08/10/2007
Candidates Hold Court at Presidential Forum on LGBT Issues
Here are a few clips and some short personal thoughts on last night's gay debate. Overall, I thought the format was pretty good, and reminded me how tired I am of the quick sound bytes that are offered up again and again during the conventional debates. It was refreshing to have the candidates in this bite-size 'talk-show' format.
I was impressed by Obama's appearance right after he finished. Looking back on the performances of the frontrunners, Obama seemed less canned than Clinton or Edwards, but also a bit less experienced and presidential. In the first clip, Obama discusses whether or not he believes the battle for gay rights can be equated to the black struggle for civil rights.
Edwards seemed uncomfortable at first and thrown off by a few questions, particularly the question about transgender people which I don't feel he answered. But I think Edwards won people over in the end, in the third portion of the interview, after he admitted that he shouldn't have used religion as a justification for his position on gay marriage. In the second clip above, John Edwards is asked why he uses his religion to justify his stance on gay marriage. Says Edward: "I shouldn't have said that. I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for president is about equality — across the board."
After hearing Obama and Edwards, Kucinich's appearance was as if someone had opened a door and let a waft of fresh air in the room. Compelling from start to finish. I'm glad Kucinich is in the mix even though he hasn't a chance in hell of winning, because he brings up what candidates would be saying in an ideal world. He's a bit of a cross between a sideshow act at the carnival and a new age preacher. And that strange awkward pause before the last answer...
Gravel was equally as entertaining: "Marriage is a commitment between two human beings in love. And understand me. I'm saying two human beings. They can be heterosexual. They can be two lesbians, they can be transgender. They can be two gays. What it is is a commitment of two human beings in love and if there's anything we need in this world it's more love."
There may not have been a clear "winner" in last night's Presidential Forum on LGBT issues, but there was a clear loser. In the only real "oh no he didn't" moment of the night, Bill Richardson said "It's a choice" when asked by Melissa Etheridge whether homosexuality was a choice or biologicial.
A shocked Etheridge backtracked with, "I don't think you understood the question. Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, 'Oh, I want to be gay?'"
Richardson's follow-up answer didn't do much to save him: I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people, as a matter of human decency."
Richardson issued a statement following the debate: "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."
Richardson talked to Pam Spaulding at Americablog after the forum. Said Richardson: "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight. This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."
Hillary Clinton seemed a bit wooden and angry at first to me, but it was clear that she's a seasoned politician who has learned a few things from her husband about how to work a room. Here's the clip where Jonathan Capehart asks her about the Peter Pace "homosexuality is immoral" comments and her initial response to them, which was "I'll leave that for others to conclude."
Clinton: "You know you say these things, and somebody sticks a microphone in front of you, and I thought, 'well that was pretty good' and my friends started calling me and saying, 'well, that wasn't very good, so...'I said, 'oh, you know, you're probably right.' So I immediately got the first opportunity I could to say the whole thing. I was focused on one aspect I thought was really over the line...joe blow, joe schmo walks down the street and says, 'here's what I believe.' You say, 'who cares?' Chariman of the Joint Chiefs says it, — that has a direct impact on policy. That's what I went after but I should have put it in a broader context."
For my thoughts on Bill Richardson, see the previous post. Below are some links to both liveblogging and MSM reports on the event.
The Advocate Insider has a report on the post-debate fundraisers.
Visible Vote 08 [logo online]
Democratic candidates talk gay issues in historic presidential forum [the advocate]
Democrats Voice Support of Gay Rights in TV Forum [nyt]
Dems Take To The Airwaves To Woo Gay Voters [huffington post]
Dems walk fine line at gay issues forum [chicago tribune]
U.S. gay voters scrutinize Democrats in TV forum [reuters]
The August 9 Democratic Debate [time]
HRC/LOGO Visible Vote '08
Live-Blogging The Dems [joemygod]
LiveBlog of Gay Issues Debate [lane hudson and katherine zaleski - huffington post]
Open thread - liveblogging the HRC/LOGO Visible Vote 08 Forum [americablog]
Posted 8:56 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
And yet through it all Richardson has done more personally to help and support gay people.
Posted by: skintop | Aug 10, 2007 9:09:55 AM
I don't know about Hillary sounding mad. She sounded downright Zen-like compared to Melissa Etheridge and her "personal" feelings of anger about "being thrown under the bus."
I think it's pretty easy for Etheridge to feel self-righteous anger over the first Clinton years, but it's also easy to forget that was 1993, a very different time than now. DADT sucked, so did DOMA, but I agree with Hillary -- we could have faced so much worse if those hadn't passed.
That said, my next president better work his/her ass off to repeal both.
On another note ...
Richardson is toast in the queer community.
And Kucinich is fantastic -- I'm glad he's my representative.
But he would be a terrible president, getting nothing done.
My verdict: Hillary's my gal, Obama and Edwards will be fine if nominated.
Posted by: The FAF | Aug 10, 2007 9:10:17 AM
Of all the major candidates, the one who impressed me the most was Obama. His answers seemed more thoughtout and sophisticated than the rest. There is a "genuine-ness" about him that seems to be missing inn Edwards and Clinton. I know he doesnt support full marriage rights, but I know also that the rest of America isnt there yet either... we've come along way but still need more time. Every day makes a difference. I'm leaning towards Obama after last night.
Posted by: Sean | Aug 10, 2007 9:11:09 AM
I didn''t watch or listen to the debate, but via the Internet, I've caught most of the highlights.
Richardson hurt himself with the "choice" comment. Dennis (what's his name?) and Gravel have no chance at becoming the democratic candidate, although their opinions on 'gay marriage' perked up more than a few who support such a view, I'm sure.
The frontrunners (Clinton, Obama & Edwards) all support civil unions or domestic partnerships and the equality that lies therein. None of the three believe that marriage is between two people of the same sex, yet they all espouse equality. That is to be commended and is in fact, the way it was intended.
If militant gays and lesbians would drop the "it must be called marriage" rant, they'd be light years ahead of where they find themselves now.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 10, 2007 9:12:29 AM
For some reason, both Hillary and Edwards came across really Washington last night. And the fact that Hillary is not willing to repeal DOMA completely (only a certain section of it) is something that bothers me. I understand why the marriage issue is still difficuly hillary, but come on, atleast scrap DOMA like Obama and Edwards would.
Posted by: Sean | Aug 10, 2007 9:14:17 AM
I'm for Hillary all the way...though I will probably vote for Gravel or Kucinich in the primary.
Posted by: Bobby | Aug 10, 2007 9:18:07 AM
That wasn't the only part that Richardson blew it... when he couldn't answer if he would sign legislation if it were passed up to him for gay marriage (not a civil union), he really hurt himself.
He was saying he would go for what is achievable, but then wouldn't sign it if it were passed?
Posted by: gabriel | Aug 10, 2007 9:27:40 AM
I thought Obama did very well of the three frontrunners. Clinton and Edwards seem so fake to me.
Posted by: Roger | Aug 10, 2007 9:32:36 AM
No shows Dodd ad Biden rarely show u in pols anyway.
Richardson scrwed himelf.
Hillary Ugh. If she is the nominee then of course after the primaries she should be suported
BUT Hillary is not qurateed the nom. Obama has shown up ahead of mccain in a reupub poll as a better choice amongst registered republican voters. Edwards is polling beter than clinton in iowa amongst those that regularly attend the caucus. Which s HUGE since Hillary suporters who don't show up to vote well = Edwards winning Iowa. Such an early win can propel him far.
Lest anyone forget, this exact time during run up to 2004 saw all polls showing Lieberman the front runner and media anointed nominee. Funny thing, actual voting days revealed leiberman as an illusion. A lesson hill the corporate lobbyist shill should keep in mind.
Posted by: anon | Aug 10, 2007 9:33:04 AM
Oh, for those who didn't see Richardson's comments on whether he would sign the legislation:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-bill-richardson-rewind/
scroll down, you'll see it
Posted by: gabriel | Aug 10, 2007 9:36:12 AM
I think Obama did the best lsat night. Edwards and Hillary come across like such politicians. Obama was pretty genuine last night, and was the least scripted. He is running on this platform of hope and change, and while im still skeptical, he's looking better each and every day.
Posted by: Sahadev | Aug 10, 2007 9:38:47 AM
Let me stress that again for Hills people here.
Same time during run up to 2004 saw Leiberman ahead in all polls and as the media apointed nominee.
LOL Actual primary and caucus voting days saw an entirely different outcome.
Posted by: anon | Aug 10, 2007 9:39:41 AM
Using Obamma's most used phrase Uh Uh Uh Uh...Kucinich gets my vote and a donation. People that think Kucinich is a "carnival act" just goes to show how bitter the gay community is. Finally a Presidential Candidate that shows love for the gay community and Andy at Towleroad trashes him. Go ahead and throw your vote away to Obama and Clinton, we don't have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils when you have Kucinich.
Posted by: Rufus | Aug 10, 2007 9:41:44 AM
I have to agree with Rufus on this one. In the primaries we should vote for the person that stands up for us most, whether they win the nomination or not. If we are willing to sell our souls for the middle of the road the best we are going to get is just that. After the nomination we should support the candidate with support for our struggle, which will most likely be the democratic candidate, but when 'fringe' candidates win delegates to the convention they will have influence on the party platform.
Posted by: Gary | Aug 10, 2007 10:32:03 AM
Andy wants SO bad for Obama to the frontrunner. His dislike for Hillary has actually taken a physical form.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 10, 2007 10:34:51 AM
I watched the forum at E&Y Head Offices in NYC last night with about 100 other people and I was unimpressed. Kucinich was truly a breath of fresh air, though I thought he must have chewed a vicoden before he went on stage.
I think the thing that bothers me most about Edwards (though I like some of his ideas on policy) is that he kept saying equality for all and that's what he believes in, and even to the point of, he can see why GLBT people would want to be "married," but then does not support it.
Obama's energy, hollywood glitz and glamour does not a President make.
Clinton has most of the GLBT community in her pocket, because she is progressive and on target with many of the issues that matter to our community (not just equality issues, but other aspects of everyday life), but our community needs to tell her to stand up for us. If HRC and major donors to her would just say, no more money until you come clean on marriage, she would have to not say that lame line "I see it as being very positive on civil unions." The opening remarks at E&Y last night included someone telling us that we have to stand up and make politicians afraid of our community. Meaning, they're not going to do anything that we don't force them to do...and right now, we're not holding out to make them do the right thing.
The GLBT Community needs to become the AARP, NRA and NAACP of interest groups and force the hands of the politicians. No one who is seriously running for President is that afraid of us because they think we don't have options - however, we do. If we all pulled our support and money from anyone who didn't support marriage, you better believe there would be marriage talk. But here we go, giving all our money away in the Primaries when it doesn't really matter. . . This is the time when we need someone to seriously come out and be a leader for our communtiy, for every community.
Posted by: Parker Preston | Aug 10, 2007 10:35:47 AM
GRAVEL! GRAVEL! GRAVEL!
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Aug 10, 2007 10:39:42 AM
Before the debate, I had Clinton slightly ahead of Obama in my mind. This event definitely changed that. Clinton seemed overly defensive throughout. Particularly troubling was her attempt to defend DOMA by saying that it helped prevent the constitutional amendment from advancing. While I have no doubt that that did probably enter into discussions among congresspeople, last night's event was not the place to vaunt the "utility" of discriminatory legislation. I too am troubled by her specification (twice by my count) that she wants to repeal only part of DOMA.... Her opposition to DADT "since 1999" was a bit disingenuous (gee, that's the year Bill left office)... Most significantly, she was not as clear as Obama about extending federal marriage rights to couples in civil unions. Yes, he waffled on the marriage word, but he was there on the rights. In her closing summary, Clinton notably failed to include civil union/marriage rights in the summary of things she would accomplish.
Would I vote for her as the nominee? Yes. But she didn't score nearly as highly in this forum as I expected she would. In fact, I would put her third, after Edwards.
Posted by: Gianpiero | Aug 10, 2007 10:39:53 AM
I was blown out of the water in the first minute of the forum.
I sent two questions into HRC to ask Obama.
1) Since he seems to continually conflate religious and civil marriage...Ask him if he believes the church should have ANY say in who is and isn't entitled to CIVIL marriage; and
2) Since he supports the same rights of marriage through a separate institution (Civil Unions), does he support "separate but equal" institutions to bestow civil rights?
The very FIRST two questions out of Solomonese's mouth were EXACTLY those two questions, almost word for word. Ole Joe got bumped up a bit on my list.
Though I REALLY respect Obama, he dodged and parsed the questions with the skill of a surgeon.
I was glad to hear him proudly proclaim that his denomination (and mine) the UCC supports FULL marriage equality. I just wish he would say that in non-gay forums. Heck, he even avoided talking about gay issues when he spoke at the General Synod of the UCC last month.
I was also ready to go through the TV screen when Obama claimed that he brought up homophobia when he spoke at Howard University. He did but not in the way he would have had us believe last night. What he said was, don't let fear of being labeled gay keep you (African-American men) from getting an HIV test. That was hardly talking about ending homophobia. He didn't say, "don't be homophobic against gay people", or “homophobia is bigotry and it’s wrong”, or “homophobia hurts gay people and non-gay people and it’s wrong”, he basically said, "don't let your fear of being called gay keep you from getting a test". Yes the fear of “being ‘accused’ of being gay” is based in homophobia but he was being VERY disingenuous in the forum about how he challenged anti-gay homophobia at Howard. "Acknowledging it" and "challenging it" are two entirely different things.
Obama was/is VERY clever in his word parsing and his context juggling. That makes me VERY uncomfortable with the candidate that I really WANT to support.
I get really tired of hearing all of these candidates going on and on, ad nauseam, about how they support full equality BUT...
I don't know why no one will ask Hillary why it's OK to (in HER own words) "enshrine discrimination and bigotry into the Constitution of the United States) but she seems all too ready willing to enshrine it into the laws; or at least will to sit by while others do.
Over all I was VERY impressed with the forum; at least the first ¾ of it. It went down “hill” fast when Richardson came on. He looked completely unhappy to be there and almost irritated (especially that anyone had the audacity to ask about him using the word “maricón” on the Imus show). Then the whole homosexuality is a choice thing. He’s toast. Hillary didn’t redeem things much in my, or my husband’s eyes. I wasn’t impressed with her but I do think she IS “evolving”. Her position on leaving marriage equality up to the states and ONLY repealing the THIRD part of DOMA and her claim that she has total love and respect for GLBT people and believes that they should have completely equal rights but doesn’t believe that they should be allowed to marriage just doesn’t impress me at all.
And after all the controversy I must say that I was glad that both Ethridge AND Gravel were there. I personally think that they added, rather than distracted from, the forum. I loved Ethridge’s personal touches and her emotion and I loved Gravel’s frankness and challenges to the other candidates.
This was no doubt a plus for the gay community, a plus for the political times and a plus for America. I think things are slowly but surely moving in the right (read: LEFT) direction.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 10, 2007 10:41:51 AM
I am, of course, slightly stupid. Bill left office in 2001, not 1999...
Posted by: Gianpiero | Aug 10, 2007 10:44:59 AM
Make that: "why it's NOT OK to enshrine bigotry and discrimination into the Constitution..."
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 10, 2007 10:48:21 AM
I thought that this "debate" was a farce. Why Melissa Etheridge? Were there not seasoned gay reporters from either TV news or print that could have moderated and asked questions? I also thought the soft-ball questions, sofa-interview concept was awful - more like an Oprah Winfrey interview than an actual debate. This was not a "debate" - none of the candidates had the opportunity to challenge each other's points and interact with each other at all. And the audience - composed of high-rolling HRC donors - at least the AFL-CIO debate had regular people in the audience. What the candidates had to say was interesting, but the entire format was wrong and didn't do service to the gay community or the candidates. I also felt that the HRC bias towards Hillary came through loud and clear. We deserve better. It was an embarassment.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 10, 2007 10:48:50 AM
Yes, let's have a rousing cheer for Second Class Citizenship!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 10, 2007 10:49:51 AM
That whole Hillary paragraph was a train wreck. Too many typos and grammar errors to even bother fixing. You'll just have to suffer through it. I really should try editing BEFORE I hit "post"! :)
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 10, 2007 10:53:15 AM
Earlier comment by Zeke: "I get really tired of hearing all of these candidates going on and on, ad nauseam, about how they support full equality BUT... "
By my watch, gays and lesbians aren't going to get a candidate who supports same sex marriage (oxymoron) in 2008.
What needs to be asked at one of these future forums is: Mr/Ms Candidate, "Why are you for equal rights for two people of the same sex who are in a relationship, but stop short of calling it marriage? Please be specific and speak from your heart."
I'd bet the house that their reply would be pretty close to what I believe and have espoused on this blogsite.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 10, 2007 10:58:12 AM