Andrew Sullivan announced his support for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton (surprise!) because 1) Obama is younger than Clinton, and 2) Obama is a Christian. Seriously. He forgot to remind us that 3) Andrew Sullivan would rather stab his own eyeballs out with a dull pencil than endorse Hillary Clinton for anything! (Sorry, Sully–I just can’t forget or forgive your scurrilous accusation that after 9/11 I was the real enemy as a “decadent leftist” “fifth columnist” humanities prof, and so I suspect your problem with Clinton is just as fear-driven and irrational.) Although he is a plagiarist-enabling and fantasist-enabling turd, even Sullivan can’t convince himself that Obama is substantively better on the issues than Clinton because they’re so darn similar. Thus, he offers us the youth and Christianity argument–by that logic, then l’il Ralphie Reed should be his man.
Meanwhile, back in my world where people know facts ‘n’ stuff, and would lose their jobs if they worked only up to Sully’s shockingly low standards, Professorblackwoman has a nice post up at WOC Ph.D. comparing the two candidates’ records on GLBTQ issues, and it looks like a wash to me in terms of their policy positions. (IMHO, neither is particularly courageous in affirming that true equality means equal civil rights too.) Obama does not support gay marriage, while Clinton thinks its legality should be up to the states. Obama says he supports a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” while Clinton has suggested only modifying these (Bill Clinton-era) relics. Obama has a cute rainbow version of his very cool logo, but he also issued that unfortunate invitation to Donnie McClurkin, an anti-gay ex-gay gospel singer. (Pandagon notes though Obama addressed black homophobia with an African American majority audience last week, and was able to bring them along with him after some initial resistance.) My guess is that they’d probably appoint similar kinds of people to the federal bench and the Supreme Court.
Sully aside, Clinton seems to be winning more gay votes by a hefty margin–63% of the gay vote in California, and she’s working hard on reeling them in in Ohio, according to Professorblackwoman’s analysis. That also tracks with my informal observations–my gay friends support HRC much more faithfully than my breeder friends, which leads me to suspect that queers aren’t as threatened by Hillary’s pantsuits and unapologetic toughness the way straights are (men and women alike). Ambitious broads just push some people’s buttons, don’t they? Shout out to Roxie’s World and GayProf to weigh in on this one! Do you think HRC (this HRC, not that HRC) has more GLBTQ support, and if so, is it justified? Who do you think is the better candidate for GLBTQ issues?
12 Responses to “Who’s better for the gays? (Plus a long-deserved swipe at Andrew Sullivan.)”