lifeonq.com

HRC/Logo Visible Vote 08 Presidential Forum: Grade it on the Curve

It would seem that LGBT political power got a big bump in last night’s Visible Vote 08 presidential forum on the Logo Channel. For LGBT Americans, the forum offered a chance to evaluate the candidates from an LGBT perspective, in an LGBT forum. This was in stark contrast to trying to filter candidate positions from the spin and stump speeches designed for a broader audience.Both the panel and the politicians seemed well aware of the significance of the forum in political history.

The panelists–Jonathon Capehart of the Washington Post, entertainer and activist Melissa Etheridge, and HRC President Joe Solmonese–regularly prefaced their questions for the Democratic presidential candidates with expressions of gratitude for their previous efforts to advance gay rights and their political courage to attend an LGBT event that was sure to generate mainstream headlines nationally. The candidates seemed cognizant of the history written by their participation, which likely explains some of the philosophical tone to many of their comments. Just as Ellen Degeneres‘ televised coming-out created a national conversation on LGBT visibility and tolerance, Visible Vote 08 is sure to add spark to the conversation about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights and roles in the political landscape.

Winners and Losers

Senator Barack Obama was the first to accept the invitation to the forum and therefore the first to appear. There was a point here for the LGBT community, and Obama was quick to point out his first-in-line interest in gay and lesbian issues. He also gets the highest marks for finessing the gay marriage issue. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel were the only two to come right out and endorse gay marriage. But both are widely understood as marginal candidates on the far left of the Democratic Party. What makes Obama’s position interesting is his suggestion that the term marriage should be divorced from all legal unions, leaving the definition of marriage to individual religious denominations. This makes perfect sense. If your religion precludes you from recognizing gay marriage, then don’t recognize it in your church. Changing hearts and minds within the religious community should be a separate fight. The work for gay rights should focus on the first amendment’s guarantee to equal rights for all, not on how moral values–which vary in nuance among religions–should be used as precedents in constitutional law.

Watch Sen. Obama explain his civil marriage position:

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards attempted to work his trademark sincerity and “truthiness,” but his shtick was hollow in this setting. He was passionate in relating how he was moved by meeting homeless gay kids in Los Angeles, kicked out by their parents for being gay. But his outrage felt like that of a man who has no idea of the devastating and dangerous effect that an anti-gay society can have on individuals. Edwards came across as someone revealing new and shocking information. Did he genuinely think a gay audience was not aware of family intolerance and exclusion? Perhaps he thought he was speaking to a broader America. Edwards also abandoned his tell-the-truth rhetoric in explaining why he said that he was opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. His attempt to divert the question by taking off on a tangent about religion and government that was no where near as logical and articulate as Obama’s. When he hit a dead end, he took a U-turn and ended up right back at “I don’t support gay marriage.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the LGBT community’s most reliable allies in the House of Representatives, got high praise from the panel that came with a caveat: “But you can’t win.” HRC President Solmonese actually included the phrase, “totally unelectable, but…” in his on-camera reaction to Kucinich. The Ohio Congressman displayed a charming sense of humor, but went over the top in his comments. Listening to Kucinich seems to leave liberals thinking, “I like was he has to say, but I worry he’s a little nuts.”As for former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, a little nuts is an understatement. While his views on LGBT issues are across-the-board appealing, his overall message leaves you wondering how he could even get on the ballot. Gravel spent an inordinate amount of his 15 minutes ranting about the war on drugs. He proposed that all drugs be legalized and available through your doctor. Why a medical professional would prescribe crack was not explained.

If you disqualify the two widely-labeled “unelectable” candidates, the big loser of Visible Vote 08 was Arizona Governor Bill Richardson. When you listen to Richardson discuss foreign policy, he seems so knowledgeable and rational. But perhaps that’s because it’s such a sharp contrast to our current president. On LGBT issues, Richardson lost it. He described homosexuality as a choice. When Melissa Etheridge jumped in, believing he must have misunderstood the question, he missed the opportunity to fix his fumble. “I’m not a scientist” was his clarification. Richardson also refused to budge on gay marriage, attempting to sell the idea that it’s just not do-able. He double-talked through a rationale that gay marriage isn’t possible because the country “just isn’t there yet,” followed by a dissertation on the importance of being able to lead. Which is it, governor? Either you’re capable of leading the country to equality, or you’re not.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton came across as a candidate with the best foundation of experience and perspective. Her explanation of the history of her husband’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was thoughtful and politically savvy. She gets a perfect score for her grasp of political climate and how a president must compromise and build consensus to move the country forward. Clinton also succeeded in plugging her past efforts in support of gay rights, talking about her work with HRC and others on strategies to defeat a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Few provided as much substance or came across as more qualified for the office of president as did Senator Clinton. But she failed the logic test in trying to explain her opposition to gay marriage. She was effusive in her admiration of the community’s fight for gay marriage, but never acknowledged how her anti-marriage position impacted that cause.

Watch Sen. Clinton offer an insider’s insight into Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

An A for effort; a C for execution

One surprising aspect of the forum was the lack of polish. Read the post on CBS News’ post-forum analysis for coverage of the missteps in Logo’s attempt at live TV news. As for the candidates themselves, perhaps they should be graded on the curve. With so many Democratic debates, maybe the candidates were ill-prepared for a longer-form conversation on a specific issue on live television. The HRC/Logo forum did not fit their 60 second response practice, and their soundbytes had to be strung together–often illogically–to answer the questions. Clinton, a highly coached politician, generally rose to the challenge of the issues (her position on marriage notwithstanding). But even she gave us something for the blooper reel. More on that in a separate post.