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

The 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.