The Human Rights Campaign’s endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton for president was no surprise, given the close ties between the lobby’s leaders and the Clintons. But coming before the first primaries, it was sure to tick off the Sandernistas, and indeed they felt the Bern.
“It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs told the Washington Blade.
I preferred it when HRC just endorsed congressional candidates, prior to the group first presidential endorsement, that being Bill Clinton in 1992. Before then, the group could lay a claim to actual bipartisanship, supporting a fair number of socially inclusive Republicans. But once HRC tied itself so closely to Democratic presidential nominees, it was seen as the party’s outreach arm to lesbian and gay (and later, LGBT) voters. One reason the National Stonewall Democrats closed up shop is that its efforts were seen as redundant with HRC’s.
On a practical level, the early endorsement is viewed by many as bad tactics. Other lobbies on the left and the right make Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, respectively, compete fiercely for their support; HRC pretty much gives it away on the first date.
As Scott Shackford writes at reason.com:
[Many] perceive the HRC leadership as aspiring political operatives securing their own futures rather than actual LGBT activists and compromising so as not to harm their relationship with the Democratic Party elites.
The timing of the endorsement is itself evidence for the argument. … A look at poll averages right now showing Clinton vs. various Republican candidates and Sanders vs. various Republican candidates suggests it’s all extremely up in the air. Sanders does come out on top in some match-ups.
Shackford concludes:
For not a small number of people in the LGBT left, Sanders’ criticism of HRC will not hurt him at all and might actually help him get some primary votes, particularly among older, disaffected gay voters who remember both Clinton’s and the HRC’s histories.
As this blog has pointed out before, not rocking the Democratic Party establishment is HRC’s specialty. During the initial two years of the Obama administration when Democrats enjoyed filibuster-proof majorities in Congress, HRC failed to aggressively push, much less demand, that Democrats move forward with what was then its top agenda item, passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. The bill was never moved out of committee, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (among others) didn’t want to spend the political capital.
The one big achievement of the session, repeal of the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy, lay dormant until just weeks before Congress was set to recess with a GOP majority slated to take over the House, when the grass-roots erupted and pushed congressional allies in both parties to force an end run around an again hesitant Reid, while HRC sat on the sidelines.
16 Comments for “HRC for HRC”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not an HRC member. I think that some of the work that HRC does (e.g. the Corporate Equality Index) is valuable.
I think their political work is useless.
I don’t think that HRC should be making an endorsements, in Democratic primary races or otherwise. I would support HRC rating candidates across the board and making those ratings as widely known as possible, like the NRA does.
On the other hand, I don’t waste time worrying about HRC. If I were as concerned as some seem to be, I’d join the organization and work to change it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But once HRC tied itself so closely to Democratic presidential nominees, it was seen as the party’s outreach arm to lesbian and gay (and later, LGBT) voters. One reason the National Stonewall Democrats closed up shop is that its efforts were seen as redundant with HRC’s. That wasn’t entirely fair since NSD was a in part a federation of local Democratic clubs, but the organization never grew the donor base it needed as those funds flowed to HRC or to statewide lobbies.
Oh, for goodness’ sake.
Stonewall Democrats became redundant after the Democratic Party instituted a nationwide internal system of LGBT caucuses in the state parties during the mid-2000’s and promoted LGBT inclusion at the national level. And gay man (Jason Rae) was elected to the DNC over a decade ago, and the party has actively sought out LGBT delegates to national conventions, serve on national and state internal bodies, and so on, for many years.
With all the activity within the party, the need for an outside group of LGBT Democrats was, well, non-existent. Stonewall Democrats limped on for years after it was redundant.
posted by Kosh III on
The current goals of the HRC can be easily seen by viewing the only two links on the top of their home page: Donate, and Shop(tshirts, jewelry assorted crap)
They do nothing substantive in the areas most needed. The only time they show up in Nashville is when they swoop in once per year and have a “ball” which is too costly for the average person to attend.
They do NO lobbying and AFAIK give little or nothing to the one struggling organization here.
As for Clinton, she was silent when her husband supported DADT and DOMA. She was waaaaay behind the curve compared to other Democrats like Tsongas, and Sanders.
jill2016.com is the candidate and party that has been there all along.
posted by JohnInCA on
I will never understand why people think it’s reasonable to ask someone to vote for a third party candidate in a national election when that third party has no record of success at any level of politics.
If you want me to believe the Green Party is a serious political entity, try winning elections. It’ll mean being humble and starting small and working your way up, but just reaching for the big prize without any of the years of ground work to build your support? It doesn’t work.
posted by JohnInCA on
The “this is a political move to boost Hilary” angle seems kind of… doubtful. Do you really think voters in *Iowa* are going to be persuaded by the HRC?
posted by Houndentenor on
My criticism of HRC over this will surprise no one. The inside-the-beltway organization has endorsed the establishment candidate. No surprises there. Except that in contested races they have never endorsed this early. In 2008 they waited until June to endorse Obama, after he had enough delegates for the nomination. So the timing on this is a bit odd.
But then it’s not as if this matters. HRC endorsements don’t translate into actual votes (see: D’Amato 1998). And furthermore in a year in which voters in both parties are highly dissatisfied with the party establishment, this circling of the wagons by the insiders seems to be backfiring on her. Oh well.
I remain undecided. I have over a month until my state’s primary and have other races to consider as well.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Except that in contested races they have never endorsed this early.”
You think the Democratic nomination is contested? I can understand why people hope that to be true, but I’ve yet to hear anything persuasive.
That said, as I live in California I’ll be shocked if the nominations aren’t already cinches by the time I get to vote. As such, I find it hard to care.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, Clinton will most likely have more than enough delegates before the California primary in June. She may be so far ahead after Super Tuesday that Sanders and O’Malley will have suspended their campaigns. But no votes have been cast and she’s not so far ahead nationwide as to declare this over yet. Even in years when one candidate was way ahead (2000, 2004) HRC waited on the endorsement. There was no reason to do it this early really. Again, all this wagon-circling to protect the Clinton campaign makes her look weak rather than inevitable. I think it’s poor strategy and I think it’s hurting her.
posted by Wilberforce on
Of course HRC is corrupt, and the endorsement is a product of that. But there’s a more important issue here.
We need to win, at all cost. Think of the catastrophe it would be with Cruz or Trump in the White House, not just for our community, but for the economy, foreign policy, you name it.
And the best way to win is my sweet Hillary. Plus, the Clintons are policy geniuses, as shown by Hillary’s recent talks across the media. I feel like I’m back in the 90s, standing dumbfounded at the brilliance of the Clinton machine.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ah yes, how well I remember such “policy genius” as the repeal of Glass-Steagall, rubber stamping of bank mergers leading to the “too big to fail” problem, DADT, DOMA, et al. You are looking back on the 90s with rose colored glasses. I can’t blame you for that. It was a great time overall. But let’s not give credit that isn’t deserved. There were a lot of horrible decisions. But I will agree that the judges that a President Cruz would appoint would be a disaster for the country.
posted by Wilberforce on
Hindsight is 20 20. And I always enjoy the left wing sport of cherry picking the bad to discredit others. Of course repealing Glass-Steagall was a a mistake, as was NAFTA. I was there with the Unions protesting it; no one else from the left was.
If you’re going to cherry pick, at least get it right. DADT was a compromise that might have work had the military not betrayed it by turning it into a witch hunt. And the Clintons began their term trying to change military policy to let gay people serve openly. But I’m not going to cherry pick the positives as a response. The record speaks for itself.
I also don’t like to be so hypercritical. I enjoy reading your notes. You’re one of the lights on this site.
posted by Houndentenor on
I will be voting in the primary in about 5 weeks. I am still undecided but I am leaning towards voting for Clinton as she probably is the best option overall. I do not cast that ballot blindly just as I knew what I was getting into by voting for Bill Clinton in 1992. (He was my governor for quite a few years before that.) because it’s never going to happen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Think of the catastrophe it would be with Cruz or Trump in the White House …
The Republican establishment certainly seems to be intent on beating the hell out of both of them this week.
But Trump might not be a catastrophe for gays and lesbians. Nothing positive would come out of a Trump administration, and he makes all the Republican mainstream noises about traditional marriage, but he has said he supports the Equality Act and he’s not committed to overturning Obergefell, turning the clock back to 1980, either, unlike Cruz.
Gays and lesbians could probably live with Trump, other issues aside.
posted by Houndentenor on
Those GOP primary debates are an embarrassment. Do people realize that the rest of the world pays attention not just to our elections but to our primaries? So humiliating. But yes, Trump or Kasich would probably not be too horrible on gay issues. Cruz would be a disaster. If I were still a Republican I certainly wouldn’t admit that in public right now. That plus all the governors trashing their states with debt and other disasters. I wonder how long it is until I can’t drink the water in my town either (as they frack about 2 miles from me).
posted by Jorge on
I preferred it when HRC just endorsed congressional candidates, prior to the group first presidential endorsement, that being Bill Clinton in 1992.
Oh, wow. At least I was alive back then. Give me Trump vs. Cruz, please!
I can think of only one almost good reason for the HRC to endorse Hillary Clinton at this time: they’re afraid of Bernie Sanders winning the primary. But I don’t understand endorsements well enough to understand why an organization is willing to gamble.
Again, all this wagon-circling to protect the Clinton campaign makes her look weak rather than inevitable. I think it’s poor strategy and I think it’s hurting her.
Especially a gamble like that. I understand why a politician might be willing to make that kind of gamble, but an advocacy organization is much closer to the front line of socio-political consequences, both for the organization and its favored group. It kinda gives the impression that the Clinton campaign is threatening the HRC directly (the Clintons have a ridiculous reputation for that sort of thing).
We need to win, at all cost. Think of the catastrophe it would be with Cruz or Trump in the White House, not just for our community, but for the economy, foreign policy, you name it.
Ugh! Speak for yourself. This country managed to survive seven years of Obama so far. I can’t imagine a Republican could possibly make things any worse. Neither do I think the cries of wolf would portend any more peril, or substance, for G, L, B, or T people than they do for illegal immigrants, would-be Syrian refugees, and their many lookalikes. Yes, would-be Syrian refugees.
…Plus, the Clintons are policy geniuses, as shown by Hillary’s…
Incredible performance as Secretary of State. You know, Bernie, PRESIDENT Obama really thought much of Hillary’s judgment. I do, too. Maybe she can serve in the Trump/Cruz administration, too.
Well, a month after Graham dropped out I’m still calling myself undecided–that includes for the general election, too–because now almost everyone’s good enough for me on the only policy issue I’m voting on, and for pushing against political correctness, I’m not sure there’s a functional difference between Trump winning the election and Trump peaking at 40%(!) of the Republican primary vote. So I’ll just sit this one out for now!
posted by Mike in Houston on
In primaries, campaigns do everything they can to stack the deck for their candidate… and garnering endorsements early is part of the political process… especially when part of the primary process now involves so many “super delegates” that aren’t garnered via primary elections or caucuses.
Hillary’s campaign has been quite effective in seeking out and getting endorsements across the board… whereas the Sanders camp has not been focused on that more traditional form of politicking. That the Sanders campaign got outflanked by Clinton’s is not a surprise — nor is a the lashing out by Sanders’ surrogates about “establishment organizations” when their campaign is (like Trump’s) based primarily on anger.