HRC/LOGO LGBT Presidential Forum
I felt very 21st century tonight and watched the HRC/Logo Presidential Forum ("The Visible Vote '08") on Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-&-Transgender issues at my computer by streaming video. It was an historic first for presidential campaigning and for me, since it's the first time I'd watched a program over our new FiOS connection.
I found it quite interesting, too. The business of a "conversation" rather than a "debate" sounded almost too touchy-feely liberal when I heard it described — and keep in mind that I'm a touchy-feeling liberal, too — but I think it came off pretty well. It took the panel a little time to get into the flow, but in the end it gave a larger-than-soundbite view of each of the candidates.
- Barack Obama: didn't excite me overmuch, but he didn't bother me all that much either. He's a credible candidate and sounding rather mainstream about gay & lesbian issues without going too far. A bit ho-hum, but not scary.
- John Edwards: I still like him, although he keeps squirming on the hook over this question of his wanting to support marriage equality but he's just not there yet on his personal journey. Well, the leadership litmus says get over it. I'd still consider voting for him.
- Dennis Kucinich: Okay, so he comes across like a candidate too flaky to be president, but then, he's not nearly so scary as George W. and he's got ideas with vitality. He's one of the people we have to be happy is in the race because he helps to push the debate over the issues in a good direction.
- Mike Gravel: I like him a lot. Sure, nobody thinks he's electable, but that's because nobody else thinks he's electable and so many people want to vote for the person who's going to win rather than the person they want to win. I wish people would vote for the best candidate instead. But then, Gravel himself doesn't think he's electable but he's doing a bang-up job on framing debates and bringing up campaign issues, and not expecting to win has made him remarkably relaxed and honest in this setting, like that person who comes to an interview for a job he doesn't expect to get and is charming and witty and smart. Gravel was those things and I may make him my candidate of choice for as long as I can.
- Bill Richardson: He was an unexpected disappointment tonight, and largely because of a very odd answer over the question whether he thought sexual orientation was something GLBTs are born with or "a choice". His stumbling over describing it as "a choice" shocked the audience, leading them to think he misunderstood the question. I'm wondering whether he was taking a stab at the approach that it doesn't matter which it is, because GLBTs deserve equal rights regardless; but, if he was, he needs to think it through some more and clarify.
- Hillary Clinton: You know, she just doesn't scare me. She was good in that mainstream political way — not as much fun as Gravel but probably deemed much more "electable". She wasn't bad on GLBT issues although she's still triangulating. Still, she wouldn't be a bad choice, I think, but I'll still hope for an underdog surge from Gravel.
In the end, I think it was a good thing, this "forum". And despite the hype, there was excitement over it's being a first, and it was a milestone. I'm plenty old enough to remember my community's bitterness over Reagan and AIDS and how many years it took before he could even say "gay" or "homosexual". I can remember Clinton (that would be Bill) being as welcoming as any president we'd seen to that point but who still found talking about GLBT issues to feel awkward and unfamiliar.
So, it was a nice treat tonight to see all these Democratic candidates wanting to come to this forum, wanting to engage this audience, eager to discuss these topics, and hear them talk about these issues without awkwardness, without the sense that the words felt thick in their mouths. Maybe it is progress after all, and maybe Mike Gravel was right when he said he was certain that by the next presidential campaign marriage equality for gays and lesbians would be a huge non-issue.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 23.46
Permalink
"Okay, so he (Dennis Kucinich) comes across like a candidate too flaky to be president."
Why flaky? The guy was a responsible mayor, is a responsible U.S. representative satisfactory enough to keep getting re-elected and has conducted himself responsibly as an indefatigable presidential candidate.
Kucinich experienced hard core poverty in his youth. He worked his way up into the middle class. He certainly lacks the polish he might've gained at Choate, Bowdoin, Harvard or Princeton, but that's true of most Americans.
He's a bundle of nervous energy and enthusiasm who lets his voice get too high-pitched and choppy when he's excited, and who speaks too fast trying desperately to make the most of the bits and scraps of time allotted to him.
But I see the positive flip side of that as being the resilient, happy-warrior spirit he brings to the campaign, along with his delightful lack of cynicism.
I submit Kucinich suffers the same irrational, crippling handicap you cited as Gravel's problem: the near universally accepted notion he doesn't stand a chance.
Sad to say, but if Abraham Lincoln were pursuing the presidency now, I'm pretty sure he'd be in the same predicament. And Theordore Roosevelt, if he were running now, would probably get the same media treatment Ross Perot did — that he's somewhat entertaining but ultimately just a crackpot novelty.
on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 12.13
Permalink
And you would be right, SW, that is pretty much the sum-total of Kucinich's problem: everyone else thinks he's unelectable, that silly, self-fulfilling category. My worst criticism was that he seems to lack a certain gravitas that we usually associate with the job, but that should be less a consideration in the wake of the current buffoon.
So, I guess I tend to acquiesce too quickly in his unelectability — I rather prefer Gravel, the other "unelectable" candidate — but if we could get him to the nomination I'd definitely support him and expect to see him in office with a very positive, very productive administration.
It's such a shame that so many politicians seem drawn to politics.