OurChart's Bloggers
Our Favorite Sites
Tips?
thehookup@ourchart.com
From the Control Room at the LOGO HRC Presidential Forum
August 13, 2007 - 3:11pm — hilaryIn the final few weeks the stress level was really increasing. Though we had been working on it for months, as soon as the Forum was publicly announced, the advice started coming. Even when it sounded like carping and sniping, we mostly took it as advice. The attention it was getting from within the community and on the blogosphere demonstrated that expectations were high.
Since the candidates had already made a condition of their appearance that it not be a debate with all of them on the stage at the same time (only DNC sponsored debates were getting that – though YearlyKos managed to switch them), we wanted to take advantage of a talk show format in the hopes of creating more informality and therefore more unscripted answers from them.
We felt good about our panelist and moderator choices. The next step was the questions. We knew this thing would succeed or fall on the questions. Each panelist had a specific role. Joe would focus on public policy, Jonathan would press on their history and philosophy and Melissa would try and elicit something human and personal.
In making the decisions about the questions, we had some guiding principles:
- We wanted only LGBT oriented questions. While LGBT people are not single issue voters, we were confident that the candidates views on Iraq and the economy would be fully covered in other venues where LGBT issues would never get the detail of focus we were all hungry to hear.
- Since all of the major candidates had the similar positions on the key issues we wanted more about how they arrived at their position and how they felt about it. We knew that this required more education of the viewer, for instance not to spend to much time explaining ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation, and that is why we pushed the websites for the weeks leading up to the forum.
- Despite some advice that the only issue worth discussing at the forum was marriage because it was the only issue the major candidates didn’t agree with us on, we quickly decided that we wanted a broader focus. These candidates were unlikely, in our view, to come to this forum and be blown away by the cogent arguments of our panelists and change their position in favor of same sex marriage. Nor were we likely to see that sea change at any point throughout this election. So we needed to make sure we got something else out of the marriage discussion even if ultimately they stuck to their position. Our job was to push them to explain their rationale for their views, push them hard on their inconsistencies where they existed, put them in historical context, and ultimately let the viewer decide whether or not they were satisfied with the answer.
- We prepared 4 questions – some as follow-ups – for each panelist for each candidate. Margaret would get in one or two of her own and add a viewer generated questions collected from the website.
- We wanted a discussion of transgender issues since we knew it was unlikely to come up anywhere else.
- We wanted AIDS/HIV to be addressed since it is being given short shrift on the campaign trail.
- The rest of the questions we prepared and rehearsed covered immigration (the ban on people with HIV/AIDS as well as the spousal issue), federal benefits like social security and taxes, transgender inclusion, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell implementation, working with Congress on the issues, international human rights for LGBT people and Hate Crimes.
- We also had a spate of more personal questions to elicit something fresh - like had they ever been to a gay or lesbian commitment ceremony or who their role models and cultural icons were.
As we saw in their responses, whether deliberate or not, the candidates often tried to run out the clock on their answers. Each interview went by so fast that we found our selves in the control booth cursing as we gave Margaret her time signals.
In the end, the only thing I can really regret is that we didn’t have more time. There was so much more to ask about and so much more to hear.
Lots of good analysis has been written about the Candidates’ responses. Going back to my more familiar role as analyst rather than as a producer, here is my take on some of the highlights:
1) Obama – I liked that he knew it was important to talk about these issues in other venues and that he was comfortable talking about homophobia in the black community. And I liked that he viewed hope and inspiration as essentials to leadership. I am old-fashioned that way. For months he has been saying that marriage should be left up to individual denominations. Joe got him to finally concede that religion has no place in civil marriage. I didn’t like how he rejected Jonathan’s "old school" accusation about his views on marriage. He said that the difference between civil unions and marriage was "semantics." I found that remark patronizing. When candidates are selling themselves to be a new kind of politician and someone who will do things differently, they do have a responsibility to take our issues to the next level as well. I didn’t put that moniker on him, he put it on himself. Yet he wants to pick and choose the exceptions.
2) Edwards – Though he apologized previously for bringing religion into the discussion, he did so again. He also conceded that he understood that civil unions were not equal rights, though he won’t change his position. He said, without hesitation, that he’d support a transgender staff member who transitioned. I thought he went over board to convince us that he cares. Knowing what I do – that this has been a journey for him, (if people only knew how long it took us to get him to even co-sponsor ENDA when he got to the Senate) I wish he’d be less defensive about that journey. In some ways, John Edwards reflects our country’s attitudes towards our issues more than any other candidate. He has evolved. I like that he has shared that evolution publicly and I think it is a teachable moment. Politicians are too often accused of flip-flopping rather than given some credit for evolution. Sure there are many issues where it is blatant political pandering, but we will never get support for LGBT issues if we don’t support and respect peoples process on these sometimes very personal issues.
3) And 4) Kucinich and Gravel - In theory I care about what they said, but in practice, I just don’t very much.
5) Richardson – Jeez, that was a train wreck when he responded to Melissa’s comment about homosexuality being a choice, but it was good TV. Viewers will note that she gave him a second chance to correct himself and then just gave up and made small talk about the bark beetles in Santa Fe. The sad thing is that I’ve known Bill Richardson personally for so long and I just don’t want this to be a noose around his neck. He doesn’t deserve it. He actually apologized for his DOMA vote in 1996. And he is a very decent guy. Though I haven’t talked to him since the Forum, I suspect that he heard the words choice v biology and since "choice" is a good thing in women’s rights and a major political word in that other context, he got confused. In any event, I think we should take his sincere multiple apologies at their word.
6) Clinton – As many know, I endorse her campaign and am a proud supporter and friend. But I have never been so careful in my life to stay unbiased in a process. I heard her say for the first time that she admired the push for marriage and encouraged people to keep at it. I heard her despair at Melissa’s characterization of the Bill Clinton legacy (a powerful cut on Melissa’s part) and genuinely believe that she thinks they did better than that. I didn’t like her misstatement of the facts about Don’t ask Don’t Tell being progress when they knew at the time that no one thought so since we all protested the result. She was right that the existence of DOMA helped defeat the FMA in the last two Congress’s but they had no way of knowing that at the time they supported it.
And while I have heard her say her states right’s piece on marriage, I never heard her say that it is "personal." I think she just meant that she has made a personal choice not to go there and the rationales got filled in.
Overall, I liked her comfort level with the issues and the discussion. She hasn’t made big pronouncements, yet she understands how our issues fit into her vision for the country. While I didn’t like all the answers I still feel certain that she is the most capable person to lead the country towards our equality.
I could give lots of platitudes about how great it is that they all showed up and talked about these issues. But actually I don’t feel that way. They needed to show up. We have all worked hard as a community to get involved and stay involved. The fact that those candidates knew they had to show up and talk about our issues is a testament to US, not THEM. We need their leadership and they need our support. I don’t care whom you like, just get involved. Hopefully, someone was motivated to do so after watching.
In the end, the incredibly competent and committed executive and production team at LOGO and the equally talented and passionate leadership at the Human Rights Campaign get my thanks. A new baseline has been established. And through out THIS election season as the community pushes and prods and supports these candidates along their path, August 9th will be the departure point.
Hilary Rosen, President of OurChart.com, served as the co-Executive Producer of Visible Vote ’08, a Presidential Forum presented by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and LOGO Television.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
40 Comments
Hey there, Hilary!
Hey there, Hilary!
Saw you on Tucker talking up 'thee man', Ron Paul. Very cool seeing you on there and hearing what you had to say.
Thank you for that!
http://www.youtube.com/v/wIFsq0KEeHc
Shoulda, woulda, coulda
There is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on and I'd like to know how many of the critics of HRC and the debate pay dues and are members of the organization?
The HRC is a more mainstream organization. Taking shots at them for that is like criticizing the NAACP because they aren't the Black Panthers. If you don't think the HRC stands for you then find an organization that does or start your own organization.
The HRC is made up of 700,000 members who do pay dues and picked up the tab for the debate. I am not a member now, but I plan on joining.
As far as the "gay agenda" I know that there are those who say, we want it all now. Fine. Work for it. Register to vote. Join organizations. Take to the streets and protest. Donate money. But don't you dare trivialize what took place. The Democrats blew off the DNC and showed up to our little event. The fact that the debate even took place is extraordinary.
Personally, I support Edwards, however, I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. The most important issue is "who do you want nominating Supreme Court Justices?" And the answer to that question is any Democrat will nominate Justices far more gay-friendly than any Republican candidate.
Your friend,
Rusty
[my blog]
+ + + + + + + +
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
- Muhammad Ali
Shout from the roof tops girlfriend!!!
I couldn't agree more. Put up or shut up I say. I am an HRC dues paying member and I believe in what the organization is working toward. I believe that things will change, but I do know it will take time. Those at the debate actually took the first steps in helping force the changes we all want. I, for one, was glad to see it finally happen.
westcryer
http://www.westles.blogspot.com
Why Would I Donate To Those Who Marginalize Me?
Rusty,
I agree that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is a key issue, but let's not forget that we have the Democrats to thank for Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Let's also not forget that the first things Nancy Pelosi did as incoming Speaker of the House was nominate social conservative and Federal Marriage Amendment supporter Jack Murtha to be Majority Leader and publicly declare the impeachment of George Bush "off the table".
On the other hand, for many of us not as wealthy or politically connected as most of HRC's Executive Board, the most important issues are health care and employment and housing protections.
I don't trivialize anything there. I think it's quite important to make sure the community knows that when the chips are down and the cameras are on, HRC's much-touted newly-inclusive agenda still suddenly shrinks back down to the same exclusive one we've suffered under for years now, i.e. "Same Sex Marriage or Bust!". Personally, I've had it with the busting. I believe that if HRC wants to really be the leading civil rights organization they claim to be, they need to actually do it in real and concrete ways and expend some real political capital on our behalf, rather than just pay it lip service when it's convenient for them. Real activism means standing up for your values even when it's hard, and not selling out the interests of the less wealthy and connected of your constituency in order to pander to powerful politicians.
You'll forgive me, but I simply don't think HRC should have to have a publicity gun put to their heads and be consistently attacked in the media for years before they move to really support all of the community they claim to represent. I think we all deserve better than that.
Oh and for the record, unlike HRC, I and many others have gone out in the streets and protested with our fellow transactivists and allies, right in front of HRC's headquarters in fact, as well as at Pride events across the country in 2004. It was only in this way, you see, as well as by calling them out in community media, that we were able to get them to finally agree to stop supporting civil rights legislation that excluded significant portions of the LGBT community, not only transpeople, but also the gender-variant gays and lesbians who would have also been unprotected by the versions of ENDA and the hate crimes bill they'd been supporting for a decade by then.
It seems that every time any sort of progress is made with this organization, they must be shamed into it with protests and bad press. I don't believe that that should have to be the case with any organization that claims to represent our community's interests.
This forum is just the latest example of this in action, so now we must go public yet again and keep making it an issue until HRC once again finally relents and begins sharing the spotlight with LGBT working class people and the issues that matter most in our lives.
In all honesty, I wish it didn't have to be this way. We've all got far better things to focus on with this upcoming election. The problem is that HRC has once again demonstrated that it's the only way they're going to be forced to represent ALL of our community, rather than just the politically convenient parts.
Don't support people you think are marginalizing you
Samuel Alito and John Roberts were nominated by Bush. Republicans had the votes they needed without the Democrats. The Democrats did not have the votes to sustain a filibuster. Unless you have the votes to win, you vote in favor of the other side's nominees. Republicans voted in overwhelming numbers for Breyer and Ginsberg. That's the way the game is played. And yes, it is a game. Get pissed off at the rules if you like, but that's the way it works.
Murtha did not vote either way when the Federal Marriage Amendment came up for a vote in the House in 2004.
And my point about the HRC is, if you don't feel they represent your interests support an organization that does or start a new one.
Your friend,
Rusty
[my blog]
+ + + + + + + +
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
- Muhammad Ali
This is the reason why
This is the reason why people do not vote. They turn their back on this "game". I for one argued and argued this whole system and even refused to vote during my early years--because it isn't about the people or issues.
I kept my eye on it have been voting for 10 years now. I have realized that not voting isn't doing anything. I still hate "that game" and refuse to play it. My heart is with the issues when I pull the lever and not about trying to outbeat another party. The issues get no where and cost way to much for lobbying and clean-up after clean-up after clean-up. It makes me want to stop paying taxes until we get something done.
I love our country and the people and the principle behind the words of the deceleration. I just think this game is too consuming and not about the people and issues.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
OurChart Photo Assignment
"What Is a Civil Union?"
You know, just so there's no confusion (quite easy to get confused, since many of the candidates think that such things as "civil unions" are the same as "marriages")...
Here's a link to a very handy factsheet entitled "What Is a Civil Union?", courtesy of the very objective FactCheck.org (a function of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania).
-sg.
"It's easy on the Moon."
An Utter Failure...
In my opinion, it was absolutely shameful the way the issues of lower and middle class LGBT voters were ignored in favor of question after question on gay marriage.
Clearly, this presentation was intended only to address the concerns of wealthy gays and lesbians. Even though it was supposedly promised that each candidate would get a transgender-relevant question, we got exactly as much attention as the bark beetle.
Once again HRC demonstrates who their true constituency is and sure ain't any of us making under 200K a year.
It's high time our community stopped donating to HRC and supporting our own marginalization. The middle class Queer majority needs to start speaking for ourselves because clearly HRC is neither capable nor willing to do the job.
I mean really...just how many different ways does HRC need to be told "No"? Funny how for an organization that likes to preach incrementalism to transpeople, they sure don't seem very willing to practice it themselves do they?
"stuck" - just a thought
i think you can stay stuck in the past of a movement with a spotty record on trans inclusion or you can focus on the present facts. HRC worked with the House congressional leadership to pass a trans inclusive Hate Crimes bill two months ago and prevented trans from being taken out of the bill which is now in the senate with the same strategy. HRC has pushed it's ENDA (non discrimination bill) co sponsors on the trans issue to the result that only a trans inclusive bill will be considered laster this year. You can help them pass those bills.......or you can complain about the past.
as for the forum questions to the candidates. i look at the Forum as the beginning of the campaign fr us. everyone should stay on them on all these issues.
You go girl
Hillary-
Thanks for visiting and posting the comment. I was afraid I would have to start a fight. Maybe I will anyway, but your even handed commentary on this is nice to hear.
Now, I'll start a fight.
With the utmost in sincerity and gratitude,
Missy Nomer
An Invitation...
Hilary,
I tried to make this offer to you privately, but was unable to send you email through your profile. I host a community Internet radio show, currently on hiatus but coming back shortly. I'd like to invite you to come on my show and get into these topics. Let's talk about the forum, the candidates, HRC, all of it. If you believe what HRC is doing and the way they are doing it is right and fair to the entire community, then come on my show and tell my listeners, many of whom are trans-identified, why you feel that way. As an Executive Board member of HRC, Democratic Party leader, and a media pundit yourself, I think you are uniquely qualified to take these issues on publicly.
While you may know that some of my writings published in major community media and elsewhere have not been charitable to HRC, I have no interest in bashing you personally or in setting you up to allow listeners to do so. Regardless of whether I personally agree or disagree politically with any of my guests, on my show guests are treated as exactly that, guests. I employ what I call the "dinner party rule", which means that I ask my listeners to ask their questions in the same way and with the same level of decorum as they would if they were sitting across from that guest at a dinner party, no matter how controversial they might be considered.
It's time the rest of the community got some straight (so to speak) answers here, so I'm making this offer to you here and now, for all of the women of OurChart to see. Come on my show, and answer the fair and reasonable questions our community has about HRC and the way they operate. Tell us why you believe this organization operates in the best interest of all of us, despite the staggering amount of evidence and history to the contrary. Enter into a real and substantive discussion of the issues reflecting the concerns of the majority of the community who's interests HRC has thus far chosen to ignore this election season.
If you'd like to contact me privately for more info about the show or whatever, please email me at beckygrrl@optonline.net and I'll be happy to send you my phone #'s.
Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to your response.
Rebecca Juro
I feel you! I really do. I
I feel you! I really do. I just don't want to give up on HRC---
In no matter what group, the economic separation will always exist. It is those who do have the money or the means to get money that will push. Money talks. We need HRC to help us win. We need the upper class LGBT to help lead us.
I think I'm not the only one who felt like we were to be hid in order to be heard--that is a slap in the face. It does make a person ask if we really want it that much, to disengage who we are, to do this?
What I am really surprised about is no one is willing to talk about this. I think that has to do with people are tired of the dirty politics.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
OurChart Photo Assignment
Money Isn't Everything
Rovermom,
I have to disagree with you. HRC has been at the forefront of the GLBT rights battle for well over a decade and what have we got to show for it? Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DOMA, forty states with gay marriage bans...need I go on? HRC's efforts have not only been a colossal failure by any reasonable measure, but the backlash from their insistence on focusing on same-sex marriage to the virtual exclusion of all else has set us back probably decades. It's time the true LGBT majority led this fight because the wealthiest 1% have clearly shown that their own agenda does not reach past their own doorsteps.
This forum demonstrated that self-involved elitist agenda in full bloom.
I say this as someone who stood in front of HRC's headquarters twice in 2004 with my fellow transactivists and protested them as well as called them out in our community media until they were finally shamed into supporting civil rights legislation that protects all of us.
Transpeople know and have lived the history here. I personally witnessed how HRC claimed to have advocated for transgender rights, but when we lobbied Congress, we discovered that not only wasn't that the case, but in every office we visited where an opinion was expressed we were told that they believed HRC was against our inclusion in ENDA and the hate crimes bill.
HRC has demonstrated consistently that they are unworthy of our trust, that when the chips are down, when the legislation is on the line or when the camera swings their way, they are perfectly ready and willing to throw transpeople and lower and middle class LGB's under the bus as soon as we become inconvenient for them.
In my opinion, they've had more than a fair chance to prove themselves worthy of our trust, but they've failed miserably every time. It's time to support orgs like NGLTF that support everyone and discard HRC and their Executive Board's ivory tower mentality into the dustbin of history where they belong.
Let's see here-
This might take a while. I'll post several responses.
I'm trying to balance some of your conflicting statements. I'll get back to you on that.
But at first glance, it seems that you are upset with how HRC interacts with your part of the trans-identified community. Do you speak for all trans-identified people in your opinion of HRC? I need to know that first, because I am going to give you my opinion speaking for only myself as a member and longtime supporter of of HRC. Or, I could pretend to have the last word on how "we" feel. It's up to you.
Second, I liked your "dinner party" idea, but see that when you chose to use the words "self-involved elitist agenda" you appear to have decided to drop that idea from this discussion.
So, do you want a dinner party, or a name-calling brawl? I'm on for either. Bring it.
With the utmost sincerity and gratitude,
Missy Nomer
Bring it?
Seems like you're really the one with the agenda here, Missy. And yes, when 22 out of 43 questions asked are solely concerned with an issue of key importance to about 10% of the community, when promised transgender-relevant questions are thrown away in favor of more incessant pounding on that same unyielding same-sex marriage wall, I do think "self-involved elitist agenda" is a completely accurate description of what we saw here.
Also I do not speak for anyone other than myself, but my opinion of HRC is supported by not only the publicly known facts and the relevant history, but also by many other LGBT's, as you are no doubt aware.
I want to know why transpeople and our issues got the same amount of attention as bark beetles. I also want to know why someone openly endorsing Hillary Clinton is even involved with producing an event like this. I want to know why employment rights, housing, health care, immigration, access to government benefits, hate crimes, DADT, and more were all virtually ignored by HRC in favor of parsing these candidates to the nth degree on their refusal to support SSM.
Can you answer those questions? My bet is no. Hilary certainly doesn't have a problem talking politics on MSNBC to a straight audience. I'd like her to do the same on the issues that matter to middle and lower class Queer Americans. As noted in my previous posts, the forum is only part of it.
Since Hilary was the producer of this event, I'd like to hear her speak to these issues, wouldn't you?
Personally, I think we deserve far better than we've been getting from HRC, and I think it's quite fair to ask why.
Grind that ax
Hillary Rosen is't coming on your radio show. You made sure of that here. If you want to take her on, do so. But remember that like Missy, thee are someof use who beliee in the mission of HRC and other groups and while we don't aways like everything those groups do, we will fight for their continued existence.
So grind on, but don't think you are helping your case.
Regarding Hilary...
I made the invitation because I want to get her thoughts and opinions, plain and simple. It's not about fighting, it's about getting answers to important questions.
If Hilary chooses to accept my invitation, she'll be treated as a guest, with respect, though I certainly will ask tough questions. I've been doing my show for a couple of years now, but so far no one from HRC has been willing to come on my show and talk issues with me and my listeners. In contrast, Matt Foreman has already been on my show twice and we've had terrific, informative, and interesting discussions both times.
I've also had on Chris Crain, former editor of the Washington Blade, a man not well-liked at all in our community because of his editorials in which he accused transpeople of "trans-jacking" ENDA. This was where I first employed my "dinner party" rule because I will not allow my show to become a bash session against anyone, no matter how unpopular they might happen to be to some. I consider myself a journalist and commentator first, and an activist second, especially when I'm on the air. I consider it my responsibility as a show host to present all sides as fairly as possible, have my guests speak for themselves, and let the listeners make up their own minds.
If you'd like to hear this in action, you can go my podcast archive at http://beckyjuro.podomatic.com and listen to my interview with Chris Crain which is posted there.
I don't pretend to be an HRC supporter. My opinions of this organization and their politics are well-known and I don't shy away from them. At the same time, however, I don't use my opinions as an excuse to treat anyone badly on my show or to let my listeners do so. If I did that, no one would be willing to come on and talk to me.
Again, I certainly would ask tough questions and expect answers, but I would do so respectfully. It's not about what I think, really, it's about helping my listeners to become more informed and educated about important topics and issues relevant to their lives.
Thus far, not only hasn't anyone from HRC agreed to come on my show, but no one from this organization has been willing to enter into any substantive discussion of these issues in any media, community-relevant or otherwise, that I'm aware of. Personally, I question why that's the case if they honestly believe that what they are doing and the way they're doing it is the right thing to do for the entire community.
If HRC won't stand up and speak out publicly on what they believe in, why should they have the right to expect anyone, particularly those who have been treated badly by this organization in the past, to simply take it on faith that they have the community's best interest at heart? Don't you think it's the very least we should be able to expect from an organization that wishes to lead this movement?
Becky...
If you do not allow a bash sessions on your show, I think the least HRC could do is send a representative to discuss. If HRC is stepping in the right direction and including our Trans brothers and sisters in the community--then the interview and show should not be based on the past, but a plan for the future without to much retrospecting to the things prior that are being reversed.
If HRC is making the necassary things happen for the trans part of our community to be included in ENDA--then the focus should not be still of "WHY did you leave me out all those years?", but more of, "what does this mean and what are the next steps?" and this is also some things we would like to see happen for our community.
I do feel your pain, Becky. I really do. If anyone has ever read my plight and fight for the face of the Trans part of our community, they will know I am speaking the truth. But, if the HRC is in the process of pushing through inclusion of protection of the transsexual community in the ENDA and has made viable steps being passed, then I do have to agree with Hilary about not getting stuck in the past.
I would like that interview to happen for you and for our community. Have you thought of doing an outline of your show (with questions and theme) and submitting it with your request? I don't want to sound trite, but maybe the reasons why no one has come, thus far, is because the trans community fought so hard and they might feel it would be about a bash.
Submit the atmosphere to reassure your intentions are true about of learning and about building a new relationship with HRC and not about getting an undercut sucker punch. Stay neutral.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
OurChart Photo Assignment
It's Not About The Past...
...not really. What I want to get into with Hilary on the air is the present and the future. I want to discuss the forum, its content, and the agenda reflected by what we saw there. I want to talk about the candidates. I want to talk about HRC, its leadership, and how it operates. The past only comes into the picture as it relates to current events.
HRC can't expect our community to simply trust them and just forget all that has happened, not only years ago, but even just last week. The fact is that a lot of people in this community don't trust this organization not only because of the past, but because we saw that same kind of agenda reflected in the questions put to the candidates in this forum.
Trust must be earned, especially by an organization with a history of being untrustworthy. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to simply expect people to just forget past betrayals and give them a fresh slate, particularly when, once again, promises of inclusion HRC made to the trans community were all but completely ignored in favor of furthering their own exclusive agenda just a few days ago.
Simply put, HRC had an opportunity to demonstrate that things have changed and that they're now worthy of the benefit of the doubt, but their actions last week clearly indicated exactly the opposite. If there's a reason why we should trust them despite that, I'd like to know what it is, wouldn't you?
As I've said, I have no interest in bashing Hilary or HRC on the air, but I do think it's quite fair to ask questions about HRC's commitment to real equality for all of us. If this forum had been more even-handed in content, we'd no doubt be having a very different conversation now.
I have no desire to rehash the past, but the truth of the matter is that all the current evidence seems to indicate that not only hasn't this organization changed its agenda in any real, substantive way since 2004, but they don't even care who knows it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I and many other community members will have to be convinced, not just by words, but also by action backing them up.
Not only didn't HRC speak for us when called upon, not only did they renege on the inclusive promises they made to us both then and now, but thus far they won't even speak with us publicly and answer our questions. Given that, why do they deserve our trust or our support? How have they shown themselves worthy of it? What will they do now to demonstrate that we should give them the benefit of the doubt when they still refuse to do even as much as publicly discuss the issues that are important to us?
Yes, there is a history here, but so far HRC has made no discernible effort to show us that things are any different now. If HRC wants opinions to change, the first step that must be taken is that a real public dialog must be opened. I've taken the first step and offered my show as a forum to begin that process. The decision to take advantage of that opportunity or to ignore it is now theirs and theirs alone.
For the record, I will publicly promise here and now that Hilary and/or any other HRC representative who comes on my show will be treated with respect and as a guest. The issues are much too important to me and to our community for me to risk impeding that process with useless bashing and personal attacks. Frankly, doing so would serve no one, and I, for one, will not be a party to that kind of thing. I'll also promise that if and when this discussion takes place, I'll make the recording of the show available to everyone who wishes to hear it, regardless of what is said or my own personal feelings about what is discussed.
The door is open. We want to hear what HRC has to say, about the present and the future of this movement, and how we can move forward together. I've done as much as is within my power to help facilitate that process. What happens next, for good or for ill, is entirely up to Hilary and to HRC.
The invitation has been made. The community is waiting. The next move is theirs.
You have a valid point...
Good questions, too. I think we all need to push HRC of our expressions and issues. Every last one of us.
Seeing all those issues makes my heart bleed. It really does; it makes our acceptance and obstacles seem so big. I do have a question.
My question is. If we get equal marriage rights, same sex marriage, would that not knock just about all of those issues away and make it easier to fight all of them on the same grounds as the straight community?
It's amazing what that little piece of paper can do.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
OurChart Photo Assignment
Marriage Isn't For Everyone
Rovermom,
The reality is that while some of these rights may be facilitated through the federal recognition of same-sex unions, not everyone in our community is or wishes to be in that kind of a relationship. In addition, as we've seen here in New Jersey, it will still be a continuing struggle to get the real-world recognition of our relationships in the workplace and elsewhere even once that happens.
It's also worth noting that Hillary Clinton only supports repealing the part of DOMA that prevents federal recognition of our relationships and supports allowing states to continue to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to recognize our relationships under state law, as all states are required to do in the case of heterosexual marriages.
There's no doubt that it would be a major step forward for us in the battle, but it's by no means even close to a "one size fits all" type solution.
Thank you for...
disagreeing with me. Wow. I'm not transgendered and I had no clue. I was under the impression they were for all of us. My mom is more knowing of politics then me. The nits and grits--she doesn't trust HRC for other reasons of their lobbying. I didn't know all this--no one talks about this stuff. Thank you....Do you have their website? I did a request thingy too.. welcome to OurChart :D
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
OurChart Photo Assignment
And Thank You! :)
HRC talks a great line, but their actions often don't match their rhetoric. If you go to their website (www.hrc.org), you'll see plenty of positive talk about transpeople and trans rights. The problem is that most of that inclusive talk is just that, talk. That's not to say by any means they don't do anything good for the rest of us, it's just that when it comes to political issues and politicians, HRC can always be counted upon to put their own agenda first and foremost. When called upon to actually stand up publicly in support and share the spotlight with transfolks, people of color, working class LGBT's, and others who don't fit their narrow and exclusive special interest group, that's when they show their true agenda, just as they did during that forum.
It's worth noting that in order to have a say in HRC's agenda, to have a seat on their Executive Board, one must donate $50,000 themselves or bring in that much in major donor money (only those donating $5,000 or more). The money the average person donates doesn't count. That should tell you who and what HRC really values.
Don't be surprised that you didn't know...HRC is very media savvy and they do their best to hide the truth. It always comes out in the end, though.
I recommend the June 22nd post in Donna Rose's blog (http://www.donnarose.com/Blog.htm). Donna is HRC's sole transgender board member and her post is quite illuminating. Read it and make your own judgments.
please clarify comment regarding Kucinich & Gravel
Hi Hilary,
I'd like to request clarification regarding your comment about Kucinich and Gravel. It seems a bit cryptic, but perhaps I'm missing something?
Thanks!
the forum was a waste of time
The debate focussed mostly on marriage. We already knew where the candidates stood on marriage. And to most LGBT people, marriage is not their top concern. Rather, it is the top concern of HRC and the other mainstream upperclass type folks.
NGLTF said our LGBT youth are facing an EPIDEMIC of homelessness - yet not ONE question was LGBT youth related. Nothing about our schools, GSAs, safety...
Very little about trans and gender variant harassment and nondiscrimination.
HRC's obsession with mainstream-ism is sick and bad for the queer community at large, and their endorsement of Joe Lieberman is evidence of that.
When will HRC apologize for endorsing pro-life republicans, and pro-war anti-gay marriage candidates like Joe Lieberman over more progressive canddiates like Ned Lamont?
Who is Ned Lamont?
That question was in my mind. Sorry I'm from the Midwest. So I googled him and see that Joe Lieberman asked that same question. Are you from Connecticut?
Anyhoo, I do believe you have a good point about not enough focus on LGBT youth. Edwards did address homeless LGBT youth a bit and seemed a wee bit surprised that this was a problem (um, yeah). But the other candidates did not address this, as I remember.
Lamont
Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the democratic primary, forcing Leiberman to run as an independent. Yes, HRC endorsed an independent civil union supporting war-monger over the anti-war pro gay marriage Ned Lamont. Many people cancelled their HRC support when they did this.
want more details
I did watch the debate and have to say I was disappointed in the lack of follow-up or details elicited by the questioners in regards to the candidates positions on civil unions. I was aware that the major candidates all support civil unions with full federal benefits. But, what I am not aware of is what this really means. And, I was hoping to get the details from this debate. I was looking for answers to these type of questions from each of the candidates:
1. Does your support of civil unions with full federal rights mean that you support federally MANDATED civil unions in ALL states?
2. If you don't support federally mandated civil unions in ALL states, do you support giving federal benefits to gay couples who live in states that don't provide civil unions? How would you propose to implement this?
3. If you support letting states decide marriage issues, do you support the repeal of the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia which removed the states' right to deny marriage to inter-racial couples?
4. If you believe marriage should be left to individual religious denominations, do you believe that for ALL couples, both gay and straight? For example, do you believe that straight Catholic couples who have been divorced should be denied a civil marriage license because their religion will not recognize their marriage?
Anon-No-More, those are
Anon-No-More, those are great questions! I wish you could have been on the panel to ask them. I will keep these questions in mind for the next time one or any of the candidates makes their way to the Twin Cities.
i suggested these ahead of time
I submitted this same list of questions, along with more, to the HRC web site at least a week before the debate. They asked for questions, I provided a list. But, still their panelists wouldn't get any details from the candidates. It was very disappointing.
As far as I'm concerned any candidate that supports civil unions without a federal mandate for them in all states is basically supporting the status quo of allowing any state to continue to discriminate.
What An Event...
Hello Hilary -
I was hoping you'd blog on this event because I had a thought you were involved.
First off, I have to say that I was really, really pleased at how well it went. I thought the questions were great and there was follow-up when I was sitting in an audience calling out for it. I thought Melissa asked great personal questions, some which I had considered myself. And I thought Joe and Jonathan asked some really good policy and practice questions and I loved Margaret adding her two cents. While I had hoped for a format that was comparable to other debates...maybe I wanted these folks to stand up for 1 1/2 hours for a debate on LGBT issues...I did walk away with a good understanding or feeling on how these candidates might support our community.
Second, I think it was really important to have candidates like Dennis Kucinich participate. While I'd love someone as pro-LGBT as Kucinich to be elected, I know that is unlikely. But I think what he does provide is a voice for our community and a goal for the other candidates. I mean if you look at where we are now compared to the last presidential election, Kucinich was in favor of many of the issues that now all the other candidates say they support. The main difference is on marriage equality. While each candidate maintained their positions, which is expected, I was pleased after the debate to read in several papers Kucinich's reasons why he thought it was important to support marriage equality and how he couldn't imagine what it would feel like to be told you couldn't marry the person you love. Because in these debates, while I think one of the reasons to have them is to learn where each of the candidates stand on issues...I also think debates (in particular this forum) was an opportunity to educate others on why issues like marriage are important. So his inclusion provided the messaging I think our community supports...at least he was the one candidate who got the standing ovation at our venue.
Third, with your personal insight, I'm wondering why Clinton only supports eliminating a portion of DOMA instead of DOMA in its entirity and if you have any info on that one, it would be great.
Thanks!
Pamela
Thanks for giving us the backstage tour
so to speak! But really, thanks for sharing the production backstory. And I really was appalled by Bill Richardson's choice statement, but I also know that he probably has the best background on foreign policy (but he has a record of being quite an ass in local and state democratic politics) so that makes it hard to decide who is the best candidate. I am a lesbian, but first and foremost I am an american, and I am a progressive liberal, and I don't back down from any labels. I think that America is on a learning curve, and that federal marriage rights will happen in my lifetime. I am hoping to live a very long time. But I truly think we have to work to restore the Constititution that has been ravaged by executive orders, republican majority railroading of legislation, and, sadly, of Democratic majority recently caving in to the executive branch on the FISA amendment. Because if we don't do that, then we will really be screwed.
I really don't think
I really don't think Richardson had a clue what he was saying with that shotgun answer to the choice question. He couldn't have. He was way to happy in the delivery.
I know it's long...
Hillary…
I am going to do a political way of thank you and also to the rest of HRC and Logo and to the candidates for making this all happen. Thank you, Hillary, and who ever was involved for take the time out and standing to come together to speak and give these candidates the platform on very, very important issues of the LGBT. There are more issues then ours, but we got a chance to isolate them to be heard.
The news and channels of talk was a buzz the next day on our issues. We made a stand to be heard and were heard. We know how to play on their field; even though we have our own field. I’ve watched it and have re-watched it. I’ve DVR’d it. Twice, since the first time an error occurred and came up blank.
I’m very mixed by it. As a lesbian, I felt this platform was overly controlled and too played out to make the candidates seem comfortable and not on the spot. Politicians are meant to be put on the spot and not weigh out “if I say this; I will lose such and such support”. That is the flip flop politician cycle that needs to be showed so we know who to trust so we have their support. Trust is very important and so is a politician’s record of work.
To speak frank. I wish the audience would have been viewed as being more then just famous gays and lesbians. They were all famous faces in our community who were shown on TV, but we have more then just famous people who can sit and clap. They were the lucky ones who got to see first hand this monumental forum. But looking at the 2 hour taping, this was not the ONLY set of audience members. I do believe the UNfamous regular everyday LGBT community members were sitting stage left and behind the camera visual line.
I feel disenchanted if this is the only way to have a platform on equality; by hiding who we really are. It speaks something to me. I’m intrigued by it for the simple fact of we want this so much are we really willing to disengage where we have been and who we are to become who we fight against.
I am an everyday person. I vote. I thought that that forum was going to be about the LGBT people having a chance to be heard and the people having the chance to speak and ask questions. I’m not sure if you remember MTV’s version years ago of trying to get the younger generation involved? The younger generation spoke and everyone was viewed in the room, not just a select few. In fact, the interaction was so well conceived in that forum, it allowed both the candidates and the audience in a discussion manner that was healthy, because it allowed both sides to form a relationship of learning each other.
I was shocked to see us having a forum so controlled. I’m not going to put anyone down who was involved in this event. We got to have an event. I’m thankful, and yet my mouth is left ajar. Very mixed indeed.
For the longest time I felt like I should have been born in the 40’s and 50’s to be a part of the women’s movement and the whole 60’s get out and get involved and standing up for civil liberties for all of us. That time in our history was a shape shifter and a mover.
I look at our candidates and it is evident that that era coupled with all the others have led up to this monumentus time. Linked to that very time era with the diversity of choice we have to vote for. I was born in the right time. Who would have thought a woman would run up against a black man for presidency?
Maybe it has happened before—but it is now that got my attention. The diversity we have to choose our representation is the most diverse I have seen it. We have made diversity become reality for us to choose. Big step. Our past has pushed us through unconventional doors and once again, now is the time that changes define.
I like your perception of watching the evolution of a politician….
“Edwards reflects our country’s attitudes towards our issues more than any other candidate. He has evolved. I like that he has shared that evolution publicly and I think it is a teachable moment.”
I don’t like to boost who I’m voting for—there are those who have my attention, but it is a very intricate and very personal to just not ponder and give chance to all the candidates. Speaking of which, I would have loved to have seen other candidates from other parties—Independent party, Green party, Black Tea Party (and the list goes on.)
I know we are all want representation and we all have our reasons why we vote for who we vote for. We weigh out who best fits us the best so we can vote for them. There is only one person on that panel who supports equality 100% and has proved it time and again with his yea’s and nay’s while in an elected office.
I find it interesting we don’t support him 100% as a whole, but I also know the LGBT issues are just a piece of the whole pie. If this was about OUR issues and OUR issues are about equality ---should we not give him more thought other then…
“3) And 4) Kucinich and Gravel - In theory I care about what they said, but in practice, I just don’t very much.”
I have heard Kucinich speak at debates (not in person) on C-span. This is the first time I have heard him speak in an authoritive way and relaxed enough to feel speaking from his heart.
Is he really that far advance that no one believes in him? Let’s go with someone who says they believe in equality, but believes in different terms to separate us, just in case—just so they might have a chance up against this one party. Should we support those who half supports us just to get a vote from us?
Politics can get very ugly and I don’t doubt that any of those people, who came, really want to hurt us or discriminate us and isolate us. But, stand up for equality in the face of diversity. Don’t play the popular vote.
Seriously, you omitted the one person who has supported us 110% (and makes no shame of it) through his speeches and his votes, why? And why do we, overall, over look him also? It does not make sense.
Ok, I think this beats the length of any of my posts on this site. New record…maybe:)
PS. I do really thank you and everyone for this chance of exposure of the community. It is very vital to promote talk of our issues.
Word count including the word count: 1,185
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
people are people and Bush is Crazy!
, Reply
Rovermom, that was an awesome analysis of Hilary's statements about the debate. I'm glad you took the time and effort to verbalze what a lot of us thought. I was sorry to read that the questions were pre-planned. I would have preferred a more adlib approach to what the candidates were asked and how they answered. People rave about Barack because of the speech he made in 04 but he's only been a senator for 2 years. Personally, if Michael Bloomberg put his name in as an independent, he would get my vote and a lot of others, But your response to hilary was right on the monehy. you left no stone unturned and didn't say who your choice was so you were very objective. I have always said "we have the best politicians money can buy" so, thanks again for your keen analsis of the debates. mimi
Rovermom makes good points
i agree that the audience was too "invited". That was a result of having a really small venue. At the last minute we invited some folks from the community but it was too little too late. As a practical matter, a larger venue would have cost too much money and LOGO had committed t run the show on -air commercial free. which meant that HRC and LOGO had to pay for the who thing production wise, out of their pocket - many tens of thousands of dollars.
regarding the thought about kucinich and wanting to support a "better" candidate. More power to you. No he doesn't have a chance but he has a lot of good heart and he is running in the primary and I don't think it hurts anyone if he is your passion. And in thelong run, maybe it helps bring others around. Just don't go do a Ralph Nader on us and be a spoiler in the general election for a less than perfect democrat and let a right winger get in instead.
nader didn't spoil
If you go back and look at the facts you will see that Nader did not spoil the election.
In fact, Pat Buchanan admitted that he had thousands too many votes due to the confusing ballot in Dade county. Those votes alone would have saved Gore.
Not to mention the voter fraud, racism, road blocks, and other nasty nasty stuff the republicans did.
Thank you, Hilary
I