Re: Clinton and Obama (and The Gays)
Dan is feeling miffed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for failing to come out swinging in favor of the morality of gayness. So, apparently, is the Human Rights Campaign. To recap:
Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced this week that he believes homosexuality is "immoral," after which reporters began asking the presidential candidates what they thought of Pace's statement. And because Democratic candidates are always in more of a political bind on gay issues, most of the media attention has focused on what the Democratic big three — Clinton, Obama, and Edwards — said in response. (Or, in the case of Clinton and Obama, what they didn't say.)
Clinton, asked by ABC News whether homosexuality is immoral, responded:
If all this feels like a replay of the 2004 presidential election, in which the issue of gay rights vexed Kerry and helped Bush win, it's because it largely is. And who benefits politically when Democrats are forced to either side with the gays or the gay-haters? The answer is pretty clear: Republicans.
Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to say publicly what most of them probably already believe in private—based on the gays they employ, the gays they take money from, and, in more than a few cases, the gays they secretly sleep with—which is that being gay is hardly immoral.
Of course it's ugly and unpleasant to watch people pander to prejudice.
But this is politics.
And the lesson of the last presidential election is that the gay issue creates a Hobson's choice for Democrats. There is no good answer, no politically-smart way for them to be absolutist about supporting gays and full gay equality without creating a media frenzy that would distract from other issues and alienate a good part of the electorate. Which is why I find my self agreeing with Kerri Harrop (for a change).
By appearing uncomfortable in answering the question about gays and morality, and eventually approaching a muffled correct answer (through their spokespeople), Clinton and Obama are telegraphing to the average American that they are more like him or her than not.
Poll after poll shows that while support for gays and gay rights is increasing in this country, it's far from a settled issue.
So, while appearing to be unsettled by questions about gays and gay rights might make certain Democrats seem craven and spineless to certain parts of the Democratic base, it no doubt plays well with the average American — if he or she is even following this episode.
And Edwards is not above trying to thread the needle by showing both comfort and discomfort with gay issues at the same time. His answer on gay marriage? "I'm just not there yet." Translation: I'm with you, America. I'm uncomfortable about this.
It may be unpleasant for the liberal base to watch Democrats playing to the average American in order to win. But show me the Democrat who unequivocally supports full civil equality for gays and lesbians and I will show you... Dennis Kucinich.
Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced this week that he believes homosexuality is "immoral," after which reporters began asking the presidential candidates what they thought of Pace's statement. And because Democratic candidates are always in more of a political bind on gay issues, most of the media attention has focused on what the Democratic big three — Clinton, Obama, and Edwards — said in response. (Or, in the case of Clinton and Obama, what they didn't say.)
Clinton, asked by ABC News whether homosexuality is immoral, responded:
Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.Obama gave three non-answers to the question, posed by Newsday:
Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."Edwards, taking a notably different tack, was more straightforward with Wolf Blitzer:
Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."
Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.
BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy.Afterward, both Clinton and Obama used spokespeople to suggest that they disagree with Pace. But the Human Rights Campaign reportedly isn't satisfied and wants them to do more.
First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?
EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view.
If all this feels like a replay of the 2004 presidential election, in which the issue of gay rights vexed Kerry and helped Bush win, it's because it largely is. And who benefits politically when Democrats are forced to either side with the gays or the gay-haters? The answer is pretty clear: Republicans.
Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to say publicly what most of them probably already believe in private—based on the gays they employ, the gays they take money from, and, in more than a few cases, the gays they secretly sleep with—which is that being gay is hardly immoral.
Of course it's ugly and unpleasant to watch people pander to prejudice.
But this is politics.
And the lesson of the last presidential election is that the gay issue creates a Hobson's choice for Democrats. There is no good answer, no politically-smart way for them to be absolutist about supporting gays and full gay equality without creating a media frenzy that would distract from other issues and alienate a good part of the electorate. Which is why I find my self agreeing with Kerri Harrop (for a change).
By appearing uncomfortable in answering the question about gays and morality, and eventually approaching a muffled correct answer (through their spokespeople), Clinton and Obama are telegraphing to the average American that they are more like him or her than not.
Poll after poll shows that while support for gays and gay rights is increasing in this country, it's far from a settled issue.
So, while appearing to be unsettled by questions about gays and gay rights might make certain Democrats seem craven and spineless to certain parts of the Democratic base, it no doubt plays well with the average American — if he or she is even following this episode.
And Edwards is not above trying to thread the needle by showing both comfort and discomfort with gay issues at the same time. His answer on gay marriage? "I'm just not there yet." Translation: I'm with you, America. I'm uncomfortable about this.
It may be unpleasant for the liberal base to watch Democrats playing to the average American in order to win. But show me the Democrat who unequivocally supports full civil equality for gays and lesbians and I will show you... Dennis Kucinich.
posted by Eli Sanders at
1:25 PM
<< Home