Gay Group Slams Hillary Clinton
The New York Observer's Ben Smith obtained a memo from the chief of New York state's leading gay rights group, Empire Pride Pride Agenda, where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's refusal to support gay marriage is labeled a "disappointment" and one reason why, in the view of Alan Van Capelle, the group's board should not help raise money for Clinton.
From the letter: "Supporting an LGBT fundraiser for Hillary Clinton will actually hurt our community. It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community. We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return. And that's what we get -- nothing. It's the wrong message to send."
Our analysis:
1. Clinton opposes gay marriage. That's a consequence of her Midwestern Methodist upbringing, her generally cautious political sensibility, her own personal marriage history, something else entirely, or a combination of these factors.
2. A central organizing principle of the '08 campaign ontology for Dems has been that HRC has "the base" locked up. By the base, they mean: liberal women, African Americans, Hollywood, gays and lesbians, major fundraisers. Clearly, Clinton has nothing "locked up." But the reservoir of good will these groups have toward the Clintons is enormous. (Poll after poll in state after state provides evidence to support this contention.) There are a few important caveats. Much of the allegiance derives from a loyalty to and a love for Bill Clinton. The atomization of Dem base groups means that there will always be a few who publicly break away from the Clinton juggernaut. And many gay rights activists, in particular, have been wary of the Clintons even as they've worked with them over the years.
3. We assume those advisers in Clinton's world who are hammering together a national campaign in '08 will do their best to ensure that as many people outside New York as possible see this clip. Clinton, and most Americans, oppose same-sex marriage. (By contrast, Clinton, and most Americans, favor civil benefit parity for gay couples.)
4. Does this story suggest that the gay marriage issue is evolving? Maybe. Clinton will receive the overwhelming majority of the LGBT vote in New York State regardless. But the rough consensus exemplified by Clinton is not well explicated by any party or politician. The hyperpolarization in our political class allows powerful interest groups to draw clear lines through which politicians must not cross. It also allows for diversity within interest groups, as there will be plenty of LGBT fundraisers who roll their eyes at their Empire State friends and proudly proclaim their support for Clinton.
5. Any memo with the word "Hillary" in it from ANY group -- left or right -- ally or foe -- will get press and donor attention. [MARC AMBINDER]
5. Any memo with the word "Hillary" in it from ANY group -- left or right -- ally or foe -- will get press and donor attention. [MARC AMBINDER]
#5 is trtue but stupid especially considering how many intresting stories about more intresting candidates go by the wayside.
Do you honestly, honestly believe that Hillary and Bill Clinton don't privately think that gay marriage is just and proper, and oppose it only because of prevailing political sensibilities? I think they're just fine with gay marriage, just like I think George W. Bush is indifferent to the concept and inclined to personal broad-mindedness. (Which makes the political stances of all three cold-blooded and cynical.) While it's admirable to take politicians at face value and to assume that their words reflect sincere beliefs, here I think you're wrong.
Two points I would add:
(1) There's a big gap between the leadership of organized GLBT groups, including major gay donors, and actual GLBT voters. The former are obligated to be tactical, regardless of their true feelings about the Clintons, while the latter are free to let their emotional reaction (we love Hillary!) override any strategic one. Also, individual voters obviously vote based on a multitude of other issues, not just marriage.
(2) There's also a divide between state-based gay groups, especially the Empire State Pride Agenda, and national ones, especially the Human Rights Campaign. Remember the ESPA-HRC fracas when HRC endorsed Al D'Amato in 1998? Interestingly in light of point (1), much of the debate around that race focused on the question of whether gay groups should endorse pro-gay but anti-choice candidates -- HRC said yes, ESPA no.
Wouldn't be surprised at all if Hillary would try to pander to bigots by passing this one around - in this way she is just like Senator Norm Coleman and her husband - who advised Kerry to support the anti-gay referendums in 2004.
She's going pretty down far down the road in pandering these days - proposing a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, trying to out-hawk the White House on Iran, etc. We in New York State are more than just a launching pad - she's still required to represent us.