05/07/2008
Kay Hagan Beats Jim Neal in North Carolina Senate Primary
North Carolina State Senator Kay Hagan comfortably beat openly gay candidate Jim Neal in North Carolina's Senate primary yesterday:
"'You know what I want to do?' Hagan said smiling in front of a crowd of supporters in Greensboro. 'I want to give Miss Liddy Dole a pair of ruby red slippers and let her click her heels three times and go home to Kansas with Bob.' Hagan had 62 percent of the vote with 25 percent of precincts reporting. Chapel Hill entrepreneur Jim Neal was running second with 19 percent."
The Times-News online reports that following Hagan's victory, Neal stepped up to offer support:
"Kay Hagan celebrated her victory in Tuesday's U.S. Senate primary with an invitation. The state senator from Greensboro, who moves from an easy primary win to what promises to be a grueling general election matchup against incumbent GOP Sen. Elizabeth Dole, implored supporters of former rival Jim Neal to join her ranks. 'I want to invite them to come on board, and I certainly need their support,' Hagan said. Neal immediately obliged, vowing to do whatever he can to help a candidate he had harshly criticized for months win in November. 'Elizabeth Dole's in for the race of her life,' said Neal, who finished a distant second. 'This could be in the year in which Sen. Dole can be beaten, and Kay has my full support as the nominee to do that.' Hagan has said she needs about $10 million to unseat Dole - about seven times more than she has raised thus far. The $1.5 million she raised for the primary was plenty to push her past four opponents - she grabbed 60 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results."
Pam Spaulding has Neal's post-primary speech.
Previously
Gay NC Senate Candidate Neal and Rival Hagan Tangle in Debate [tr]
Poll Shows Gay Candidate Jim Neal Strong in NC Senate Race [tr]
Posted 9:28 AM EST by Andy in Democratic Party, Jim Neal, News, North Carolina | Permalink
Comments
Kay Hagan doesn't believe in equality for GLBT citizens. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that it's fundamentally a state issue the federal government has no business getting involved in."
More here:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5020
Posted by: John in Manhattan | May 7, 2008 9:54:57 AM
Thanks Human Rights Campaign for not showing any love towards NEAL. The chance at an out and proud Gay politician who is 100% for our rights was pissed away.
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 7, 2008 10:08:31 AM
John in Manhattan - get a grip and grow up! Neal got 19% of the vote and Hagan got 62% of the vote. He's a good guy and ran a good race, but in no way was going to win the Democratic primary. Do you think an HRC endorsement would have changed that? No, all it would have done is make things more difficult with Kay Hagan, who has a real chance of winning and being an ally in Congress. This outcome just proves that HRC (and the Victory Fund) is being wise in chooing who to endorse and when. I'd rather they use their money and influence on races we can win (like the anti-gay marriage amendments in Florida and California).
Posted by: John | May 7, 2008 10:25:47 AM
The HRC is in the business of controlling the "gay interest"; it is a shame that they have not been placed on notice for this action. This action should limit their impact in the gay community, and I am proud that many people via the internet have raised this issue.
The HRC for some gays have become a status symbol with their black tie events and fund-raising efforts " a seen and be seen" sort of affair. This is garnered them HUGE amounts of money and little or NO backlash from gay groups.
It is time that the HRC be dismantled and reconstructed in a manner that is befitting of an "non-profit" organization that can benefit the masses.
Posted by: Charles | May 7, 2008 10:25:52 AM
Sorry, John in Manhattan - I called out the wrong person - should have said JimmyBoyo.
Posted by: John | May 7, 2008 10:27:24 AM
John
Winning isn't everything.
You loose something if you give up your principals just to win.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 7, 2008 10:40:26 AM
Um, John, until Jim Neal came out in public... he was going to win this primary. The national party was going to support him and he wasn't going to get any serious competition. When he came out, the national party begged Hagan to run because they didn't want someone who was gay to run against Dole, because they thought he'd have no chance. Dole's incredibly weak, so who knows if they were right, but it's downright offensive that the party went to this length to get someone who wasn't gay - Kay isn't the strongest candidate either, and certainly her views are out of touch with many Democrats in their state and across the country. All I know is that whether or not Neal could have won, if the Republicans attacked Neal for being gay it would only help the cause by showing the Republican's true colors - this is a phenomenon I've seen with gay candidates over and over again, many of whom have won because of the zeal of anti-gay bigots. Even people who aren't completely comfortable with gay people take offense when they're mercilessly attacked for being gay, because it gives them a chance to see a brief glimmer of what many gay people have to deal with all the time - and it's not pretty.
Posted by: Ryan | May 7, 2008 1:40:54 PM
My point, which people seem to be missing, is not that Jim Neal was bad or that Kay Hagan is good. I don't know the full background on Neal/Hagan and the DNC but I'd remind everyone that Jim Neal was going to have a tough time as an openly-gay candidate against Dole and turns a potential Democratic pickup into a tossup. Sad, but simply the facts.
When it comes to votes on GLBT issues after this election, winning is everything - because each extra Democratic vote we can get means one less filibuster in the Senate that works and more pro-GLBT issues that can be passed and made law. It also means more pro-GLBT judges making it onto the bench.
The job of the DNC and of HRC is to get people who will vote as they want elected. Does anyone really think HRC wouldn't prefer an openly gay person in office? But that wish has to be tempered with clear-eyed judgment on the chances and what it takes to really advance legislation.
HRC didn't get Kay Hagan into the race - but once she entered, she was the leading candidate and (like it or not) has a pretty good record on GLBT issues. HRC did what any wise group in their position would have: they waited it out. Had Jim Neal won, I'm sure HRC would have supported him like crazy. But he didn't, so while his running was a great thing, honorable and deserving of praise, my point is it's unfair to blame HRC for not supporting him when they are not in the business of supporting gay candidates, but rather in supporting pro-GLBT candidates who can win.
Posted by: John | May 8, 2008 3:17:41 PM
Recent Comments