« News: NEA for Marriage, Sotomayor Rated, Justice For Roberto |
Main
| North Korea Behind Cyber Attacks? »
07/08/2009
Hildebrand: On Gay Issues, President Obama Will Get 'er Done
Rex Wockner turns in a must-read interview with Steve Hildebrand, who was Barack Obama's openly gay deputy national campaign director.
Hildebrand has communicated directly with the president on the uproar over that document.
"I told him very clearly that many in the gay community across the country are getting very anxious and that folks have felt very hurt by the Justice Department brief—the language that was used in it. He reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality."
Hildebrand also blew off the possibility of a rumored deal between HRC and the administration to put Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the back burner:
"...I think that's pretty crazy. Anybody who followed Barack Obama during the campaign and anybody that really knows the guy—he's not exactly one who's out cutting deals with special-interest groups on the left or the right for the timing of various legislative initiatives. Barack Obama as president and commander-in-chief is, and will continue to go through, a process, methodically, to get the ducks in a row in order to get the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell done in a successful way that isn't just going to happen overnight. He has to move the minds of the public, he has to move the minds of Congress and he has to move the minds of military leaders. And once that happens, and the ducks are in a row, I believe he can successfully move forward for repeal, something that he feels very strongly about and something that the spoke very passionately about."
Posted 9:50 AM EST by Matthew Rettenmund in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Rex Wockner | 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.
Honestly, anyone with even a shred of common sense knows that the President did not personally read or sign off on that DOMA brief. The Federal bureacracy is enormous and not everything gets run by the WH.
Posted by: Lee Adama | Jul 8, 2009 9:55:10 AM
I think this guy Wockner truly believes what he says about the president. But for the president to say he must change hearts and minds is an excuse. No you do not! Just be a leader and sign an executive order stopping the discharges now! It is my understanding that is what Pres. Truman did for black troops. I do think it is right to get your "ducks in a row" but damn how long does it take? Show leadership!! Do something to stop the bleeding. For that matter why does Obama not even say anything when we have victories in marriage equality? Oh that's right he still does not believe in it. I voted for him but it may not happen again. Bottom line is he has three and a half years left to prove he is not a liar like most politicians.
Posted by: Rann | Jul 8, 2009 10:12:39 AM
So if he didn't read the brief, why didn't he ask that the brief be amended once he found out what was in it? What excuse do you have for that? I'm anxious to hear it.
Posted by: dk | Jul 8, 2009 10:13:14 AM
He doesn't have to move minds in the public. Polls have shown that strong majorities support repealing DADT. From that alone the credibility of this guy is punctured.
People aren't taking this spin seriously, are they?
Posted by: dk | Jul 8, 2009 10:14:58 AM
"he subsequently has read the brief and was not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used."
Well then why hasn't he or his press secretary made a statement to that effect, rather than relying on a low level apologist to do the work for him? I think Obama's signals are quite clear regarding his stance on equality. It is an issue, but not an important issue to him. I just wish he would have been more clear when he was using us as campaign foot soldiers and taking our money during the campaign. Fierce advocate my ass.
Posted by: Timmeeeyyy | Jul 8, 2009 10:36:01 AM
Don't get bought off by this spin -- judge Obama by his actions. I don't think many people realize that it's entirely possible the Dems might lose control of Congress at the next mid-term elections, especially if unemployment keeps rising, in which case DOMA is here to stay. This dude better have his talking points ready!
Posted by: Freddy | Jul 8, 2009 10:37:32 AM
I'd still like someone to QUOTE the language in he brief that they found so offensive. Andy's earlier headline said "invokes" incest, which of course the brief did not do. Only people who don't know the difference between criminal law (incest) and civil law (limitations how how close a blood relative you may or may not marry) think it did.
Posted by: BillyBoy | Jul 8, 2009 10:42:42 AM
Gee, a politician's campaign director (is Obama still campaigning for something?) lists all the wonderful things the politican will do for us -- later...
Be still my beating heart!
Posted by: KipEsquire | Jul 8, 2009 10:59:26 AM
@ Timmeeeyyy
You nailed it. He could have disavowed the brief after the fact, but he didn't.
Posted by: MikeMick | Jul 8, 2009 11:08:48 AM
@ BarackBoy er BillyBoy.
Your assertion that there's a galaxy of difference between laws directed at sex between relatives and at marriage between relatives THAT WOULD RESULT IN SEX is the kind of ruthless slimy distortion characteristic of those with their heads so far up St. Obama's ass they could lick his holy tonsils.
As for other inexcusable parts of the homhating brief which not only has he NOT publicly condemned but not WITHDRAWN, they are addressed below by Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal:
"Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments. What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to 'same-sex marriage' or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad."
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 8, 2009 11:15:17 AM
Spin, Baby, Spin!
Posted by: chasmader | Jul 8, 2009 11:33:43 AM
buh---buh--- Barack's our enemy and a homophobe!!!!
Posted by: Kugel | Jul 8, 2009 11:34:10 AM
Michael once again it seems you have your ass so far up your own ass (and President Clinton's) that you can't event think or see beyond that.
Posted by: DJ | Jul 8, 2009 11:40:03 AM
With respect, you misquote Hildebrand. He did not say that he knew definitively that Barack had not read the DOMA brief [and how could anyone anyway?]. He said,
"AS I UNDERSTAND IT, he did not read the brief in advance."
He also says, "people will accuse me -- PROBABLY RIGHTFULLY SO -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker."
Well, the lab results on this interview just came back showing he's not just a Kool Aid drinker—he has TERMINAL CANCER OF THE KOOL AID!
Hildebrand THINKS this, he BELIEVES that, the TRUSTS this....why not just click your heels together three times, Dorothy!
In patented Obambot Hyperbole, he claims Obama, "was handed a larger number of really big issues to deal with at the beginning of his presidency than any other president in history." Uh, NO. That would be Lincoln, or LBJ, or FDR. Apparently Hildebrand doesn't read history or even get Time magazine which has already done TWO cover stories on contrasts between Obama's challenges and FDR's. Moral: Obama has lessons to learn from FDR not the other way around.
He twitters that O can't do anything about DADT overnight. WRONG....unless Obama WRITES VERY VERY VERY SLOW. He could LEGALLY freeze discharges with the stroke of pen IN SECONDS
That, first, "he has to move the minds of the public."
WRONG: As "The New Republic" just reported, public support for ending DADT is:
"25 points higher than the percentage of Americans who endorse Obama's handling of health care,
19 points higher than the percentage who currently support the war in Afghanistan,
and 18 points higher than the percentage who approve of the administration's economic policies."
"Obama is not afraid to push health care reform, send more troops to Afghanistan, or stand by his stimulus program--nor should he be. But why, when it comes to the far less controversial cause of gays serving in the military" is he, as Hildebrand might say, "being so spineless"?
"he has to move the minds of Congress" ....when is he going to START?
"he has to move the minds of military leaders"....NO! He just has to ISSUE THEM ORDERS....or did I fail to notice when HE TRANSFERED HIS POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF to Bo the Wonder Puppy?
Admiringly, Hildebrand says Obama,
"needs to use his bully pulpit"...uh, WHEN?
"he needs to use pressure on Congress"...uh, WHEN?
Dorothy also "thinks" that his great big crush Obama doesn't just "get" gay rights "in his gut, I think it's in his heart...I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we've achieved full equality in the gay community" .....Well, Miss Kansas, that would start EXACTLY WHEN?
When he's not telling Catholics that their belief that the Bible condemns gays is right and that he struggles between doing God's will and helping the SODOMites? When he's not discharging gays everyday? When he's not defending DADT in court? When he's not defending DOMA in court?
Hildrebrand IS right about this:
"I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices."
Gays should "put pressure on President Obama, on his administration, to call for action -- IMMEDIATE ACTION on the laundry list of items that the gay community deserves for true equality in this country."
Ya want it? You'll get it, Dorothy. You might want to change into your Kevlar blue gingham dress and your ruby combat boots.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 8, 2009 12:06:13 PM
I'm feeling that the term "during my time as president" is code word for "not in my first term, so you better vote for me"
I am not okay with that.
Posted by: RDM | Jul 8, 2009 12:12:11 PM
It might be a good idea to actually read the whole interview, certainly closely enough to know Wockner is the interviewer and Hilbebrandt the interviewee, before making sweeping comments. The discontent with Obama is legitimate, but some posters are too fond of hysterics. Don't confuse Anger with Action. Anyone can be angry. The most effective tactic in recent history was the cancellation of DNC donations at that LGBT event. It was a practical act with immediate impact and went further than all the ranting in the world is likely too. Real politics = real results.
Posted by: Clay | Jul 8, 2009 12:52:00 PM
I wish that we could just hold our fire. For the first time in a very long time there may be an administration that will help our community achieve some of its goals. But what do we do? At the first signs of disappointment we turn on the President as if we were Republicans. All they can do is oppose. We ought to remember that the entire country is in a crisis right now and our issues, damned important ones, are part of a larger landscape of disaster. We need Obama to succeed on all fronts. Period. What will it profit us if we get what we want but the nation fails in economic and social terms?
When Bush was in office, all criticism was fair. He and his ilk were retrograde. But maybe, just maybe, with Obama we ought to be just a bit politic and support the man. The worst that can happen is that nothing will happen. The best -- well, that's an entirely different story.
And while I am at it, why don't we shut up with the criticism and help. He can't do it alone. It is in our best interests. The next elections? Find some gay-friendly candidates and elect them. Work for those candidates who are in trouble that we require to accomplsih our goals. That is what the religionists do and they haven't suffered in resulting gains for their so-called "principles."
Bitching is easy but worthless. Calculated self-interest and circumspect action is not easy but it is the only way we are going to obtain what we deserve. Sorry about the preaching but we need to stop the crap and get smart.
Posted by: Recidivist | Jul 8, 2009 12:54:54 PM
If the president didn't like the DOMA brief then why the HELL DOESN'T OBAMA REPUDIATE THE BRIEF HIMSELF? Where is the public announcement? Why is it that only his gay lackeys get to know about it. Why is the DOMA brief still standing? Why? Because Obama wants it too.
PATHETIC LIAR!
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 8, 2009 12:57:50 PM
As we say: "Live, horse, and you'll get grass."
Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 8, 2009 1:34:56 PM
So pathetic. Another pat on the head. Obama knows that the gay "leadership" like HRC can be bought off with receptions at the White House and mentioning Stonewall without really doing anything. Why should he? The gay community has boxed itself in and can be totally taken for granted.
Posted by: LincolnLounger | Jul 8, 2009 1:48:26 PM
You know, we all agreed that Bush was a bad President and it gave our community common ground. We were one. But I have to tell you, the way that our community has reacted to President Obama was an awakening. I never knew how many gay people in my own community I would actually detest. The political ignorance is astounding and the bitchiness... well, there is truth in all stereotypes I guess.
Posted by: JimSur212 | Jul 8, 2009 1:58:59 PM
Great interview! In the world of Twitter I wonder how many knee-jerk reactionaries will see the hope in this interview.
Posted by: Camilo | Jul 8, 2009 2:01:47 PM
Yeah, somehow I expected Barack Obama's deputy national campaign director to come down on Barack Obama's side. In other news, Barack Obama's chief of staff is also a big fan of Barack Obama.
Posted by: Pender | Jul 8, 2009 2:55:23 PM
When Obama first came into power I, like many other people in the gay community expected him to suddenly change the world and make it a prettier, happier rainbow coloured world.
The reality is changes have been small and near insignificant and it's caused many people to become upset with Obama.
Personally though I wonder if we weren't expecting a bit too much too soon. Policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell have been in existence for years, and getting that reversed isn't going to be easy and isn't going to be quick.
And it's not, like RDM commented, going to be done in one term either, however after a lifetime of discrimination I don't think anyone can blame us for being suspicious...
Posted by: Michelle | Jul 8, 2009 4:11:19 PM
Very well put, Clay. You're a consistent voice of reason here, and I second everything you said.
Criticism of the President is certainly legitimate, given some of his words and his lack of deeds, and withholding funds from the Democrats until they step up to the plate is one good persuasion technique. We have leverage with the Democrats and with Obama. They have made promises that we can work with and hold them to. (The Republicans are currently powerless and owe us zilch.) This is an important time. We can keep the pressure on and act like grownups, or we can write off the administration and call them all liars till we're blue in the face. Which strategy has the best chance of getting us the rights we deserve?
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 8, 2009 4:32:24 PM