Hillary Clinton Faces Tough Questions At HRC Forum

(More on this forum will be posted tomorrow morning.)

Hillary Clinton, whose husband has a less than stellar reputation in many precincts of the gay community, was peppered with tough questions at tonight's gay rights forum in Los Angeles.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge, a moderator, told Clinton that gays felt "thrown under the bus" by her husband's administration in the 1990s. By this she meant the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gays in the military and President Clinton's support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"All the great promises that were made to us were broken," Etheridge said. "It is many years later now. Are we going to be left behind like we were before?"

"I don't see it the way you describe that I respect your feelings about it," Clinton responded. The administration, the president, the vice president "did the best they could."

Etheridge: "Why not be a leader now?"

Clinton: "I think I am the leader now. But to not only talk about laws as important as they are, but to really try to change attitudes to persuade people that they should be more open, more respectful. If I were sitting where I were sitting with all you have gone through ... I'm sure I would feel the same way."

On gay marriage, HRC president Joe Solomnese asked her about her opposition. “I prefer to think about it as being very positive about civil unions,” Clinton said. But she said she respected the “advocacy” the gay community is “waging on behalf of marriage.”

Clinton called the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “one of my highest priorities.” But she defended the policy as written – it was an “advance” that was poorly implemented, she said.

Some interesting back story: The sponsoring Human Rights Campaign – HRC – has occasionally been criticized for being in the pocket of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – broadly, the Clinton donor community, which includes many prominent gays and lesbians. Solomnese went out of his way to be ginger with Clinton, but he did not hold back. (My colleague Josh Green promised me a post about this tomorrow.)

Comments

'On gay marriage, HRC president Joe Solomnese asked her about her opposition. “I prefer to think about it as being very positive about civil unions,” Clinton said.'

That may be the most perfect political answer I have ever heard.

Posted by Joe | August 9, 2007 11:25 PM

Maybe but it does not answer the very simple question of why, besides crassly political strategy reasons, any of those people are against same-sex marriage. I wish I had heard even the beginning of a reasoning as to why their pro-civil union stance is not either a pandering to an important grassroot community in spite of their own prejudice or a pandering to what they think is the larger electorate in spite of their belief gays should be able to marry.
It is either that or then they believe that gays shouldn't marry and they should explain us why.
Well at least Edwards was inadvertently honest enough to remind us his problem is religious which is a shame but at least we know where he is coming from and can go from there.

Posted by nhuixnhuix | August 9, 2007 11:53 PM

Why not be a leader now.
I think I am the leader.
how telling. She doesn't think of herself as anyone but the leader of us and therefore is simply humoring people.
And the arrogance just keeps on coming.

Posted by vwcat | August 9, 2007 11:54 PM

HRC should get tough questions, although she does rarely.

She deserves questions about her years of support of Bush and the Iraq War. She deserves inquiry about her lack of a health care plan. She deserves questions about her massive lobbyist support.

However, currently she especially deserves questions about her hypocritical comments about nuclear weapons. I hope every writer and reporter who covered HRC's criticism of Obama will take the time to point out her comments taking nuclear weapons off the table. Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by c gibson | August 10, 2007 12:07 AM

First of all, did anyone else notice how Etheridge had to personalize every question (she had cancer, she came out when Clinton was inaugaurated, she was honored to be there as a non-political expert-though later she seemed to become one, she was told she couldn't feign over Kucinich)?

As for being "thrown under the bus", Bill Clinton's line of a dog that won't hunt comes to mind. One of his first actions was what led to Don't Ask and he took holy hell for it. That at least removed an automatic denial of eligibility to serve. She certainly didn't question Obama pointedly on his lack of leadership. As a Chicagoan, I can't recall ever seeing him in our gay pride parade (Jan Schakowsky is our only reliable Federal participant); and I specifically recall his dismissive remarks that he wasn't hearing about "gay marriage" as he traveled the state in his 2004 campaign.

Joe Soloman demonstrated the leadership that's turned the HRC into such a credible organization.

Posted by Kap | August 10, 2007 1:01 AM

I'd also hand it to Elizabeth Birch who transformed the HRC (the Human Rights Campaign, not the Hillary one!).

Clinton is a master politician; hardly anything she said could be used against her by the right-wing, afterall, it's much harder to argue against civil union and equality of rights- I thought Melissa Ethridge went soft when Clinton told her that change takes time, and that you can only move agendas as far as the social climate of the era allows. Clinton also defended DOMA as one of the reasons why the Federal Marriage Amendment didn't pass and therefore forced the states to define marriage themselves. Again, she is an amazing politician - when you can be all things to all people.

Anyway, we'll see. I will vote for Hillary, but we've all learned our lesson from the Bush administration - we cannot be apathetic no matter who is in Office, and we must hold them accountable to their promises. Hear, hear... Hillary.

Posted by bbln | August 10, 2007 3:01 AM

There seems to be an implication that Hillary Clinton has gotten away with something, or has been given a free pass, and not just when it comes to human rights and the LGBT community. You know, on the one hand she is chastized for winging her way to the Presidency in the reflected glory of her husband; but she is also trounced at every turn for any policy he implemented that didn't have a successful outcome.

I don't see Hillary's current positioning on gay rights as any different than that of John Edwards or Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson or Joe Biden. She has made it clear from the start of her campaign that she would overturn "don't ask don't tell" and she has also, very clearly stated why.

Posted by Jan Beck | August 10, 2007 5:08 AM

You can be sure that Hillary will be a great President for gay community,get her a majority in house and senate and watch your agenda get done.Don't ask don't tell will be history.As for Nuke question,it's not flipflop,Bush was talking about nuking Iran,and her opposition was correct.

Posted by ashwin patel | August 10, 2007 8:53 AM

"Rocker Melissa Etheridge"....Moderator
Presidental Debate.....
When we have debates on childrens issues will we bring back the Muppet's to moderate?
CLICK

Posted by Jay T. | August 10, 2007 10:01 AM

As a gay man who has been in a committed partnership for 17 years, I believe that Ethridge's characterization of being "thrown under the bus" by the Clintons strains incredulity.

The fact remains that Ethridge left her wife and children from the Clinton years, moved on to another wife, and had additional children with her.

It seems to me that Ethridge herself threw her commitment and marriage "under the bus".

Posted by JoeCHI | August 10, 2007 10:07 AM

Hilarie and the rest of them were so disappointing..why doesn't the whole gay community and medical marijuana community get together and vote for Kucinich so we can have CHANGE!!

cmon guys!

Posted by Rakefet | August 10, 2007 1:56 PM

TO JOE CHI:

Melissa didn't leave her wife. her wife cheated on her.

Get the facts straight, so to speak.

Posted by Rakefet | August 10, 2007 1:57 PM

Because Hillary is running on her husband's popularity where she can, it makes sense that she can at least hear a question or two on his less popular policies. How much of a free ride do you expect her to get? Look she is so far ahead in the polls for her primary that she doesn't have to track left very far. More satisfactory answers from Hillary would be quickly forthcoming if she were not at this time looking so inevitable. No one is making her hustle for the democratic vote. Whose fault is that? Maybe the media? Maybe the Left?

Posted by Rita | August 10, 2007 9:14 PM

I could be wrong and I have not gone back to rewatch a tape of the forum, but I didn't think Hillary Clinton said she was against Gay and Lesbian marriage, but instead I think she said she was against a federal amendment supporting gay and lesbian marriage. I believe that is an important distinction. I would like to reread the survey that HRC gave the politicians to answer before the forum. I believe I found it on the website last night but I couldn't find it today. I would be interested in seeing the wording of HRC's question concerning same sex marriage.

Posted by Suzanne | August 10, 2007 9:54 PM

I remember what it was like to be gay in America pre-Clinton and what it was like during the Clinton adminstration. I also know what it is like to be gay in America post-Clinton.

Pre-Clinton the president and the entire political establishment were openly anti-gay, would not even think of lifting the military ban, were still denying security clearances to anyone that was gay,refused to acknowledge that AIDS was a problem, and refused to acknowledge that the gay community was large enough to matter at all.

Bill Clinton came in, opened a gay and lesbian community affairs office in the White House, lifted the ban on security clearances, radically increased the amount of funding for AIDS research, fought off Republican attempts to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, proposed hates crimes legislation, and pushed ENDA. But more importantly, the leader of the free world openly embraced gays and lesbians as Americans. The leader of the free world talked about gay issues. The leader of the free world gave a eulogy at Pedro Zamora's funeral, sending a message to millions of kids watching MTV, that it's ok to be gay, the President even says so.

Now, Clinton's first term got off to a rough start because before he took the oath, Republican's very cleverly began hearings about candidate Clinton's plan to lift the military ban. Before he was even President, he was forced to scramble to respond to the Joint Chiefs of Staff's united front against lifting the ban. The gay community didn't rally in support and call their congress person. Clinton took the blows and got the us the best compromise he could.

In 1996, the Republicans again saw that the unpopularity of the gay community could be used to score political points. Clinton engineered that DOMA be taken up with ENDA. He had the votes for ENDA until a gay pride parade the day before the vote led to arrests for indecency in public and an Oklahoma Senator changed his vote, meaning that DOMA passed and ENDA narrowly failed. Clinton signed the law at midnight clearly showing what he thought of it but not willing to bet the presidency after the Dont Ask Don't Tell fiasco.

After Clinton left office the Republican right declared open season on gays again. However, after 8 years of gays being at the table and being accepted, the Republicans could not turn back the clock they way they wanted. When they tried to reinstitute the security clearance denials, they found they couldn't because gays and lesbians had connections within the establishment made during the Clinton years.

So I think it is unfair to say that gays and lesbians were "thrown under the bus" by the Clinton administration. Clinton opened the door. He did not risk as much political capital as the community might have liked, but he took quite a few blows on behalf of gays and lesbians and yet he continued to support the community. Both the Clintons understand that change is gradual and that frontal attacks often fail and trigger backlashes while gradual, modest yet persistent changes lead to permanant successes.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 12:09 AM

Alex, you have posted the best summation of the issue that I have ever read. I believe it was done in an attempt to bring this issue into proper focus. I know that it has helped me understand this better. However, I do not frame the same-sex marriage issue on the adults but on the children's rights issues. I have concluded that children would benefit most from exposure to both a male and female mind set (althought I give the edge to women - a great many men seem to me to be greatly challenged in the parenthood arena). There are a lot of well-meaning and thoughtful folks who disagree with me. I strongly feel that those who have found happiness from same-sex associations must and do expect the same rights enjoyed by all citizens of the United States. That is why I, like many others, strongly believe in Civil Unions because the 'children's rights' component becomes a non-issue (adoption should be open to all - I was adopted at 12 years of age and longed as a lonely child to be adopted into anyone's home - I didn't care who my parents would be. I just wanted to be wanted). I'm sure my comments have offended some people so I appologize in advance. My offense is not intentional but throught ignorance of the many complex nuances associated this whole subject.

Posted by VSteven | August 11, 2007 2:37 PM

The fact remains that Ethridge left her wife and children from the Clinton years, moved on to another wife, and had additional children with her. It seems to me that Ethridge herself threw her commitment and marriage "under the bus

Can you provide a link for this information?

You don't know anything about Melissa Etheridge do you? Her first wife LEFT Melissa because after 12 years decided (in a therapists office) that she was straight. How exactly does one reconcile that within the confines of an intimate relationship? You can't. And her children still live with her. She did not abandon them as you suggest. Frankly I'm not a fan of hers and don't care for her music, but I care even less when people post information that has no basis in fact.

Posted by Trish Johnson | August 12, 2007 7:48 AM

lache coagulase preside struggling damlike sari crockery microbiologic
http://www.puppylovegourmetbakery.com >Puppy Love Gourmet Bakery
http://www.outdoorplaces.com/Destination/stateparks/new_york/catskill/index.html

Posted by Valerie William | December 19, 2007 4:09 PM

Hi,

I came across this website http://www.usforus.org
There is a nice forum there and nice Hillary support info.
Check it out.

Posted by Luc Sinior | May 10, 2008 12:04 PM