actually making things happen.

Bill Richardson was a disaster. He started well enough, though less comfortable or dynamic than Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. He noted he was the first governor to include gender identity in a hate-crimes bill. He said he would ensure domestic partnerships pass in the next session of the New Mexico Legislature, and reminded us he kept DOMA out of New Mexico. It all went downhill near the end, though. First, he dodged a question on whether he would sign a marriage bill passed by the legislature. He then said “It’s a choice,” when asked if sexual orientation is inborn or a choice. He stumbled to catch himself, saying he didn’t want to get into scientific areas he didn’t understand, and it shouldn’t matter anyway, but the damage was done. He is clearly not engaged with LGBT issues in the same way as the other candidates. All his stated accomplishments in the area of LGBT rights seem as if they were done at the advice of political consultants.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was warmer than she sometimes appears. (And her suit was nice, but why was hers the only one that Margaret Carlson mentioned? Let’s stop it with female candidates’ clothes already.) She tried to work the crowd, pointing out Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, summarizing his story, and talking about why we need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She clearly knows her way around LGBT rights. Edwards was stronger on marriage issues, however, supporting the full repeal of DOMA. Clinton only wants to repeal Section 3, which deals with the extension of benefits. Mostly, she wants to leave marriage to the states. She says she will support our community, but “We’re not going to agree on everything.” She’s right on that.

I really wanted to like Hillary here. I am a fellow Wellesley alumna, and have enough team spirit that part of me would love it if one of us became the first female president. Her “leave it to the states” approach to marriage seems out of touch with the realities of LGBT lives, however. We move. We travel. The less cynical might give her the benefit of the doubt, and say she is more tuned in to what is achievable in Washington. Others might promise big, but be unable to deliver. The skeptics would say she’s just trying to curry favor with the right of center. Whether this is a necessary tactic to get elected remains an open question.

Overall, then, I found the candidates predictable in their positions and disappointing in their willingness to settle for what was achievable. None of the frontrunners was leader enough to say “We can achieve more!” There’s a fine line between vision and illusion, I realize. But please, can’t we have just a little vision?

Was there a winner? I’d say Obama or Edwards. Between the two, I think it depends on who one preferred before the debate. Clinton ran third, well ahead of Richardson’s bumbling, but behind the clearer statements of support for full federal rights and repeal of DOMA from Obama and Edwards, respectively. She knows her way around politics, though, and we have to ask ourselves whether that’s an asset or a hindrance in both getting elected and making change happen.

The real winner, cheesy as it sounds, was the LGBT community. Having the major candidates sit down to talk about nothing but LGBT issues on national television is a major step in awareness. No, most of mainstream American did not tune in to LOGO last night. But the mainstream media was there, too, and word will get out.

None of the three leading candidates at the Forum would be a bad choice for the LGBT community. They are all lightyears ahead of the Republican contenders. I am certain we would come out of an Obama, Edwards, or Clinton presidency with more rights than we have now. Over the next year, then, we have to ask ourselves several questions:

  • Do any of these candidates hold “dealbreaker” positions for us, whether on LGBT rights or anything else? (I would personally never support an anti-choice candidate, for example.)
  • Who is the most likely to win against the probable Republican and/or independent candidates? How much more likely? Is the difference enough to make up for any positions we feel are less to our liking than those of other candidates?
  • Who is most likely to accomplish his or her campaign promises once in office? There is a difference between candidates who say what we want to hear, and those who will do what we want them to do.

It’s going to be a fun year. Stay tuned.

8 thoughts on “HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum: Where’s the Vision?”

  1. Liberal Protestant

    Richardson’s stumbles were indeed a surprise to me. I was shocked, shocked by his evasive answers in reponse to two direct questions:
    Choice?
    Would you sign?

  2. I found your remarks very interesting and insightful. However, I don’t agree with your assessment of HRC. I was personally surprised at how well Hillary did. I thought she was the clear winner…not because her stances were any different than expected, but because I felt she really “got it.” I thought she was far more personal than the others and more comfortable surrounded by LGBT people. I didn’t think she could say what we really wanted to hear yet because if she did, she would get swift-boated in the general election. I am idealistic, but I feel an urgent need to get one of these folks elected and get the Bushies and their ilk out of power. I can wait and trust to some degree. I have been an Obama supporter, but I find myself starting to waiver a little toward Hillary.
    poor Richardson, whom I like, was awful.

  3. I think its a good idea for Democrats to end their messed up codependent dysfunctional
    relationship with their party. The ‘holy trinity’ are complete corporate
    hogwash (edwards, obama, clinton). Might as well vote republican as to vote for
    any one of them. We will get continued war, mandatory universal health care w/insurance
    you have to pay for and a continued oil worshiping energy policy.
    If you want to push the party, at least in the early primary or caucus, you should
    vote for someone who best reflects the change you want to see. For me it’s Dennis
    Kucinich. How else are you going tell those on the inside, in the Washington Beltway,
    that you want something different. No war, more diplomacy, not for profit health
    care, and out of NAFTA and other trade agreements that hurt workers, and of course
    real marriage equality. Not seperate but equal. We’re all going to support whomever
    it is….but early on ‘vote your conscience’ damnit.

  4. Stonewallcitizen

    America has moved towards acceptance of civil unions, so the positions of the top tier are just a reflection of that move, and worthy of some expenditure of political capital. Yet the top three are willing “kick us under the bus,” if not to the back of it. We, who worked hard to create the new consensus on our rights.
    The candidates all have liberal educations and know better than to worm around LGBT marriage as a semantic issue. A real leader would lead on LGBT rights, and explain that marriage is part of the code of the law in our country, and not just a word.
    My dignity and universal human rights are not available for compromise. I have sacrificed them for 3 presidential cycles in support of the greater good. I now realize, thanks to the marginalized candidates who supported us in the past, and now, that we need to continue to support those who support us. I want to give my main energies to grassroots organizing on LGBT issues, war, and global warming issues. That is only way I feel I will have sustainable, cross-cutting leverage with the billboard candidates, and the winner of the White House. Anyone who thinks they can buy or charm their way into power into this country should think about the fact that we are a statistical minority. We had to fight and sacrifice for every gain, and will have to fight in the future to protect every victory.

  5. Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Fine By Them: Erin Lee and Marci Make Kids Music Inclusive

  6. Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Better Late than Never: Chris Dodd on LGBT Issues

  7. Pingback: coyote dreams » the presidential forum

  8. Pingback: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top