The Atlantic: The Clintons and the Gay Community

[Totally Committed]

I am posting this here since many otherwise well-informed DU-ers have said they don't know what the record of the Clintons actually is with the Gay Community, as proved in this exchange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3524240&mesg_id=3524558

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3524240&mesg_id=3524577


I am asking that the moderators leave it here, so ALL can get the information, as will sadly not be case if it is moved to the GLBT Forum.

Thanks, in advance, for that consideration.:

Guest Post: The Clintons And The Gay Community
10 Aug 2007 03:37 pm

Joshua Green is a senior editor of the Atlantic.

Darn. I was hoping to hop the plane to Ames and shirk my promised post, but Marc has (shrewdly!) called me out publicly, so I’ll add this bit of context to last night’s Democratic forum.

One of the major fault lines in the gay community is over the Clintons—something I was surprised to learn while reporting a (1)piece earlier this year on Tim Gill , by several magnitudes the biggest gay donor in the country and—like Melissa Etheridge, apparently—no great fan of the Clintons. This accounts, I think, for the tenor of some of the questions directed at Clinton last night.

The debate essentially boils down to whether or not you think the Clinton administration was a net positive or a net negative for the gay community. Two quotes from my Gill article do a pretty good job of characterizing the two camps. The first is from Patrick Guerriero, a Republican who works for Gill’s political organization, the second from Jeff Soref, a philanthropist for gay causes and (former, I think) DNC appointee.

Guerriero:

“When Clinton was elected, everyone thought there would be this epiphany on gay rights. Instead, the only two major pieces of legislation were a disaster: ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the Defense of Marriage Act. The experience of the ’90s taught us that there is no magic president who’s going to fix everything.”

Soref:

“Clinton broke the silence about the AIDS epidemic. He told gay people we were part of his vision for America. He directed federal money to AIDS research. He gave us an AIDS czar and a liaison in the White House and an executive order banning discrimination in the federal workforce. He invited us to the table and gave us a place in the Democratic Party.”

A couple things to think about. Hillary Clinton has gone about as far as Hillary Clinton will go in disavowing her earlier positions on major gay issues. As Linda Douglass points out in this (2) helpful National Journal article , Hillary, like the rest of the Democratic field, now supports repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and says she would repeal the federal provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (Obama would go further and repeal the whole thing). But as many people like to point out—most recently, to me, Tucker Carlson on his show yesterday (Linda and I were his “panel”)—Hillary and the other first- and second-tier candidates do not support gay marriage, so why are many gays supporting them?

The answer is political pragmatism. The Human Rights Campaign made a big push on gay marriage in 2004 that was politically disastrous (The HRC has become as much a fault line as, well, HRC, as Andrew will happily tell you). So a kind of détente has arisen: HRC and other gay organizations don’t push too hard on the marriage question, and Democrats support almost all of the rest of what they’re asking for: a federal hate-crimes law, civil unions, repealing Don’t Ask, etc.

Of course, not everyone wants in on this deal, as Etheridge and a few others make clear. But that hasn’t stopped Clinton from making serious headway with the gay community, despite a few tense moments like the ones last night. So don’t be misled. One of the underappreciated stories of this campaign is how effectively Clinton has shored up endorsements and support, and in few places is this truer than the gay community. The impression I’ve been given is that HRC’s eventual endorsement of Clinton is a mere formality.

JOSHUA GREEN

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/guest_post_the_clintons_and_th.php

(1) They Won’t Know What Hit Them, by Joshua Green
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/tim-gill

(2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Dem Hopefuls Reach For Gay Voters, But Most Won't Back Same-Sex Marriage, by Linda Douglass
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070809nj1.htm


TC

[Totally Committed]

1. I am going to keep this kicked, so everyone can read it.

So, kick!

TC

[William769]

2. I can smell the desperation in your postings lately.

And this is coming from a GLBT Du'er.

[Totally Committed]

3. I told you and the rest of the HRC supporters I would fight her nomination to the very end,

and so I will. Nothing desperate, only my best shot until the last vote is cast.

TC

[DURHAM D]

11. Since you are throwing rocks at the Clintons

regrading GLBT issues I hope you are at least one of us. Are you?

[BootinUp]

4. I sure tried to make my post clear

but you seem to have missed what I said TC. The question I raised was who "don't ask don't tell" was for, who advocated for it? In hindsight it is not very popular now, but I am talking about January 1992.

The article in your OP seems to say the GLBT community is not diametrically opposed to a Hillary candidacy.

[Totally Committed]

5. That's true, the GLBT Community is not monolithical. Some oppose her candidacy greatly, while

others don't. DADT was presented to the Gay Community as "the best they could get" at the time, but that wasn't the tune (Bill) Clinton sang during the campaign. AND THAT'S MY POINT. The Clintons have not, historically, delivered on their campaign promises, even to large blocs who supported them overwhelmingly during their campaigns. They say what is EXPEDIENT. They say what will get them elected. But, in the end, they can't or won't deliver because the corporations who back them won't tolerate the move.

That's what I was saying. DADT was NOT what was promised but it was presented as the best that could be delivered AFTER the election was over. I'm saying this so that when people see HRC promise UNiversal Health Care, they know, in the end it will be Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and Big Insurance who will dictate the actual Bill, and it will most likely be Universal Health INSURANCE that is delivered instead.

This post in for HISTORICAL BACKGROUND for depending on HRC for carry-through on camapign promises.

TC

[BootinUp]

6. It was the best they could get at the time

and Clinton and the democrats paid a political price for it too. It was just one of battle cries used by the repukes in '94.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Support The Right Of Anybody To Marry

George Bush* has proved that even interspecies marriages can work....

That being said, what Democratic candidate that could win the presidency in 08 supports gay marriage?

[DURHAM D]

10. It seems you are not aware -

of the legislative branch of government.

Your "corporation" reference has no relationship to DADT.

Further, I don't recall any campaign speeches by Bill about gays serving in the military in the run up to his election. Perhaps I just wasn't paying attention since I didn't care about the military and would have responded with a "who cares" in 1989. But I know that he felt he could just issue an executive order and get it done and it was one of the first things he did. I think he was, however, naive and met with opposition he did not expect. DADT was a compromise. It was designed to be an improvement over prior purging methods but, of course, it has enforced differently by the military. At least he tried. Your beef should be with the Pentagon and Repubs on this issue. As well as Senator Nunn and Colin Powell.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The Right Wing Almost Torpedoed His Administration Before It Even Begun Over The Issue...

His popularity was in the thirties in March of 93... It wasn't so much about his support for gays in the military as to the saliency the right wing said Clinton gave to the issue... They made it appear as if that was his raison d 'etre...

[DURHAM D]

13. Yes, the irony -

He went out on a limb for a minority group and it nearly sunk him and it cost the Dems the House in 1994.

Now these little pretenders and pipsqueaks come around and trash him cause he didn't do enough. Amazing.

[QC]

30. Perhaps they aren't old enough to remember what a shitstorm

there was over the military service issue in 1993. That was fourteen years ago, after all.

Perhaps they do not remember the congressional show hearings, the hysteria over the possibility that some brave GI might collapse into a quivering heap if a gay man saw his dingus, and all the rest.

It was very ugly, and it nearly destroyed Clinton's presidency. DADT sucks, but I give Clinton credit for raising the issue and trying very hard, against the force of the entire right wing, to do the right thing.

That said, I am not supporting Hillary.

[Sparkly]

16. What did he promise in his campaign?

I recall at the time that it was major progress -- and VERY controversial -- just to change to a policy that allowed gay people to serve in the military at all.

[DURHAM D]

8. I am not sure what you are attempting to do but -

When Bill and Hillary Clinton moved into the WH treatment/respect of gays and lesbians turned on a dime. The Clinton's open inclusion of the community in all aspects of their administration showed the rest of the nation/world we aren't a bunch of freaks to be marginalized.

With regard to the Human Rights Campaign - it has lost its way so many times it needs mapquest. Time and time again I have had to forgive the HRC for one more completely bone headed mistake in order to renew my membership. Some years I have actually skipped it.

With regard to Melissa - not sure what her problem is with the Clintons but I am sure a part of it has to do with choices and mistakes she has made in her personal life that got her some adverse publicity - not about being gay but about being foolish.

All of the other presidential candidates are babies on this issue - I personally know that Hillary's support/acceptance of gays and lesbians was in full force by the early 70s.

[Totally Committed]

17. My point is maybe the CLintons (and other candidates) who rely on Corporate $$$

and support should go making sweeping promises during their campaigns, because their history of follow-through is poor. My point is, with the political accumen they both are purported to have, making such promises could be seen as totally disingenuous, at best, and a cynical ploy for election, at least.

They sold one group down the river for political expediency. They'll do it again to us over healthcare if they have to. Period. That's my point.

TC

[DURHAM D]

18. You make no sense.

All candidates bring forward their vision for changes. They can't do it by themselves - there are 535 other people who have a vote.

I ask again - Are you in the group that you claim got sold down the river?

[Totally Committed]

19. Then they shouldn't make promises they might not be able to keep just to get votes,

should they? Why doesn't that point make sense?

TC

[DURHAM D]

21. The point is - you are making up shit as you go. eom

[Totally Committed]

22. Whatever.

Go in peace.

TC

[DURHAM D]

23. I suggest you stop telling people who have

actually lived the experience of a minority community over a long period of time what you think we need to think. Unbelievable arrogance.

Do you do the same to other minorities?

Don't go in peace - just go away.

[Totally Committed]

25. I have gay family members as well as family members of every possible color,

many different religions, and I am a woman. We're treated as a minority, even though we're aren't really. What is your problem? This is arrogance? Wanting equality for all, and wishing you peace is arrogance? I don't get it... is it just because I can't abide HRC?

Put me on "ignore". It's your only salvation. I'm this "arrogant" all the time, and don't plan to change to suit your comfort level.

TC

[DURHAM D]

27. Has nothing to do with the fact you "can't abide HRC"

It has to do with your insults.

[Totally Committed]

28. What insults?

I think you're trying to start a flame-war here so they'll shut down this thread.

I never insulted you.

TC

[DURHAM D]

29. I can't help you.

Everything you have done on this thread is an insult. If you don't get it now you never will.

Goodbye.

[sandnsea]

33. Ryan White legislation passed in 1990

I have no idea where people get the idea that it was the Clintons who changed anything for gays. It was a number of Democrats who had been introducing anti-discrimination and AIDS legislation for years. This is really a major rewriting of history.

I think there is an element of "diva" that appeals to some in the gay community, and nothing more than that. Flame if you want, I still don't care.

[dsc]

35. And note who it was named after

Ryan wasn't gay. He was a hemophiliac, and thus an innocent victim as opposed to those evil morally corrupt gays. The fact is Clinton did a huge service for gays. It isn't historic revision to suggest that gays were non persons under Reagan and Bush and that Clinton was the first President who gave a damn if we lived or died.

[sandnsea]

44. wow

You get stabbed in the back and you don't even know it - and continue to turn a blind eye to the ones who were actually in your corner.

Clinton did what he always does - talks a good game and then gives in to the right.

[dsc]

46. The Ryan White act was great

and Clinton had his problems. I still think ENDA not passing was a huge flaw. But Clinton did, by executive order, forbid discrimination by every single federal department except the uniformed military. Bush kept the policy in name only. I haven't made up my mind in this primary season but Clinton deserves credit for alot and blame for a little.

[xchrom]

9. because of history -- i won't support hrc in the primaries.

and i'll have a very, very hard time voting for her as pres.

but -- that's life.

[DURHAM D]

14. I assume your opposition to Hillary is based on

more than GLBT issues. At least I hope.

If you are a one issue voter you may want to do more research.

[xchrom]

15. lol -- thanks for the lecture. -- more thanks for keeping it short. n/t

[Totally Committed]

20. Two current threads about trusting HRC just in GD : P

I've never trusted Clintons, and I never will.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3524698&mesg_id=3524698

Trust Hillary? Willing Suspension of Belief!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3523716&mesg_id=3523716

For the "front-runner" to inspire this sort of distrust at this point in the campaign does not bode well for further down the road.

Just saying.

TC

[DURHAM D]

24. Are those your other posting names? eom

[mcscajun]

51. FWIW, you are mischaracterizing the first thread based on its subject line.

The OP was predicting such a post down the road here at DU, not expressing the sentiment themselves. What's more, they used a line from Star Trek VI.

The direct quote that was the jumping off point:
Captain James T. Kirk: Captain's log, stardate 9522.6: I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I could never forgive them for the death of my boy.

Disclaimer: I have not yet decided whom I will support in the primaries.

[IndianaJones]

26. I'll never forgive the Clintons for sending those colonists to LV-426.

They knew what was there.

[BootinUp]

31. What is this, a joke?

:)

[Totally Committed]

32. It's a good one, too.

I laughed out loud when I read it!

TC

[dsc]

34. If you are going to lecture us about our lack of knowledge

you might, just might, get your own facts correct. In the post you site, you said that funding for AIDS research and treatment went down under Clinton. That is categorically false. I can link the data but can't copy it here. The Clinton budgets are 1994 through 2001. In 5 of those 8 years the increases were double digit with one of those years being a 24% increase. By contrast in the four Bush years one was double digit (2002), two were single digit, and 2005 was less than 1%. I will grant that some of the percent increases under Reagan were much larger but the base was much smaller.

http://search.conduit.com/Results.aspx?q=aids+research+funding+federal+government&ctid=CT1060933&octid=CT1060933

Go to second link

As to the other points. I am shocked, shocked, that the Republican blames Clinton. Gee what a surprise. But, unfortunately for both of you, I actually was around in 1993 and know what actually happened. First, this wasn't a huge part of his campaign. He went on a MTV forum and was asked about it and answered that he wanted gays to be able to serve openly. During his transition, Clinton reiterated his promise. At the time they honestly believed that he could do what Truman did in regards to African Americans. Turned out he couldn't. He needed Congress to change the law. He simply got beat. And while there were more than a few Democrats who belong on a wall of shame here (Sam Nunn comes to mind) the vast overwhelming majority of the opposition was GOP. Dole, Powell, and Ginrich are three examples. DADT was a defeat inflicted upon Clinton, not Clinton's original program.

As to the marriage issue. Marriage will not happen in the federal legislature. It just won't. We need 61 Senate votes and no Senator from any of the following states will support marriage. FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, AR, TN, SC, NC, VA, WV, MO, NE, UT, KY, ID, ND, and SD. Assuming we got every single other vote in all the rest of the states we still don't have the 61 votes we need. We will win this with judges, or we won't win it at all. Hillary, and every other Democratic candidate, will appoint judges who are vastly more likely to give us that win.

For the record, I haven't made up my mind in this primary season, but I will stand up for any candidate who is being told stories on.

[Totally Committed]

37. You realize I didn't write that OP myself, right?

I found that post while doing some research on this election, and posted it, with all the pertinent links. The information in it, I believed, and still believe to be essentially correct. And, it was meant to be an example of how the Clintons have gone back on campaign promises before. I'm begnning to regret even caring enough to post it in the first place.

TC

[dsc]

39. You wrote the post that was linked

You wrote the words AIDS funding went down under Clinton. It was in the first link you provided.

This is what I am referring to

Ask the GLBT Community who got the shaft from the last Clinton Administration who promised them the moon in exchange for their overwhelming support (which the Community gave them) only to get shafted completely by them after the election. What they got for their support, instead, was DOMA, Don't Ask / Don't Tell, reduced funding for AIDS research and treatment, and various other kicks to the gut.

bold print added by me


Those are your words. They come from the post you linked. They are categorically false. It doesn't get simpler than that.

[Totally Committed]

41. Yes, I did. I didn't realize that was what you were referencing.

Sorry about that.

TC

[dsc]

43. So are you going to correct the record?

You were flat out wrong about Clinton.

[Totally Committed]

45. I don't believe I was "flat-out wrong" about either Clinton.

My friends and family who are gay or lesbian have all said that same thing to me over and over about the Clintons. I had to find out for myself. So, I did some research and found that blog. I picked one that wasn't the most detremental to HRC, but bore out the facts as I had heard them.

I'm sorry if you were offended, but those facts are what I have been told and what I have found in my research. You are entitled to your opinion about this, absolutely. And, again, I apologize if you were offended.

TC

[dsc]

47. I provided the actual numbers

You said AIDS funding went down and it didn't. You have every right to your own opinion but no right to your own facts. So yes I am offended that after I went to the trouble of finding the actual numbers you evidently didn't bother to read it or ignored it.

[Totally Committed]

48. What I said was those numbers were not what I found when I researched.

I also said you had the right to believe the numbers you had posted. I posted no such numbers because the "numbers" if you will, were told to me by someone in the medical field of AIDS Research, "anectdotal"... but I believe my friend who told me, because I don't believe he'd lie to me that way. You are fully entitled to believe your numbers, as I am, mine.

I did read your post, and appreciated it very much. Thank you for your input. I'm sure there are those here who will appreciate your posting that info as well. I can't apologize for that which I have been told is incorrect.

Thank you for calling it to my attention, though.

TC

[dsc]

49. Then where are your numbers

I provided mine and a link.

[Totally Committed]

52. I told you... mine are "anecdotal". I got them conversationally about a year ago from a friend

who is an AIDS researcher. I have no "link" to provide you. What about this has you so upset with me? Can I ask you to explain it. You say you are not "pro" Clinton, and yet you are pushing this beyond what seems logical. You have your information, and I have mine. That happens often enough here. I'm sorry you're upset, and I'm even sorrier I've upset you, but I don't know what else to say.

TC

[dsc]

55. because this is how we lose races

We let these blatent falsehoods stand because they are convenient for our candidate in the primary and then those same blatent falsehoods are used to destroy our candidate. The simple fact is the government numbers prove your friend wrong. Just like the simple facts proved the Swift Vote vets wrong.

[Totally Committed]

58. So, you want me to say my friend is wrong and you are right?

-- Because GOVERNMENT NUMBERS are right, and an AIDS researcher is wrong? If you don't understand my reluctance to do that, I don't know what else to say to you. The Government lies all the time. As far as I know my friend of 15+ years has never lied to me.

Please understand. And, thank you again for your posts. They have added a lot to the substance of this thread.

TC

[dsc]

61. What possible motive would there be to lie to make Clinton look good in

government numbers provided under the current administration. The funding went up. Not only do I know this due to the government numbers but also because I know the funding went up.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Bullshit, dsc! There was no law barring gays from military back then!

All Clinton had to do was to issue an executive order, just as Truman did to integrate the militay. Prior to that, gays were serving in the military and people looked the other way (I should know that, since I served!).

Because of Clinton's dismal failure to deal with LGBT rights, and his appointment of the equally inept Les Aspin as SecDef, the Republicans passed a law barring LGBTs from serving, the odious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Women in uniform were forced to consent to sex under the threat of being reported as being lesbians if they didn't do so. That's part of the Clinton legacy!

[dsc]

42. Sodomy

There is still to this day a law banning sodomy, even concentual sodomy between adults, by military personel. Yes, one could be a chaste gay and be in the military but how many people do you think would be willing to do that. I am unsure if the Lawerence decision applied to the UCMJ or not. But it wasn't until 2003 in any case. Before you call bullshit have your facts straight.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Hasn't Been Challenged In The Courts

But I would suspect the same rights available to citizens are not available to members of the Armed Forces...

I doubt they enforce the sodomy laws against heterosexuals in the armed forces...They would have to court martial just about every one if sodomy is defined broadly enough; oral or anal copulation...

[dsc]

53. I meant the sodomy law not DADT

that may have been overturned by Lawerence. And surely they didn't enforce the law equally but that is beside the point. The law existed and prevented Clinton from doing what Truman did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. The Simple Answer Is No

People in the military do not have the same rights as civilians...For instance they are not allowed to criticize the Commander In Chief... I don't think they active members can engage in politics either beside voting...

[dsc]

56. They don't have the same rights

but I don't think the other examples lead to jail which is a difference. This would be an interesting issue to see litigated I would imagine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I Think The Court Would Say The Military Can Make Their Own Policy

After all they have their own justice system...

[dsc]

60. It might

but there are some rights which do survive. They get freedom of religion for example.

[Sparkly]

59. It was certainly a policy by military code

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

DADT was progress from that, and quite controversial. In effect it allowed gays to serve, but it was a compromise. Now 15 years later, I think people are ready to revisit and reform the policy further to allow gays to serve openly. I hope so, anyway.

[goodgd_yall]

62. People didn't always look the other way

I have a friend who served in the army and she was involved in an attempt to discharge a woman based on her sexual preference. My friend was asked what she knew about the woman. It could always be used as leverage to control a member or the armed forces.

DADT means that the military cannot ask if a person is homosexual. This was meant to protect gay/lesbian service members. But on the other side, if a gay or lesbian service member "told," the military had the right to enforce military policy, which was to discharge homosexual personnel. It was an improvement, but it didn't go far enough. It left the armed services with the policy that it does not value, nor want, gay and lesbian people in the service of the country.

[IndianaGreen]

36. The Clintons record with LGBT community is one of endless betrayals

The Clintons record with LGBT community is one of endless betrayals, paying lip service to equality, and wanting our money while denying us our rights.

DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have hit many of us in our personal lives, and the lives of our loved ones.

The Hell with the Clintons!

[Totally Committed]

38. This is what the Gays and Lesbians I know all say, as well.

Thanks for that. I was beginning to feel like I had fallen down the rabbit hole!

TC

[goodgd_yall]

63. Clinton tried to end discrimination in the service

Congress is what failed us (the LGBT community).

[DURHAM D]

66. Should be clear to you by now you don't speak for the

community. Your anger is obviously personal. Tell it to your therapist.

[IndianaGreen]

67. So you think that gays should get therapy to deal with our anger at being discriminated against?

May you come back in your next life as a woman, and a lesbian at that, and find yourself living in a homophobic society.

[DURHAM D]

68. Just as I suspected. You don't read anything -

you just flay away.

I am a woman. I am a lesbian. (Its right there if you read the posts.)

And, I have been living in what you call "a homophobic society" longer than you have.

I am at DU because it is supposed to be a place for Democrats to sort out facts and discuss political issues. From what I can see you are here to make assertions that are only your opinion and are not based on facts. They are your personal views but you state them as if you speak for a community. I have been involved in movement politics for over 35 years and I can assure you that nothing you have said represents my views.

I assume you are supporting Kucinich - I hope you are aware that his views on gays changed when he decided to run for President the first time. (And it was another 5 or 6 years before he changed his mind on stem cell research and choice.) He was only a few decades behind the Clintons but he was several years ahead of Edwards.

You think we have been betrayed by the Clintons - I think you have been fooled by others.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Although for quite sometime I've been satisfied --

with the explanation for acquiescing to the radical right on LGBT issues, I have come to realize that they could have just said no. Bill Clinton vetoed DOMA twice before finally signing it before the 1996 election (where he was put between a rock and a hard place by the GOP), but he should never have put his name to such an egregious piece of legislation.

HRC made a decent argument in a recent debate saying the compromise was the best they felt they could do in the face of the rabid rightwing drive to legislatively limit LGBT rights, but IMO he could have, he should have vetoed it over and over again, and if they wanted it, let them override the veto.

The only way to change the status quo is to refuse to bargain with haters. Period. Just say no. I think what was foremost in their minds was their political longevity at the expense of the LGBT community being thrown under the bus.

[dsc]

65. You are thinking of welfare reform

we never had the votes to sustain any veto.