07/10/2007
Democratic Presidential Candidates to Have First-Ever Gay Debate
The Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese and Melissa Etheridge will question Democratic candidates in Los Angeles in a first-ever debate on gay issues, sponsored by LOGO and HRC. It will take place on August 9 and be broadcast live on LOGO as well as stream live at their website.
According to 365gay.com, "the panelists in a statement said they plan to cover a range of issues including relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues."
In addition to questions from Solmonese and Etheridge, others will be able to participate by submitting questions through LOGOonline and HRC.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have all confirmed they will take part in the debate.
UPDATE: Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have climbed on board.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:55 PM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Other than the fact that she's a lesbian, what the heck qualifies Melissa Etheridge to ask these presidential candidates questions? She annoys the hell out of me. They couldn't find a lesbian journalist or commentator to be there??
Posted by: David | Jul 10, 2007 6:02:17 PM
Shut up, David. This is HRC. Melissa just barely beat out Reichen for the honor.
Of course, you can't help but wonder if the NAACP would choose Beyoncé, Whitney, or ODB to moderate their debate.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 10, 2007 6:06:55 PM
24PLAY:
Please get your names correct. The NAACP would pick Biz Markie.
Melissa Etheridge?!?!?!?! This is sad and wrong.
Posted by: James | Jul 10, 2007 6:13:45 PM
Anderson Cooper was apparently unavailable...
Posted by: kitchenbeard | Jul 10, 2007 6:14:24 PM
Is this what they call a "mixed blessing," or is it more a "double-edged sword?" The first such forum [BRAVO!] simultaneously reinforcing the growing loss of independent LGBT voices in the increasing conglomerization of LGBT media [BOO!!!!] while reinforcing the Human Rights Champagne fund and its self-proclaimed patent on the gay movement. [BOO to the tenth power!!!] Melissa's great in many ways, but having her in this role is like CNN using Justin Timberlake at one of their debates. Would it have gotten Joe Solmonese's yellow and blue panties too much in a bunch to have included NGLTF and Lambda Legal and PFLAG as cosponsors, and their leaders as fellow questioners? After all, the last good idea his predecessor Elizabeth Let's Turn HRC Into A Money Machine Birch had was merging HRC and NGLTF.
And, since this is HRC-controlled and gay celebrity driven, will there be commercial spots featuring Reichen wearing only something from his FLY NAKED jewelry line; a cock ring perhaps. Wait, this is LOGO and gay men aren't allowed to be anatomically correct on LOGO. [That shouldn't disqualify "Little Reichen."]
We can only hope that Obama is preparing by entering "Don't Do 'I'm Not Gay' Jokes" rehab, and Bill Richardson, who's sure to appear, too, preparing by writing, "'Maricon does not mean, 'I luv the gays'" on the blackboard a thousand times. Someone please explain "puto" to him pronto.
BTW: YouTube and CNN [without Justin] are soliciting video question submissions for their July 23rd Democratic debate [deadline is July 22nd] and their September Repug debate.
http://youtube.com/debates
and a site where you can sort the topics so far:
http://www.communitycounts.us/
As CNN will choose which ones to use and, thanks to the failure of HRC, our rights remain pretty much an afterthought in mainstream media [except as an issue of conflict], it's unlikely more than one, if any, serious gay equality-related questions will make the cut, but that shouldn't prevent those with the equipment to do it from trying.
Posted by: Leland | Jul 10, 2007 6:21:17 PM
oh crap. melissa as moderator? our big chance to shine on the national stage and we get someone high on al gore kool-aid.
Posted by: psgoodguy | Jul 10, 2007 6:30:02 PM
Can't you queens do anything other than bitch? This is first live debate ever on LGBT issues and yes, it was organized by HRC. It will be a great opportunity for LGBT voters to hear the candidates speak to our issues.
The moderators may not be the perfect choice, but this is something that is critically important and gives us the opportunity to call on the candidates to take stronger action in favor of LGBT civil rights.
HRC and Logo should be commended for organizing the event.
Posted by: Bloggernista | Jul 10, 2007 6:47:31 PM
Bloggernista,
Oh please. If a journalist was on the stage, then you might have a point, but Ms. Etheridge? Come on. You expect me to take that seriously?
Posted by: James | Jul 10, 2007 6:53:22 PM
Dennis Kucinich is only Democrat running that fully supports every gay issue including gay marriage. So why do we have a problem when it comes time to figure out who to vote for if marriage is a big concern. Why vote for someone you still have to keep pressuring. The others are still homophobic when they say they don’t personally believe in gay marriage but if the states want it then its up to them to pass it.
Posted by: Rufus | Jul 10, 2007 7:22:43 PM
sad that the event is relegated to the gay ghetto while the recent naacp "debate" got wide coverage. oh well.. baby steps i suppose.
unfortunately, this dregs up memories of BILL clinton 'feeling our pain' and giving us false hope before totally fucking us.. and not in the good way.
as for melissa...meh.. she's a fairly bright and articulate gay mom (although i don't get her obsession with gore.) it could have been worse, they could have invited o'donnell... yikes.
Posted by: el polacko | Jul 10, 2007 7:27:22 PM
Re: The debate and the candidates -- I'm glad they're doing it, although it will be interesting (or perhaps painful) to see them tread gingerly around the things we really want (like, um, equality), while they tell us things that we already know: e.g., that we're everywhere, that it's important that we vote, that it's critical to have a Democratic president in order to prevent more Supreme Court justices like Roberts and Alito, etc. But far better that they acknowledge us than demonize us, as the other side continues to try to do.
The choice of moderator (while I do wish her well) is evidently a marketing stunt. Just wait until we see the promos on Logo--M.E. will get billing above any of the candidates: "Watch the presidential debate August 9th--with Melissa Etheridge, only on Logo..."
Posted by: Gianpiero | Jul 10, 2007 7:30:29 PM
What a sad bunch of bitching bitches you all are. Whether she should be the moderator or not Melissa Etheridge does more for gay rights and the environment in a few minutes than all you sad, lazy people do all year sitting on your buts putting down everyone else. What a sad situation.
Posted by: BIMBO_ERUPTION | Jul 10, 2007 8:03:04 PM
James,
Yeah, I do expect you to take seriously that one of those people on the stage will most likely be our next president and that they will be discussing our civil rights. Besides, the bitchy queen has gotten us nowhere near where we need to be.
Posted by: Bloggernista | Jul 10, 2007 8:14:24 PM
Bimbo,
I don't think anyone has criticized Melissa's gay-rights or (hello? irrelevant) environmental activism. But as has been clearly demonstrated in the debates so far this year, having a hard-hitting moderator who forces the candidates to answer the questions they're asked AND points out when they've got their facts wrong basically determines whether the event is a total waste of time.
Melissa may end up doing a bang-up job (she is ballsy), but she's not exactly the most qualified queer to pop to mind. And given Solmonese's piss-poor media skills and love of slumber-inducing, liberal PC-speak, we really could use an ace interlocutor behind the other mic.
You got a problem with queens demanding HRC spend our money wisely (for a change)?
Posted by: 24play | Jul 10, 2007 8:20:32 PM
I think this is a step in the right direction. Frankly, it doesn't matter if Mellisa is the moderator, if HRC and its various advisors write the questions. Who are our current high profile queer journalists anyway? Jason Bellini? Ellen Ratner would have been a good choice, but she is not necessarily associated with gay media. Gore Vidal would have been great!! But, he is a novelist. And Urvashi Vaid! is a writer and activist, but again, not a journalist. And Vidal and Vaid would would not allow themselves to be "managed" by HRC, and that is the problem. HRC doesn't like to get down and dirty. Perhaps we should compile a list and forward it to the the HRC folk and stop bitchin'!
Posted by: Calaca | Jul 10, 2007 8:24:26 PM
wtf?
melissa, when did she become a reporter?
could they not find any OUT(anderson does not count, LOL) reporter, like John Roberts?
Posted by: johnosahon | Jul 10, 2007 8:29:44 PM
Obama? The same Obama who refused to meet with Gavin Newsom because he was afraid someone might take a photo? Up and coming presidential candidates can't be seen with the "wrong" kind of people, ya know.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 10, 2007 8:33:46 PM
There's a wealth of out journalists in television news and at newspapers/magazines in the U.S., not to mention a handful of excellent editors/reporters at The Advocate and a few local gay papers.
Then there are the bloggers. Regardless of what you think of their particular views, you can't deny Mike Signorile, Dan Savage, and Andrew Sullivan would all be well-prepared, no-bullshit, and charismatic moderators who could guarantee this debate would be must-see TV.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the candidates (one in particular) had input on selecting moderators. In fact, Solmonese and Etheridge probably were part of the deal before the candidates signed on. Can you say non-threatening?
Posted by: 24play | Jul 10, 2007 8:36:44 PM
Etheridge may not be a reporter, but she has a good command of issues, gay or otherwise, and she will bring attention to the forum because of her celebrity.
Who was selected to moderate/ask questions is less important than the nature of the questions and answers. I suspect the candidates will be careful and walk a fairly moderate path on the issues.
BTW-if you caught Etheridge's Live Earth performance, you wouldn't have any doubt that she is politically in tune.
Posted by: Emerald | Jul 10, 2007 8:37:45 PM
Joe Solmonese? From Boston?
Joe Solmonese discussing gay marriage is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity. Can't we elect a gay rights leader who does not have such a messy personal life?
Pot=BLACK
Posted by: WashDCInformant | Jul 10, 2007 8:47:13 PM
Attention HRC directors: there are openly gay reporters, such as Adam Negourney of the New York Times, whose assigned beat is following Presidential campaigns. Adam Negourney is the kind of guy you folks at the HRC should ask to pose questions, not Ms. Rock Star.
Posted by: JackNasty | Jul 10, 2007 9:01:04 PM
It is amazing that ANYTHING gets done in our community when the very first reaction to ANY good news is always to BITCH ABOUT IT. I am amazed at the legions of idiots who sit at their keyboards ready to bith-slpa their way through any and every step toward anything resembling progress for us. If it doesn't come wrapped in a Pink Queer Party Package with the bow you specifically select it is wrong. So immediately HRC is slammed. Big shock there. Throw in NGLTF and every other group that doesn't come up to snuff when viewed by the bitchy queens from hell who obviously spend their lives ready to critically pounce on anything and everything they see. There are lives at stake, real people and real issues. This is not you at a bar, sloshing down your cocktail and bitching out everything around you. Andy's Blog is a perfect example. Here is a man who daily does something positive and powerful for our community and the very first people to post are balsting away at everything in sight like reject judges from Project Runway. Queens-- get a life, DO something, volunteer, work to makes things better and get off your asses and quite being critical of people like Etheridge who has done FAR more for us than any of your bitchy pithy comments ever would or could.
Posted by: broke6 | Jul 10, 2007 9:10:57 PM
Jesus! Bla, bla, bla.
That off my chest, two points:
1. Those that sponsor get to pick--MTV(LOGO)and HRC. Think it through.
2. Keep eyes on the prize. This is a process and every step forward is important.
Posted by: Carl Hendrickson | Jul 10, 2007 9:17:21 PM
First, as to this announcment- wow- I can't imagine this having occured even 5 years ago. Can anyone else?
To the pissy queens- life is really short. Meaning - no time for being pissed on by you. Laterz
Posted by: akaison | Jul 10, 2007 9:42:56 PM
Are Obama, Clinton and Edwards the only ones participating or have you invited all presedential candidates and they are the only ones to comfirm so far??
I'm asking because Gravel and Kucinich are the only 2 candidates that support gay MARRIAGE. So it is only fair they at least get an invite.
Posted by: peter | Jul 10, 2007 11:05:33 PM
HRC: Rosie O'Donnell would have been a better choice for moderator.
Posted by: bullydawg | Jul 10, 2007 11:28:33 PM
PLEASE again Leland with his knee jerk off comments about HRC (Champagne Fund?!!?) you really ARE still living in the 80's buddy.
No matter what HRC does your old as piss addled brain spits out the same crap. AS for total waste of gay dollars why don't you take your venom and use it to defeat our communities real enemies...seriously a good therapist will help you lose your hard on for HRC bashing and help you with your Andrew Sullivan loving Chris Crain fetishim.
And maybe the grass roots organizations of the gay community would be more effective if you put your money and your mouth where your arthritic fingers so carelessly continue to bore the hell out of logic and reason.
Mary get a grip, move on, find a new song...
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jul 10, 2007 11:32:07 PM
Having had the pleasure of interviewing Melissa Etheridge on two different occasions, I can say that she is more than qualified to be part of this debate. She is a marvelous, passionate woman who "came out" at the zenith of her career, and she's never looked back. She inspired many lesbian women to do the same. Those who cast stones at her because she's a celebrity should look in the mirror and ask " what have I accomplished?" Probably not much...
Posted by: Paul Peterson | Jul 11, 2007 12:19:14 AM
In this instance, I don't care that Melissa Etheridge isn't a journalist or politician, as if there is any virtue to either of those professions in this day and age. All I care is that she is a smart, caring, passionate, well-spoken and honest person who is deeply involved with gay rights. I am ecstatic that she's one of the moderators.
Posted by: Perceive | Jul 11, 2007 1:05:35 AM
I've never felt as alienated from the "Gay rights cause" then i have after reading this. I'm not really interested in all of the candidates bending over backwards to say the broadest thing possible to please the HRC... and even worse, Melissa Etheridge. Since when is a musician the moderator for a debate? They'll just avoid the questions like they have been already, and the HRC and Melissa Etheridge will praise their "bravery." Step forward or step back, i can't decide.
Posted by: JoshEV | Jul 11, 2007 1:17:44 AM
The HRC is a front for Log Cabin Republicans. They're the most corporate sucking queers in all the land. It's because of the HRC that we STILL don't have queer equality in the U.S.
Posted by: C Balls | Jul 11, 2007 1:28:36 AM
The HRC is an east coast, in-bred urban gay elite cocktail club, sucking up to fame, power and fortune, jetting from coast to coast without a clue as to what gay lives are like out here in the hinterland nor a prayer about ever learning how to take up THEIR cause or hear their voices. What HRC wants is the right to take their expenses off their taxes and to ensure that gay rights never breeches the wall of inequality. OUR issues? They aren't any different than "straight" issues. A job you can't be fired from for reasons unrelated to performance, healthcare, education, decent, safe communities to live in. Freedom to marry another consenting adult without governmental interference. The right to have some fun and enjoy life without some moralistic jackass in your face. If one could point to anything HRC has actually accomplished in actual gay rights, well I'd be happy to send them some MORE of my money.
Posted by: WoodyCPM | Jul 11, 2007 1:42:13 AM
I don't care if it's Melissa Etheridge or The Flying Nun who asks the questions as long as the right questions are asked. What's important is to ask these candidates, 'If you become president and if you support a ban on Don't Ask Don't Tell for example, what are you going to do about it? Will you issue an Executive Order overturning the discrimanitory policy and allow gays to serve openly in the military or will you wait for a consensus in the congress and senate to do it? That's where you'll see who really supports gay rights. Hillary Clinton needs to be asked why she waited years to speak out against her husband's caving into the GOP about his Don't Ask Don't Tell law too as well as does she agree with his Defense of Marriage Act. Don't castigate the questioneer. Let's see what they ask first.
Posted by: Steamboater | Jul 11, 2007 4:21:05 AM
With Melissa Ethridge as moderator I've little faith this will be a debate of substance (can you say 'softballs'?).
The rhetoric will be shallow and talk is cheap.
Bottom line: We'll hear platitudes with an edge to them, but nothing of substance will come out of this.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 11, 2007 4:35:07 AM
Why not Rachel Maddow of Air America? A lesbian and Rhodes scholar and incisice commentator?
HRC continues to be such a huge embarassment.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 11, 2007 6:14:33 AM
Why is it the Self Hating right is ALWAYS out to Destroy anyone and everyone that doesn't go along with their line of thinking.
Reading some of these notes makes one wonder about people the right is under this mysterous delusion that you have to have a degree oops now it must be a specialty no no it must be all the above with intense research and national and international credentials. What the hell gives.
Understanding the right not being able to think because they have not been given the permisssion to do so, they should not talk to people they do not know or people from other religions unless supervised by adults. My self I want my grand children to watch these debates if they are 13 or over and I want them to discuss it with me and their parents at the dinner table. I do not want them associating with the RIGHT or the CHRISTIANS both who are VERY EVIL SELF SERVEING and SELF HATING. I want my grand children to be able to except people for who and what they are not what some GAESTAPO NAZIS republican chrisian groups says they should be.
So let the debates and talks begin let there be a new beginning in this country and get rid of the TRASH that is there now.
Posted by: DDA | Jul 11, 2007 6:27:10 AM
More bla bla bla from the big guns....
Kucinich '08
Posted by: Cynthia | Jul 11, 2007 7:42:18 AM
Who knew that questioning why Melissa Etheridge is part of this qualifies as pissing and bitching? Well I'm properly chastised. This is a wonderful event and I can't wait to see it.
Posted by: James | Jul 11, 2007 8:19:47 AM
PATHETIC THIS SITE TAKES WHAT IT WANTS AND IF IT DOES NOT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES NOT POST IT
Posted by: lisa V | Jul 11, 2007 8:38:01 AM
I don't mind Melissa Etheridge... I like her music sometimes. I also don't mind HRC, even though I usually don't think they're terribly effective. The fact that the main presidential candidates for either party are participating in a debate about GLBT issues is wonderful and a sign of great progress.
That said, I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa Etheridge moderate the debate. There is enough blurring of the lines between politics and low-brow entertainment. Putting an entertainer with a clear and unapologetic bias in this kind of position is not a good way to ensure honest and equitable debate about any subject, and plays right into the hands of the Republicans who love to tell their loyal little sheep that Dems are beholden to "the liberal entertainment media elite" (whatever that means).
I just think the presidency is a serious issue, and that the moderators selected by either party should have gravitas and credibility. (I know, I live in a dream world.)
Posted by: Brian | Jul 11, 2007 8:55:06 AM
sad there's not a dynamo "out" there more journalistic than Etheridge, and too bad no-one watches Logo... but keep your eyes on the ball here...
the concern must remain on the questions posed by the HRC.
the questions must be direct and cover gay issues both national (hate crimes, DADT, marriage, etc) and also INTERNATIONAL... the HRC needs to ask why if the U.S. throws its bully weight around the world, why Washington never speaks up and positions itself regarding foreign execution of gays ?!
Posted by: A.J. | Jul 11, 2007 8:57:36 AM
First: Lisa V....this site does post what you say, as long as you are articulate and within the boundaries of constructive conversation.
Second: History is being made folks. Human beings by our very nature are not perfect. HRC, The Task Force, GLSEN, the ACLU,GLAAD, and a myriad of other organizations and their dedicated employees and volunteers, do not wake up each day trying to figure out how to makes things worse for GLBT peoples. They, as we all do, make mistakes and I do not agree with all of their stategies, but they do work hard to help advance dialogue and keep our issues in front of the decision makers, while trying to pass laws, legislative initiaves, and ordinances that help us all.
Let us not forget that just a mere 15 years ago we were all battling to just get HIV/AIDS on people's radar screen to try and save a whole generation of gay people, let alone human rights for GLBT people.
May I suggest that each of you who finds fault with a particular organization's approach, style, and efforts volunteer your time to helping that organization implement a vision that is more consistent with your views to attain full human and constitutional rights at the local, city, state, and national level for all GLBT people's.
Your energy, smarts, wo/man power, and time is what all of these organizations need most (yes they want money too...but the other needs are more important).
It is each of us helping in the trenches, on the phone, in the streets, and at events where we all can make a true difference and only then can we be more helpful guides to the decision makers at places like LOGO and GLAAD, HRC etc...
A debate with 3, to date, of the leading contenders for President of The United States speaking about GLBT rights is long overdue, BUT it is here! What we do with this momentum is for us now to act upon.
May I suggest writing a brief note to Brian Graden (LOGO) and Joe Solmonese (HRC) thanking them for working hard to make this event happen, and if you disagree with some things about the debate let them know! I am sure they would love to hear from you.
Knowing what is right is reserved for those who only see their way as the way, and those are the people we should fear, pursuing what is right in conjunction with the efforts and spirit of others is perfect.
Respectfully submitted,
Chip Arndt
President, Freedom Democrats
Posted by: Chip Arndt | Jul 11, 2007 9:16:20 AM
Funny...I don't think HRC will ask my questions at the debate ....
-Would you support legislation that would compel the FBI and other agencies to release any and all documents concerning monitoring of AIDS, LGBT and leather/sm activists organizations from the 1930s through the 1990s?
-Would you support oversight of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian for fair and equal funding of LGBT artworks and historical issues for education of the general public?
-Would you support legislation creating a national community standard for obscenity in order for online vendors to be able to sell LGBT and leather/sm related publications and materials to adults in certain Southern states which effectively ban using such sales and prohibit freedom of speech for certain sectors of the LGBT community by using "community standards" of obscenity?
-Would you support economic isolation of countries with extremist governments that actively disregard the basic human rights of LGBTs?
-If you support the full integration of LGBTs into the military, would you support the removal of Pentagon administrators and military leaders who would refuse to implement this policy?
-A large number of LGBTs and others in this country prefer to remain single. What would you propose as the next president that would make tax codes, employment and other facets of American life fairer and more equitable for single adults?
-Democratic leaders have made many promises to LGBTs in the past about hate crimes legislation, workplace protection, integration of LGBTs into the military, freedom of speech issues, and the rights of LGBTs to enter into marriage. After so many promises and so little progress on these issues by Democratic leaders in Congress or the Executive branch over several decades, why should an LGBT vote for you or donate to your campaign based on your position on these issues?
Posted by: coolcatdaddy | Jul 11, 2007 9:18:47 AM
Very good Chip. Yes, we have come a long way in 15 years. Many of my friends who have died over the past 15 years would NEVER have thought that we would be having this debate on a national level. We owe it to our past to look to the future. This is when it can make a difference. By banding to together for a common goal...equality! And to those who are eager to criticize Miss Etheridge have not seen her talk in public and debate the issues dealing with our struggles. And why not blur the lines of entertainment and politics? If Reagan can become president, if Fred Thompson can run for president, if Sony Bono can become mayor, if anyone who is dedicated and smart and cares about the world can run for office, I think Milessa can debate a few hard questions! The big question will be the answers that are given by our candidates. BTW... you will NEVER see this debate with the Republicans.
Posted by: tommy | Jul 11, 2007 10:09:55 AM
It's ridiculous that we are not "allowed" to complain about the poor choice of moderator for this historic debate.
The debate is indeed historic, and this lame choice of moderator lessens its impact and makes it into a trifle. That is something worth "bitching" about.
Rachel Maddow. Ann Northrop (now SHE would be a kick ass moderator). There are better choices than a politically active musician.
I somehow don't see NBC CBS or ABC picking Bruce Springsteen to moderate their debates...
This is simply an entertainment ploy to rack up gay votes, and from the looks of the comments here, it's working.
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 11, 2007 10:45:24 AM
Okay, we now know that Gravel (and Kucinich?) was not invited to the debate because, according to HRC, his campaign fundraising isn't up to snuff.
How do you expect to get anything out of the candidates at this debate if the 3 annointed participants all have basically the same positions on gay rights? Wouldn't the conversation be a little livelier if it involved a candidate or two who actually support full equality?
Funny, I suspect if NARAL were hosting a debate among the Republican candidates, Giuliani would be the first person to get an invitation.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 10:47:19 AM
24Play - I believe you answered your own question. "How do you expect to get anything out of the candidates at this debate if the 3 annointed participants all have basically the same positions on gay rights?" This debate isn't about revealing anything new. It's smoke an mirrors, sadly set up by HRC, to garner gay votes without giving us real substance.
The debate would definitely be more interesting, and more of a true 'debate' if we we witnessing a range of viewpoints. Don't expect to see that though. Not with the "hard hitting" Melissa Etheridge at the helm.
Holy cow - what a joke.
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 11, 2007 11:05:25 AM
How about hoping that questions will get wheel's turning and people thinking. The past presidential debates have made the candidates think through their positions and develop them into something worth voting for. If nothing else this debate is for the candidates. They need to recognize what they are saying when they deny equality, and that people are paying attention. I hope to see some of them recognize the need for further equality then just a civil union law. Maybe this can be achieved by asking the candidates the difference between saying civil union and separate but equal.
STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 11, 2007 11:34:32 AM
Would all you whiney babies prefer The Log Cabin Repugs?? Geeze!
Posted by: Sandy | Jul 11, 2007 11:46:17 AM
Oh, look. Chris Crain just pointed out that this "historic" gay debate is not "one step forward" as so many of the grateful posters above have claimed, but actually TWO steps back:
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/07/historic-presid.html
Whiners: 1
Kumbaya-ers: 0
If HRC wants to take even a baby step forward with this event (not easy to do since showing it only on LOGO is so limiting), they should cancel Solmonese and Etheridge make two out, gay journalists (perhaps one from mainstream media and the other gay media) moderators. That's the only way this could be considered a step forward.
And, of course, they have to invite all the presidential candidates from both parties.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 12:17:20 PM
I'd really like to see the Republicans do this too. It'd be fun to watch them go up in flames from the sheer friction of the hypocritical beliefs. Then they'd be some flamers.
Posted by: jeremy | Jul 11, 2007 12:59:43 PM
Take it away SNL...
Posted by: Mike | Jul 11, 2007 1:04:16 PM
Since when has "journalism" redeemed itself and been elevated as the holy grail of fact? Or when did journalists become the bearers of all-that-is-true?
Yeah, maybe Melissa Ethridge wasn't the best choice... but I can think of plenty of journalists bound by their employers, a need to sell their image, and assimilationist fantasies who'd do a craptastic job.
Posted by: DS | Jul 11, 2007 1:07:41 PM
I think this is great news. I don't understand what all the whining is about. Solmonese and Etheridge have been very upfront and articulate, and yes even brave.
They will be excellent, and this is a great step forward. Could you have imagined this three years ago. It shows that politicians are catching up with the general public's movement on our issues. And cheers to HRC and LOGO. While you have to have cable or satellite to get LOGO, it comes in a package with other main stream channels, and isn't a premium charge. It will make a real contrast with the current repub leakership, which is still trying to figure a way out of the stone age. Hats off to everyone involved. This is really good.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 11, 2007 1:18:01 PM
Yes, DS, it kind of goes without saying that when you need an operation, you should choose not just a surgeon but a good surgeon.
Unfortunately, in this case the hospital administrators at HRC and logo have scheduled a manicurist to perform your appendectomy.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 1:20:27 PM
Why is the HRC not being inclusive by including Kusinich or Gravel?
I thought the gay community promoted
inclusiveness.
I get bashed so often and loose so many gigs over this but are we suppose to assume that the HRC is always right.
Thats my 2 cents
I am not jack jett
I am Condi Ricecakes
Posted by: Jack Jett | Jul 11, 2007 1:21:18 PM
Tom, if you follow the Chris Crain link I posted above you'll see that this event was not only conceivable 3 years ago, it was actually done 4 years ago—and much better. HRC sponsored a debate featuring 7 of the 9 Democratic candidates. It was moderated by Sam Donaldson and broadcast on C-Span.
But don't let those facts stand in the way of your feel-good moment.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 1:26:10 PM
@24play: I should have been more specific. I don't think Ethridge is a good choice, by any means. However, I was astounded by the number of comments crying "Where, oh, where is a JOURNALIST," as thought they were the harbingers of objectivity.
If anything, a journalist would probably be less likely to ask a hardball question, as it means they'll probably get snubbed by that candidate for any future interviews. If there is a silver lining, at least Ethridge doesn't really have to fret as much about pissing off any of the candidates. She sells music, not newspapers or click-thrus or TV "news" broadcasts.
That being said, I don't the protests are futile. I'm just tired of picking up a new club to beat this dead horse, trying to explain to my peers that LGBT "representation" is NOT "liberation."
Posted by: DS | Jul 11, 2007 2:05:10 PM
Thomas Roberts should be moderating this "debate",preferably naked.
Posted by: ShawnSF | Jul 11, 2007 2:07:15 PM
As of now, Dennis Kucinich has accepted and will be at the debate. He's the only choice for me - solid in both character and position. www.kucinich.us
Funny story: When Dennis was running in '04, he was the only unmarried person from the Dems. A question was asked during one of the debates about what would the candidates' First Lady or the First Gentleman (Carol Mosley Braun was running then) bring to the White House.
Dennis said that as the only bachelor he would have to answer hypothetically, but should he marry, his First Lady would certainly be in support of universal health care, corporate responsibility and a sane foreign policy. It was a clever and savvy answer.
This snowballed into a contest called "Win a Date with Dennis" and women from all over wrote essays about why they were voting for Dennis, and the best essay would win the (platonic) dinner date.
I was working on his campaign in Wisconsin then, and I found myself riding in the campaign van at one point. As we were chatting, I told Dennis that I wanted to enter the contest with an essay that said although I was a lesbian, I would metaphorically cross the aisle to have dinner with him.
He fell OUT! Still wiping his eyes, he gave me a big hug.
P.S. I dig the Melissa choice -- why the frick not?
Posted by: Gazelle | Jul 11, 2007 3:47:54 PM
Why oh why do people always respond to complaints about the Democrats with "would you prefer the Republicans?"
Um, clearly, the answer is no. But that does not mean that we need to sit back and just accept whatever crumbs the Democrats throw our way. This "debate" is an example of more crumbs...
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 11, 2007 4:52:06 PM