• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « The Obama-Clinton difference, part 2 | Main | Back off of Larry! »

    November 14, 2007

    Barney and Tammy back Hillary

    Posted by: Chris

    Frankbaldwin_2 No real surprise here. As Hillary Clinton consolidates her position as the choice of the party establishment, support from Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and other Democrats in Congress is to be expected. Barney's support came along with a campaign role as a chief economic adviser. Commerce Secretary Frank, anyone?

    Also not surprisingly, Barney and Hillary both praise each other's commitment to civil rights. Barney said he is "convinced that Hillary Clinton is the candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love." He doesn't elaborate,so we're left to imagine why. Perhaps because she's most likely to win the nomination.

    Barney's sister, Ann Lewis, is a senior adviser on the Clinton campaign, and Barney is a longtime Clinton friend. Remember he stuck by them even when Bill signed on to support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

    Finally, a third unsurprising angle to the Barney endorsement is bitter reaction from the transgender front. My old friend Pauline Park over at Logo's Visible Vote has this to say:

    The lead sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, Frank released a statement saying that Clinton was “the candidate best qualified to serve as president.” Significantly, Hillary Clinton has never publicly expressed support — even in principle — for the idea of using federal law to protect transgendered people from discrimination.

    On this, as on so many other issues, Pauline is in desperate need of a fact-checker. Hillary Clinton's response to the candidates questionnaire from the evil trans traitors at the Human Rights Campaign confirmed that she supports inclusion of "gender identity" in both hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

    But never let the facts get in the way of a good rant…


    Gnw_lighthouse_logosmall_2 For a complete news summary, click or bookmark: gaynewswatch.com/demprimary



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Andoni on Nov 14, 2007 10:25:54 AM:

      I had lunch with Barney Frank about a year and a half ago. At that time he was already in Hillary's camp. So why the endorsement now? Unfortunately , I think Hillary has a whole herd of Democratic office holders in a closet lined up ready to be trotted out endorsing her as needed. I think Barney was chosen to do so this week, because of a recent focus on Hillary's vs Obama's willingness to speak our name publicly and go to bat for us if either gets elected. This began with the Donnie McClurkin flap, which highlighted Obama's willingness to speak out forcefully on gay issues. Pulling Barney out at this time can help counter any erosion of LGBT support before it becomes a landslide. They hope to lull the community back to accepting that Hillary is the best on/for our issues, when the evidence points to the fact she is not. Her campaign hopes Barney's endorsement will cause the LGBT community to go back to not paying attention and simply do what they are told.

    1. Kevin on Nov 14, 2007 11:04:57 AM:

      The machine has indeed spoken.

    1. KMA on Nov 14, 2007 12:01:34 PM:

      I agree with the above comment. Hillary has not proven to be reliable in the least when it comes to open, clear support of Gay issues. And in regards to other recent issues, I am gay, I am not GLBT. In fact I don't even understand B and T, and only kinda understand L...not that there's anything wrong with B or T or L).

    1. Bloggernista on Nov 14, 2007 1:23:45 PM:

      This was more than expected. The only question is what took them so long to make the announcement.

      I don't have the same problem with Hillary that some people have. I just think that Barack Obama will be a much stronger advocate for LGBT civil rights.

    1. Rebecca Juro on Nov 14, 2007 2:35:22 PM:

      Actually Chris, if you read her comments after the ENDA question carefully, she never actually addresses trans inclusion in ENDA:

      "As president, I will sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) into law.
      Throughout my Senate career, I have been an original co-sponsor of ENDA. It is
      inconceivable to me that people who work hard and do a good job every day can still
      be fired because of who they love. It’s unfair, it’s un-American, and I will put a stop
      to it once and for all."

      Note that she says that she doesn't believe people should be denied employment because of who they love, specifically, and does not address how one presents themselves to the world. She said pretty much exactly the same thing to the HRC Executive Board when she spoke there.

      Given Hillary's penchant for avoiding direct and full answers on controversial issues, I'd say the jury is still out here and Pauline got it right. As with that other HRC, if they don't actually say they don't mean it, and even then it's still up for interpretation and possible alteration.

      Until Hillary Clinton takes on the issue of trans inclusion in ENDA on fully, directly, and publicly, I don't think we can really say what her position is on this particular issue.

    1. TimInChicago on Nov 14, 2007 4:28:21 PM:

      Mr. Frank has a right to his belief that Mrs. Clinton is the "best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love" but he clearly stopped short of saying she has the best RECORD and current positions for LGBT equality. Whereas Mrs. Clinton's stance against DOMA is both recent, and only partial (as you nicely point out Chris, paying attention to what i see as a major difference, while HRC and many others ignore), Mr. Obama has always been against DOMA, which includes his current support to repeal the provision that allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage of other states. This is a bold stance by Mr. Obama (only matched by Mr. Kucinich), and a distinction that Mr. Frank, nor Clinton's cronies at HRC fail to point out in their questionnaire to the candidates.

      I hardly find Mr. Frank's endorsement to be in the best interests of the LGBT community when he's endorsing a candidate who stood by and watched in silence (Mrs. Edwards speaks out) while her husband ran Christian radio ads during the 1996 campaign, touting his support and passage of DOMA. Why isn't this being discussed more in the LGBT community? Do we forget? Melissa Etheridge didn't,and I surely don't. When I have a record, of past behaviors that show lukewarm support, I pay attention to it, the rest is pure BS and manifestations of the establishment patting each other on the back.

      Lastly, I do not think Mr. Frank has some gall to use these words just after ENDA passing in the house, he says that Clinton would support "no matter who they are", when he voted to an ENDA which clearly states "it matters who you are" if you are a transgendered individual. I know this subject matter of T or no T is being debated in the LGB community, but I for one, find it the ultimate form of being hypocritical to not include the T. The same folk that scream about full marriage equality, somehow now feel incremental change is ok. Is incremental ok if and only if you benefit yourself?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad