Democratic Candidates Debate LGBT Issues — Liveblog

By Andy Birkey
Thursday, August 09, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel will debate LGBT issues tonight at the Human Rights Campaign/Logo cable network. Jeff Fecke and Andy Birkey are at Pi Bar and Restaurant in Minneapolis liveblogging the event.

liveblog inside7:57: [Andy] HRC’s DeShawn Mohammed is welcoming a packed Pi. He says, “It’s going to be exciting to watch the presidential candidates out-gay each other!” He also urges the crowd to contact Sen. Norm Coleman to sponsor the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.

8:04: [Andy] Logo is introducing Barack Obama which garnered a good amount of supportive applause from the crowd at Pi. He says that “rights that are conferred by that state must apply to all people.” He supports a strong version of civil unions that would include all rights afforded to married couples.

8:10: [Andy] Musician Melissa Etheridge is praising Obama…a lot. She wants to know how Obama can end the fear-based politics directed at LGBT people. He says that the job of the president is to create hope for everyone. “I’m a hope monger,” he says.

8:15: [Andy] Obama is asked about talking to the black community about homophobia. “It’s an impediment to dealing with the AIDS issue.” Anti-gay marriage politics has been used to divide and distract communities of color. The most important thing is that the black family is under siege in America.

8:19: [Andy] Journalist Jonathan Capehart “Your stance on gay marriage is old school.” Oh, snap! Obama shrugged it off. [Jeff's having computer problems, so I'm taking over some of the snark.]

8:24: [Andy] Crowd member Curt Prins says, “He didn’t speak with confidence. His responses seemed canned.” Jeff Fecke: It’s an interesting format that provides some depth. Not so much arguing and back and forth.

8:25: [Andy] Edwards is up. He is addressing LGBT homelessness, and the fact that kids get kicked out of their homes for being LGBT. “If people could just see it,” he says. It’s had a profound impact on him. Etheridge: “You’ve said you felt uncomfortable around gay people. How you feelin’ now?” Edwards says that quote is incorrect. Laughing, and applause.

8:28: [Andy] Kids peers need to understand the issue of same-sex couples says Edwards. Adults have a responsibility to educate kids about same-sex parenting. Edwards doesn’t know what age that should happen. His hair looks nice though.

8:34: [Andy] “I think what Ann Coulter does is the worst kind of public discourse.” Loads of applause at Pi.
[Jeff] You can never go wrong attacking Ann Coulter!

8:37: [Andy] Edwards says we need powerful anti-discrimination laws in America. Solmonese: What is it about your religion that makes you not fight for gay marriage? “It is wrong to impose a faith on the American people.” Equality is in his heart, he says. [Jeff] Not really an answer to the question. [Andy] It sure was touching though.

8:39: [Andy[ Don't Ask, Don't Tell bad. Defense of Marriage Act bad. Repeal them, he says. He would fight to repeal DADT. Edwards ends by saying he is committed to bringing the two America's into one America. Bringing up immigration laws pertaining to same-sex couples. Nice. [Jeff] That’s Edwards at his best tonight.

8:45: [Andy] Dennis Kucinich is up, and has a stellar record on LGBT issues. Capehart says, “Is there any issue regarding LGBT rights you are against?” Kucinich jokes: Just keep the contributions coming in.

8:48: [Andy] Margaret Carlson: “You’re so evolved for a member of Congress.” Kucinich: “To be here is an honor.” He  is very passionate tonight.

8:50: [Jeff] Melissa Etheridge praised Kucinich’s ability to “stand up and say what he believes in.”  I may be wrong, but I think that bodes ill for Hillary.

8:51: [Jeff] Why can’t Kucinich win?  Well, he does look like Dobby the Elf, and that’s unfortunate.  Moreover, he’s got an odd tendency to reach the same sort of beatific state as a televangelist — it’s ineffable, and it’s probably not fair.  But his “passionate” feels more like “saved” — and for the doubters and agnostics who decide elections, that’s not as friendly as it may seem.

8:53: [Jeff] I have to reiterate: I really like this format quite a bit.  For one thing, this is the most Dennis Kucinch I’ve ever seen in one shot.  That’s a good thing.  It’s fostered some interesting questions, and made it hard to dodge.

8:55: [Jeff] Kucinich now discussing civil unions in terms of separate-but-equal.  He’s right, of course.  I tend to believe that Barack Obama is a believer in actual marriage, but is afraid to advance it for political reasons.  I tend to take Edwards at his word that he just can’t get past his own bigotry on the issue, but that he’s willing to go as far as he can get himself to go, and if he can get over the hump, great.  But Kucinich is able to say what he believes, because he won’t win.  It’s frankly sad.

Kucinich is a fan favorite today.  And he deserves to be.

9:00 [Jeff] Margaret Carlson notes that all GOPers were invited to a similar debate, and shockingly, all declined.  I’m shocked.  Rudy Giuliani used to live with a married gay couiple — you tellin’ me he’s homophobic?  Oh…wait, that would be why he wouldn’t dare show up.

9:07: [Jeff] Margaret Carlson asks: you’re really old, Mike Gravel.  And yet you’re not a bigot like other old guys.  Why?  Gravel responds and sounds reasonable, though he doesn’t actually answer the question. 

9:08: [Jeff] Gravel wants to share advice: hey, back me, gay folks.  I actually believe what you believe, unlike the leaders.  Gravel is getting some decent fan reaction, although he doesn’t have core supporters like Kucinich.

9:09: {Andy] It’s like a Hallmark Moment: All you need is love.

9:10: {Jeff] So, why are people backing Obama or Edwards?  Because, Gravel says, “they’re playing it safe.”  And he’s right.  Kucinich would be a wacky play.  Gravel would be downright nutty.

9:11: [Jeff] Did the gay community reach for marriage too soon?  Gravel says no.  I agree with him; frankly, the move toward marriage was a very smart move for pro-equality forces.  While the right has been furiously trying to defend marriage, all sorts of other issues — equality in housing and the workforce, equality in adoption, equal service in the military — have moved from controversial to mainstream ideas.  Only marriage remains a minority issue — and demographics say that if Gravel is wrong about it being “only 5 years” until the issue is dead, he’s only wrong about the timeline.  Within a generation, same-sex marriage will be legal, and the opposition to it will be consigned to the same dustbin of bigoted ideas where interracial marriage bans now reside.

9:15: [Jeff] Gravel comes out in favor of legalizing pot, drawing a cheer from the crowd.  In some ways, listening to Gravel and Kucinich is dispiriting.  I doubt any of the major candidates in either party (with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani) really opposes pot use.  But only someone with no prayer of winning can actually say that.

9:19: [Jeff] Gravel concludes.  Disappointing only because he wasn’t crazy enough.  He actually sounded…sane.  And now, Bill Richardson.

9:21: [Jeff] Bill Richardson, when will same-sex marriage be achievable?  Richardson says some day, but not now.  Civil unions are achievable.  Not actually actively discriminating against LGBT individuals?  Very achievable.  Marriage….not so much.  What will RIchardson do to foster marriage?  Eh…not that much.

9:23: [Jeff] Why did DOMA pass in ’96?  Richardson says it was a means to forestall a Constitutional amendment drive.  Says he voted against DADT because it made no sense.  He thinks you need to build public support.  He does not really say what he’d do as president to build public support.

9:24: [Jeff] Asked about the Spanish-language slur for gays he used — says he apologized, and that you should look at his actions.  Says he has been active as governor in fightiing hate crimes, says is working toward domestic partnership, has appointed gay and lesbian officials in his administration.  Says he’s said things he regrets, but he’s done good things, and what one does is what counts.

9:26: [Andy] Richardson seems very defensive.

9:26: [Jeff] “Action speaks louder than words.”

9:27: [Andy] His body language is very guarded.  He seems
extremely defensive.

9:28: [Jeff] Richardson keeps hammering the theme that he can “get things done.”  Has been asked if he was handed a piece of legislation legalizing gay marriage, would he sign it?  Dodges, bobs, weaves, says he will “do what is achievable.”  Scattered boos from the crowd.

9:29: [Jeff] Immigration, should civil unions count toward immigration like marriage?  Richardson says yes.

9:30: [Jeff] Do you think homosexuality is a choice?  Richardson says “it’s a choice,” “I’m not a scientist.”  The crowd grows restless, and boos and catcalls rain down.  Richardson seems very uncomfortable with the question, and his answer is very, very weak.

9:31: {Jeff] Richardson really is crashing and burning here.  If you bought his rhetoric on “doing what’s achievable” before this appearance, you probably don’t after hearing this.  He comes across as someone who is, frankly, uncomfortable with homosexuality.

9:34: {Jeff] Hammered on whether saying homosexuality is a choice, Richardson comes back to…”I’ve done stuff.”  It’s hard to anoint a winner of the debate until Hillary shows up (though so far, it’s probably Kucinich.)  But Richardson is a clear loser.

His closing talks about the stuff he’s done.  Oy.  Even by Bill Richardson’s meager standards, this has been a bad showing.

No applause from the room.

9:38: [Andy] Hillary Clinton is up. A repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is her priorities. She came out against it in 1999 (her husband signed it several years earlier).  It was an advance at the time she says given the political climate, but implemented poorly. “Whhen I’m president we will get it done.”

9:45: [Andy] Civil unions versus marriage? Civil unions with full equality. State’s rights are important. She gives HRC a lot of credit for turning the tide on anti-gay marriage amendments. HRC is Hillary’s initials. Coincidence?

9:47: [Andy] Federal Marriage Amendment could not have been defeated without the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. If FMA dead? “I don’t hear it, I don’t see it, even with the Republicans.”

9:50: [Andy] Etheridge: “Your husband threw us under the bus.” She says Bill Clinton turned his back on LGBT people. Hillary doesn’t see it that way. She mentions marching in the gay pride parade. Hillary sees herself as a leader on LGBT issues, some in the crowd at Pi disagree, although there has been ample supportive applause.

The anti-gay initiatives: “This wasn’t an assault on rights, this was an assault on people, the pointing of fingers.” She says that is over when she is president.

9:55: [Andy] To the LGBT community, Hillary says, “I’m your girl!” She comes to the issue as “a friend.” People her age have had to struggle to come out over the years, and she conveys a good understanding of the LGBT condition.

Who is the winner tonight? Edwards was very, very good. Hillary was good. Kucinich was the crowd favorite by far at PI, with Gravel a close second. Both are excellent on the positions. Obama didn’t seem to register much, but he went first (he was the first to accept HRC’s invitation as well) and was asked some very tough questions. And Richardson blew it.

The HRC-OutFront Minnesota event tonight drew over 200 people.

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Categories & Tags: LGBT| |

Comments

6 Comments

lloydletta
Comment posted August 10, 2007 @ 1:00 am

Good live-blog of this Nice to see you at the event, Andy.

Richard gave a similar excuse that to what Hillary said at HRC about the reason he supported DOMA.  The problem is, that the FMA was not an issue at the time that DOMA was an issue.  The FMA was introduced in 2002.

http://lloydletta.bl…

I didn’t find Richardson’s statement that he wasn’t sure of the science of whether being gay was a choice problematic.  In my opinion, the science is not there yet.  I don’t think it matters whether being gay is socially or biologically determined – religion is a choice – but there are laws that ban discrimination against people based on religion. 


DavidD
Comment posted August 10, 2007 @ 7:13 am

My thoughts First, Andy nice to see you last night. 

Eva, how did I miss you? 

Overall, I saw something last night that I hadn’t seen in any other debates.  I felt like you could tell which candidates were being honest and which were filled with scripted sound bites.

Obama – honest, but politically guarded

Obama would probably be good on GLBT issues, but his apparent political posturing over marriage v civil unions makes me worry that he is only looking for the vote and will make us low priority.

Edwards – honest and guenine

I think that Edwards was able to clear up some misconceptions and get across a good message.  I was impressed with his frank honesty when he said he supported civil unions but straight out said he didn’t support same-sex marriage. 

Kucinich – wow…

I thought that Kucinich, by far, won the debate last night.  He got more face time in this one evening than all of the other debates combines and I think he’s actually considered as a candidate this time around (not a viable winner, but nonetheless compared to 2004 it’s amazing).  He really made it clear what Dennis Kucinich is all about. Perhaps he should be a VP choice?

Gravel – honest but crazy, hopeful

I love this guy in the sense that I love any “maverick.”  You never know what he’s going to say.  The way that he referred to GLBT people as “the gays” made me laugh because if anyone else from his generation were to say that it would sound very intolerant, but the message he had was anything but that.

Richardson – honest, guarded, struggling inside

I think that Richardson represents the mindset of a majority of Americans.  I think that he doesn’t understand homosexuality and he was raised in a culture where it is a very taboo issue.  I think that you can see in his eyes that he is trying to understand the GLBT population.  You can also tell that in his eyes it pains him to know that he was part of the problem in our country.  I think that, in a sense, he would be a great candidate for GLBT issues, his track record shows that.  He would be able to speak to Americans like himself and help them follow the path of fighting for equality.  I think that his actions, coupled with his bias, shows that he will fight for equality for all people. 

Clinton – pandering with sound bites

Don’t get me started… I don’t see any circumstance under which I could support Clinton…Hearing her speak is like listening to Donald Rumsfeld…I never feel like we’re getting the truth…. Her nomination may warrant a third-party vote or perhaps omission of a choice at the presidential level. 


DavidD
Comment posted August 10, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

Correction I didn’t mean to say Richardson would be a great candidate in the sense that he’s great on the issues, but he might be a great candidate in the sense that he is someone who feels in his heart that protecting the gay community is the right thing and the American thing to do.  If the country were to see a leader, on a daily basis, grow to have an understanding of why that’s the right thing, he would help shape the attitude of the country.


lloydletta
Comment posted August 9, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

Good live-blog of this Nice to see you at the event, Andy.

Richard gave a similar excuse that to what Hillary said at HRC about the reason he supported DOMA.  The problem is, that the FMA was not an issue at the time that DOMA was an issue.  The FMA was introduced in 2002.

http://lloydletta.bl…

I didn't find Richardson's statement that he wasn't sure of the science of whether being gay was a choice problematic.  In my opinion, the science is not there yet.  I don't think it matters whether being gay is socially or biologically determined – religion is a choice – but there are laws that ban discrimination against people based on religion. 


DavidD
Comment posted August 10, 2007 @ 2:13 am

My thoughts First, Andy nice to see you last night. 

Eva, how did I miss you? 

Overall, I saw something last night that I hadn't seen in any other debates.  I felt like you could tell which candidates were being honest and which were filled with scripted sound bites.

Obama – honest, but politically guarded

Obama would probably be good on GLBT issues, but his apparent political posturing over marriage v civil unions makes me worry that he is only looking for the vote and will make us low priority.

Edwards – honest and guenine

I think that Edwards was able to clear up some misconceptions and get across a good message.  I was impressed with his frank honesty when he said he supported civil unions but straight out said he didn't support same-sex marriage. 

Kucinich – wow…

I thought that Kucinich, by far, won the debate last night.  He got more face time in this one evening than all of the other debates combines and I think he's actually considered as a candidate this time around (not a viable winner, but nonetheless compared to 2004 it's amazing).  He really made it clear what Dennis Kucinich is all about. Perhaps he should be a VP choice?

Gravel – honest but crazy, hopeful

I love this guy in the sense that I love any “maverick.”  You never know what he's going to say.  The way that he referred to GLBT people as “the gays” made me laugh because if anyone else from his generation were to say that it would sound very intolerant, but the message he had was anything but that.

Richardson – honest, guarded, struggling inside

I think that Richardson represents the mindset of a majority of Americans.  I think that he doesn't understand homosexuality and he was raised in a culture where it is a very taboo issue.  I think that you can see in his eyes that he is trying to understand the GLBT population.  You can also tell that in his eyes it pains him to know that he was part of the problem in our country.  I think that, in a sense, he would be a great candidate for GLBT issues, his track record shows that.  He would be able to speak to Americans like himself and help them follow the path of fighting for equality.  I think that his actions, coupled with his bias, shows that he will fight for equality for all people. 

Clinton – pandering with sound bites

Don't get me started… I don't see any circumstance under which I could support Clinton…Hearing her speak is like listening to Donald Rumsfeld…I never feel like we're getting the truth…. Her nomination may warrant a third-party vote or perhaps omission of a choice at the presidential level. 


DavidD
Comment posted August 10, 2007 @ 7:30 am

Correction I didn't mean to say Richardson would be a great candidate in the sense that he's great on the issues, but he might be a great candidate in the sense that he is someone who feels in his heart that protecting the gay community is the right thing and the American thing to do.  If the country were to see a leader, on a daily basis, grow to have an understanding of why that's the right thing, he would help shape the attitude of the country.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.