LGBT Forum Thoughts
by Ryan Sager
Fri, 10 Aug 2007 at 12:18 AM
updated Fri, 10 Aug 2007 at 12:19 AM
Just a few thoughts on the just-concluded, first ever, gay-issues forum held by the Democrats this evening in Los Angeles. (My liveblog of the forum is here.)
First off, various press accounts had called the Logo event, co-sponsored by Human Rights Campaign, a "debate" (including mine). Well, HRC and Logo were calling it a forum for a reason. There was no debate — the candidates were not ever on stage at the same time. Instead, they came out one-by-one and sat for 15 minutes with the panel, taking questions.
This was, I have to say, a very effective format. Instead of 30-second canned soundbites spewed back and forth, we saw in-depth discussion of a narrow band of issues by the candidates. Now, this also meant a half-hour block of Kucinich and Gravel, when any sane person (who doesn't have to watch this junk as part of his or her job) would have gone to bed. But, they saved Hillary for the end, so perhaps the East Coast audience stayed up after all.
So, onto the highlights and the lowlights, after the jump...
Highlights:
* One might characterize this is a highlight or lowlight depending on one's feelings about gay marriage — I'll call it highlight. My conclusion? There was not one candidate at the forum tonight who does not, in actuality, support gay marriage, or who wouldn't be willing to if it were the politically expedient position. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, of course, outright support gay marriage. Bill Richardson, in my view, is the next closest. He says he supports civil unions and expanded domestic partnerships because they're "what's possible." Well, if you support those things because they're possible, then it sure as heck sounds like you'd support going the next step if that were possible. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, likewise, sound like they're making the exact same calculation. John Edwards is the biggest question mark in my mind, but I'm just not sure I think he has any beliefs on the issue at all. He'd go along if the going were good, but he thinks it would upset his populist base.
* On a related note, when Mr. Edwards was asked about having used his religious faith to justify his opposition to gay marriage, he said, "I shouldn't have said that. ... I will not impose my faith beliefs on the American people." Whether he's being sincere or pandering (hmmm... I wonder), it's a nice sentiment to hear after 7 years of George W. Bush.
* Later in the program, Gravel stated the obvious about the gay-marriage debate, and it was refreshing: "Five years from now, the marriage issue will be a non-issue in the next presidential campaign." While five years may be an optimistic estimate, the basic point he was making was that it's a generational issue, and the younger generation supports gay marriage.
* Human Rights Campaign likes to soft-soap Mrs. Clinton, but Melissa Etheridge put it all on the line: We [the gay community] were all so hopeful when your husband was elected, but "Our hearts were broken, we were thrown under the bus. ... What are you going to do to be different than that?" Hillary did her best to finesse this. But there's no getting around the fact that the Clinton administration did zero for gay rights.
Lowlights:
* Mr. Edwards tried, as he has before, to use hatred of Ann Coulter to rally people to his cause: "I think that what Ann Coulter does is the worst kind of public discourse. I think she demeans everything that all the rest of us do. And I think it is intended to go to the lowest common denominator in the American people and to divide us." It's not that he's wrong about Ms. Coulter. It's just ... who cares about Ann Coulter?
* Kucinich is asked whether there's anything the gay community wants that he opposes. His answer: no. It's great to be gay-friendly. But can there really be no single bill supported by HRC that Kucinich thinks is misguided?
* Bill Richardson was confused by a question and ended up saying that homosexuality is a choice. It's clear he misspoke (or misheard, or missomethinged), but audience members seemed mad when they were interviewed afterward. Richardson later issued a clarification: "Let me be clear -- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. ... But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."
* Lastly, at the beginning of the Hillary segment, the HRC representative, Joe Solmonese, asked her: "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?" Clinton, seeming to have rehearsed the answer, replied, "Well, Joe, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. [laughter from Solmonese and the audience] ... It's a personal position." It seemed ultra-canned, and no one really pushed her on it — at least not the way they pushed Messrs. Obama and Edwards.
Overall:
Bill Richardson lost. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel won. As for the big three? Edwards came off poorly, looking out of touch with the gay community. The whole, "I'm on a journey" narrative doesn't play well with a crowd that thinks you should have arrived by now. Obama did fine, and maybe scored some points for having been the first candidate to sign on for the forum. Clinton came across as pragmatic and on the crowd's side. Ultimately, that made her the winner.
Related Topics: Dem Primary
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
