Get Used to It: Ep. 133, "2008 Presidential Race"

(funky guitar music) - Hi. Welcome to Get Used To It. This is a national show that deals with things that pertain to, be of interest to LGBT people and their allies and beyond. Today, our show, oh, I didn't introduce myself. I'm Sheila Kuehl. And I'm your, hm, hostess, I guess for this show. For 15 years, I've been trying to find a better word for it, but I hope we'll be more serious than I'm being right now about this show. Our topic today is the national elections. And people have said, "Why are we starting talking about the national election so early?" And there are various theories. Some people say, "We're so anxious to get rid of the current president that we have to start talking right now." Others have said, "You know, there's a lot of campaigning that has to go on and we really wanna know these candidates." So the question for us today is really what do these candidates have to do with us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and allied community, if anything? How are they doing? Who are they and kind of, what do we think of them? My guests today are Torie Osborn and Torie who's been on the show before, we're so happy that you're here, is currently Senior Advisor to Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. But as you know, in one of her avatars in the past was the Executive Director of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, a long time activist. And also when she was the Executive Director of the National Task Force, she organized, and participated in, the first visit in the Oval Office with the sitting president of a group of gay and lesbian activists, so welcome Torie. Michael Kearns, who is an activist, an artist, a writer, and a social critic. And one of the funniest men I've ever met as well as being an incisive wit. Welcome, Michael. - Thank you. - And my third guest is John Perez, who is the Director of Political Affairs for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. A member of the Democratic National Committee, also a longtime gay activist in his own way. Welcome John. - Thank you for having me. Michael, I wanna start with you. I was very interested, not too long ago to hear that, I don't know why anyone ever listens to her, but Ann Coulter talk rather disparagingly about John Edwards or at least she was trying to disparage him by trying to use the word faggot and not exactly connected to him, but intimated that it was. And it got me to thinking actually, people want people running for office to be a little cross-gender in a way. They certainly don't want their women candidates to be too girly, too frivolous, too not serious. They want them to be more sort of what they consider masculine traits, intellectual, decisive, et cetera. And I've often thought, you know, women running for office it wouldn't hurt 'em if they were a little dykey, but not too much. Cross that line might be in a little trouble. Same thing with guys. We need them to be sensitive. They're dealing with healthcare, they're dealing with education. They have to be sensitive to all the social issues, but not too much because otherwise we run into Ann Coulter and her ilk. So tell me what you think about this. - Well, first of all, I think it's great that we're discussing this and looking at it through this. By the way, you're not a hostess, you're a dominatrix. (Sheila and Michael laugh) - [Sheila] Oh God. - I think that, and it's all in the language, you know, I mean, it's all in the language we use. That's why I'm being facetious. I also think it's about hair. I mean, John Edwards campaign at the moment, there's a lot of talk about his hair and you know, the famous YouTube thing where he is fixing his hair and, you know, it's sort of the feminization of a man who is obviously not effeminate, and who cares if he is? And you know, it's either here nor there. I agree with you that, I think that we have this need for this androgyny. I mean, it's almost an intuitive, instinctive need that we're drawn to people who have the full spectrum of qualities, leadership, ferocity and on the other hand can be nur... You know, it's mommy and daddy. We want that president to be both on some level, but we're going to use those things that could be construed as homosexual or deviant in some way against that person. I mean, Ann Coulter is the classic example of taking that comment, which, you know, we haven't heard much national conversation about her using that word, although we've certainly heard some national conversation about other things, which we should, but, you know, nobody was up in arms about that. And that was a pretty devastating attack for, you know, to someone who really did not deserve it. I mean, I also think that it's like, what do we identify with about this person? You know, I do identify with John Edwards softness, you know, I think his gentility is something I plug into. With Hillary, it's not dykeness that makes me nervous it's just coldness that makes me a little, you know, that I can't get, I mean, I know she's smart. I know all that, but there's just something and I'm just being honest about it. You know, I just can't, I can't plug in. I mean, Barack seems to have some natural combination of all of the above and of course, you know, he's not the one who's being targeted in the way that Hillary has been targeted for years and years and years and years and years and years and years. And they're not gonna let up on his, you know. I frankly think it's a good idea he spent $400 on his hair. (Sheila laughs) - But you know, it was interesting too, when we were talking about John Edwards. And not so much even in the frivolous vein, but the big story of course, about John Edwards recently has been about Elizabeth's cancer and the way, I mean, endless talk about the way they handled it. And it reminded me that the personal always becomes not just political, but fodder for political talk. I wondered how you thought about that. - Well, I watched that initial newscast. I then watched subsequently the Katie Couric grilling, which was, you know, just like... It was like Saturday Night Live. You know, she shot in this sort of movie goddess lighting yet she's trying to act serious with this glum look on her face and talking about family values, virtually using the word family values. Like how could you possibly, you know, think of running a campaign instead of dealing with your family? I mean, it had all this sort of subterfuge language about, you know, she clearly took some stance or was fed some stance. I mean, I, as a gay man, who's, you know, been dealing with HIV & AIDS personally and amongst my community for all these years, I thought, "Yes, thank God we have someone who is saying, "I will continue to live. I will integrate my family, my mission, my calling, my life, give them equal attention."" You know, isn't this what we want? I mean, I think that Elizabeth Edwards is incredible and you know, I'd vote for her in a minute. - Well, and the family piece of it too, I mean, you've been on this show several times and we talked about your own. - Right. I have a child. - Yes, exactly. - And I think that now we see also, this is true, you know, I'm not the only now gay man, who's HIV positive, who's adopted a child. That's becoming more and more common. So it's not as if you can have illness in one corner and you can't have family in the other corner, you know, it's like all these lines of, the divisiveness is deeper. I mean, whenever that word family comes into the equation, you know, which Couric hammered at, you know, like "How could you?" You know, "So shocking that you could think about being on the campaign trail when your family is at home?" I mean, hello, the best thing that she could do for her family, including her relationship with her children, is if the choice is to be on the campaign trail, then that's the choice she's made and we should respect that and love her for that. - Well, and of course it's been a women's issue too, just generally about whether you can function in the workplace and take care of your children. And over the last 30 years, that's lessened somewhat. As a matter of fact, it's kind of gone the other way, where now you're expected to be the CEO and home every minute, you know, raising your kids or taking care of them and you get criticized sort of both ways. Haven't heard much of this about Hillary, I think because Chelsea is, you know, out of the nest. - [Michael] Right, right. - And so she is allowed, I think, to concentrate on the career and no one would say, "Well, you're ignoring your husband." Because it's kind of like, "Oops. You know, he did it first." So I guess that's okay. But. - There is definitely a double standard. I mean, and I think that it is gender politics in a way. And I think that that's a fascinating thing that we need to really look at. And, you know, in the way of, you know, an over stated subject, but the whole issue of race in America. I mean, I think gender in America is also a critical area to look at. I mean, we still know that there are hate crimes based on kids being called faggots. You know, so this is a, you know, she's perpetuating something that on the playground can lead to a life of depression, mental illness, suicide, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, she's making light of that. And, you know, little girls being gender targeted for wanting to play sports, you know, having nothing to do with homosexuality having to do with essence or who you are. - Well, I heard Ann Coulter referred to as the Paris Hilton of political pundits. But I do think it's an insult to Paris Hilton. No, I really do. Torie, I'm sorry to throw this to you with a joke, because it's really kind of not a joke, but it was. - [Torie] I have no witty repartee on that. - Well, it was so interesting to me when seeing the news reports, when the group went to visit with President Clinton and how I knew that you had organized that. And you've kind of been a part of much of the history where we have openly started dealing with presidential candidates, with presidents. I guess the silly question would be, do you think it's an important thing for our community to do, and how is it different than it used to be? - Thinking about this show, I have this memory and you know, somehow memory does tricks, but of watching Mel Boozer deliver the address at the 1980 or '76 Democratic Convention. Do you know when it was John? You weren't even born brother. (laughing) And this was a gay black man who gave an early address. And it was the first time at a... No, he wasn't in Prime Time. He was nowhere near Prime Time, but he was at the Democratic Convention. And it was a big deal in the gay community at the time. And so we have a long history of hard fought visibility, clout within the Democratic and Republican party. And that's a whole different story. And, you know, vying for a place at the table, but also a place in the agenda, a place in the strategy. I mean, I remember feeling so deflated. I mean, you and I went to see Clinton at the Palace Theater on May 18th in 1992. And I went in a Jerry Brown voter, and I walked out a Bill Clinton supporter. And he had come from nowhere. And even though we were friends with David Mixner and David Mixner had been champion him and so forth. When he stood up there and he said, "If I had a magic wand, I would throw this all away." I'm gonna, you know, mangle this. "But I would throw this whole thing away. If I could cure AIDS." I wanna tell you electricity in that room, how long had this community been waiting for, you know, a kind of an authority figure, political or any, a leader to stand up there and just look right at us, right into our souls and say the one thing that we needed to hear? And when he said that, that electricity went out. And all the reporters, I remember talking to reporters that day, and they said, "Whoa." This was the speech that broke him out, that the political reporters, because of the passion, the connection, and it was sort of like Bill Clinton was a different candidate after that. I remember feeling deflated later when my friends, you know, kind of inside politics inside the White House said, "Well, sure, the gay vote was part of the urban strategy. And the urban strategy was how Clinton won." I was like, "Oh, is that what we were?" But still in all the mobilization around Clinton, the way he galvanized, you know, the bar kids were out working for Clinton. I mean, we had never seen anything like it. I mean, the people who play inside the Democratic Party, who'd gotten Mel Boozer that, you know, prime that slot in 1980. I mean, there's always been a segment of our community. The Jean O'Learys, may she rest in peace and all the people that have played inside both parties actually. And then there's the rest of us who haven't been the ones that have done that or run for office, but we have been moved or not to be a part of the discussion. And it has been until this election, I would go so far as to say, and maybe I'm exaggerating, but I would go so far as to say it has been this election, the measure to which we have been galvanized, the breadth to which this community has been, you know, brought in and organized and responded in an organic fashion has been related to how the candidate was in our issues. This is the first election when I don't think that's true. And the first reason that it isn't true is because they're all the same on our issues. - On the virtual side. - On the Democratic side. Yeah. I'm just talking about the Democrats now. - Sure. - They basically all believe don't ask, don't tell, you know, the policy in the military ought to be changed. They believe in the End of the Non-Discrimination Act, they believe in hate crimes. And they all believe in civil unions. - [Sheila] And doing away with DOMA? - No, no, no, no. Edwards is the only one who has said something about maybe who has made some statements. And John will know more about Edwards specifically. He's the only one who's even toyed with that. So they're basically all the same. Basically, what people are responding to are two things that we had a little gathering with Mayor Villaraigosa and his kind of informal advisory group. And it was very interesting. He was probing us. He was saying, "Where are you guys at?" You know, "How many of you are for Hillary?" Two people. "How many of you are for Obama?" One person. "How many of you for Edwards?" Nobody raised their hands. And then he said, and then when the discussion, what came out was that the consensus was, we want whoever can win. And the war. And to a lesser extent sort of poverty and economic issues and environment. In fact, Al Gore, he said, "What about Al Gore?" Most people raised their hands. So basically the issues were not gay issues. And that's partly cause of how far the movement has moved the debate so that these candidates have to be good on our issues. But it's also because these other issues, the war, you know, climate change and for some of us issues of poverty and economic justice are so overriding. I mean, this divided society that we live in and sort of what Jim Webb said on that speech that night, it's kind of where I'm at. So I think it's really interesting and we have to win. And in moreover there were like several people who said, you know, we meaning the Democrats, this was mostly a Democratic crowd. You know, "We need 16 years in the White House." So we need to be so smart as to put in a team where the vice president could ascend to the presidency in eight years." And it's like, "Who is that?" - When he said that Clinton really energized us and not just us, not just people who kind of watch the politics or listen to it or, you know, whatever, but you said the bar kids. Now, I wonder whether that would be the case or will be the case. I wonder where our, you know, so-called bar kids where our youth, for instance, where people who are really still very focused on issues about discrimination in the gay community, what will bring them out? - Well, my guess on this is that the kids that I've been talking to, and, you know, there's a lot of energy around Obama among young people. He has huge, passionate response among young people. I would go so far as to guess that, you know, queer youth are not that different from the rest of youth who are feeling just drawn in the way that I was to Bobby Kennedy. Well, actually I went door to door for Eugene McCarthy in '68, but my heart was with Bobby Kennedy. And, you know, I think it's similar. - Well, I think, you know what you say it's very interesting. You think it doesn't vary from candidate to candidate or it might vary from candidate to candidate, but not on gay issues? - Well, no. Yeah. What I'm saying is I think the zeitgeist, I think the moment that we're in is so critical after six years, well, after 30 years of control by the right wing of America and the fiscal policies that have resulted in a greater divide since 1929, I mean, we're in the second Gilded Age, it's outrageous what's going on. It's outrageous that 40% of Americans, you know, live and work in poverty or poverty. And the top 1/10 of 1% are gazillionaires with the kind of wealth that we can't even imagine. I mean, it's just unimag... It's outrageous we've spent $2 trillion on the war in Iraq and we've got 88,000 homeless people on the streets of LA county. I mean, you know, we could go on and on, it's outrageous. And I think there's a level and we see the last six years of particular, there's so many outrageous, you know, an abortion decision happens in the Supreme Court and then there's Gonzales on the stand. It's like every single day, the outrageous are so great. You're like, so you go, you know, it's like the scream. You're like, you're frozen. And in place, you don't know where to start. So there's so much at stake, whether it's globalization, whether it's domestic, whether it's climate change, pick your issue. There's so many big things that what I feel like is people are feeling desperate to win. And you know, it's why so many are going, "Al Gore." Like I tell you, Al Gore and Barack Obama would win in a landslide. I would put my life on that. And, you know, I don't know that we're gonna get a chance to see that ticket, but I think that people are looking to win. And I think there's a lot of questions about that around Hillary. I just think there's a lot of questions about, can she win? Not because she's a woman, although the hatred, what a polarizing figure she is, I think is part of it. - I always felt that that was sort of, kind of enhanced by sort of the urban myth kind of thing. Where when you say, "Can she win?" It adds to people thinking, "Can she win?" - [Torie] Oh, I forgot. You've endorsed her. - Yes, I've endorsed her. Absolutely. And I do think she can win. I mean, this is not a debate about who the best candidate is necessarily because I totally agree with you. I think we're all focused for once on everybody's gonna be behind who can win. And we've now seen what happens with the Supreme Court. But the labor movement is, are they coalescing? Are they looking? I mean, you're also on the DNC. - Right. I think the labor movement is still in flux in terms of where we're gonna be. And there's a very high standard for the labor movement to come up with an endorsement. So I think that that's not the best bellwether to figure out where candidates are. I do wanna disagree with the previous statement about the candidates, all being in the same place, 'cause I really don't think they are. I think sometimes in primaries, especially when we're this far away from election day, it's easy to look at the simple statements and say that the candidates are coming from the same place. And really there are shades and people's approach to issues does make a difference in terms of their overall impact should they get elected. I'm thinking back to the February meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington DC, every candidate came in, every candidate spoke and there was a palpable energy when Barack Obama came into the room. I mean, it was palpable and not just from the DNC members, but also from the young folks and others in the audience. And there was an electricity in the room for his speech that didn't exist for anybody else's. The next most electric candidate in the room was John Edwards. And John Edwards was probably the most substantive candidate, not on LGBT issues, but on these questions of poverty, this question of the great divide in America and the question of access to healthcare. So I saw something in that candidacy that I really think is energetic and will build momentum that I don't see in some of the other campaigns. But the third one who we haven't talked about that I really think stood out that day was Bill Richardson because here you've got a guy who's the governor of a comparatively small state who got up and gave a very self effacing, very funny speech that disarm people who thought they were already gonna be with Obama or they were already gonna be with Hillary or they were gonna be with Edwards. And he disarmed them through his humor and through his substantive discussion of issues. But he was the only candidate to specifically talk about issues of discrimination in the LGBT community in his speech. And it was the biggest applause line during his speech. And this isn't a group that's heavily gay. There are 12 openly gay members of the Democratic National Committee. - [Sheila] Out of how many? - Out of 446. But his biggest applause line was when he talked about one of his first acts as governor, was creating the equivalent of ENDA in the state of New Mexico. When he talked about the executive order he issued as the governor of New Mexico to create domestic partnership. So I think that there is a difference in here you've got a second tier candidate who really, I think has been a little more aggressive in talking about his record. And to his benefit, he's been a governor and an executive always has a different ability to talk about issues than does a legislator. There is a difference, I think, between where the candidates come. The other place, and this is where I've been very frustrated was when Peter Pace was talking about, don't ask, don't tell and said that he thought that homosexuality was immoral. Reporters went out and talked to the candidates and asked them whether or not they thought homosexuality was immoral. And Barack Obama took about three attempts at the answer before he could ever kind of get out a coherent statement that, "Well, I don't know that it's immoral, but you know." And it was equivocal. And Hillary Clinton to my dismay was incredibly equivocal in that statement. Now nobody went and asked Bill Richardson that day, but a couple of weeks later, he was speaking at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner. And he said something to the effect of "Homosexuality, unlike what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says, isn't immoral, but to ask somebody to hide who they are and to devalue the sacrifice they've made, that's immoral." Now I think that that is a compelling statement that puts him in a different place on these issues. Now, is he gonna be the nominee? I don't think so. But I think his candidacy allows for a different kind of debate and hopefully drives all of the candidates in the right direction. We've made a ton of progress. When you talked about the Clinton speech in '92, there was another piece Clinton looked out in that room at the palladium and says, "I have a vision for the future of America. And you're a part of it." Those are powerful transformative statements. And I think that hopefully with this front loaded discussion, we start driving the candidates in the right direction. Now that said, I don't think we can expect perfection outta candidates. And if we do expect perfection, then I think we're in trouble in terms of motivating people to get out. We've gotta push them as far as we can push them, but we have to be very real in our political interaction. And I think that's been one of the reasons that we've been successful as a community in driving issues as far as we have in a relatively short period of time. But we have to be mindful of that as we move forward through this election. - Do you think it might be easier for a second tier candidate to be sort of more clear on this issue? I mean, I think that unfortunately in my little district, which only has a million people in it, I can be who I am. I can say what I believe, I can vote the way I think. And they're pretty much with me. When you start running, I noticed this in California, when my friends from the legislature were running statewide, suddenly you're trying to get votes in Orange county, in San Diego, North San Diego, North Santa Barbara, up towards the Oregon border places where they don't necessarily totally agree with all the people who've been voting for you all along. And I think, I wonder if there's a difference. I'm not saying they need to, that equivocation is a good thing, but I'm trying to think, is it easier for him to say what he says because he's not a first tier candidate? - I think on the surface it would seem to be easier, but then you have to look at the real reality of the person. He's a governor of a red state. He's a governor of a state that's voted for George Bush for president. He's the governor of a state that doesn't have a... - [Torie] Only 6,000 votes though. - No, no, but that's his constituency. At the end of the day, he has to go back and represent that place. He has to go back and stand for election there. So is it easier? Yes. You're probably under less scrutiny from the national press. But when you look at the New Mexico press, I mean, you're held to account in your home state. And I think it's a tribute to leadership and you've seen it in the legislature when somebody, and I'll pick John Longville out who represented. - This was an assembly member from San Bernardino Inland Empire. For those of you not in California, this is like a red county area. - So when you've got somebody who represents that kind of a district who consistently stands up and says the right things, when nobody else will say them in his district, that's a tribute to leadership. And I always look at people like Longville as great leaders because they lived in dis... They represented districts that they were far ahead of their constituency, but leadership is also standing up and doing the right thing when your constituency disagrees with you and you get reelected, not because of that agreement or disagreement, but because of your ability to represent them on the other things that matter. So I think, you know, there is a little bit of it's easier when you're a second tier candidate to say certain things, but there's also a degree of difficulty when you represent a state like that. When you come out of a state like North Carolina. And so I wouldn't discount the great statements of folks in this race who come from those places. - John, you talked about ENDA, and I'm not sure everybody really knows in the audience what that is. That's the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Can you say a little bit about it and where it is and what the candidates might do about it? - You know, the reality is that in the majority of states in this country, somebody can still be fired simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Thankfully in a state like California, we have protections against that kind of discrimination, but across the country, too many people are subject to that fear of losing their jobs and their livelihoods and really setting their whole lives on their head, just for being who they are. And so there have been efforts for years to sign national legislation, to pass national legislation, which would protect folks from discrimination and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and in the last iteration gender identity. And so it's moving through the Congress and we expect that it'll pass the house representatives by a decent margin will be a little tougher vote in the Senate. And unfortunately right now, it doesn't look very good that this president would sign it into law. All of the major Democratic candidates have stated their support for it. And that really is a major issue that impacts a huge segment of our community across the country. - Well, you know, there's another one. And when I said to you Torie, what about DOMA? Which is the Defense Of Marriage Act, which was enacted, which allows the states to adopt never can they get married in our state kind of laws? You said, "Well, no, not DOMA." So the candidates running on both sides of the ticket, not so good on gay marriage? - I don't wanna- - None of them supports gay marriage and none of them has called for a repeal of DOMA to my knowledge. - None of them have publicly called for a repeal of DOMA, but there's a couple of pieces to this. One is federal recognition. And then the other is something Torie and I have talked about. There's a specific section of DOMA, section three, which basically says "State A, you don't have to recognize the marriage or the civil union in state B." And where there has been some very positive private conversations with some of the candidates is saying, "Well, we may not be able to repeal DOMA, but at least we could do something to move the ball forward in that if somebody was married or enjoyed a civil union or even domestic partnership coverage in one state that other states would be required to recognize those protections." It's not marriage, but it is a significant step in the right direction. Hopefully before we get to election day, a couple of these folks will come out and publicly say it. - My concern with the marriage thing and Mr. Pace's comment about immoral. And Clinton and Obama's inability to face that head on is that there is this strain of perception that we have not shed since Stonewall, since how many dead, et cetera, that there is something intrinsically immoral and wrong about us. That's the marriage issue. What is the marriage issue? They can have civil unions, but they can't do what we can do. So what is that chasm? It's morality. And sometimes it's blatant morality in terms of the religious right, et cetera. It's makes me so angry and sad to think that we go back to this morality card. All the work we have all collectively and people watching this show have done for this movement to let them know who we are, that we're fathers and brothers and sisters and activists, and feed the poor. And you know, all these things we do. And yet we are tinged with that age old perception that happened before the American Psychiatric Association deemed that we were not ill, that we still have that influencing Hillary Clinton's answer. It's a fact influencing their inability to say that we deserve nothing more. And what they're saying is we deserve nothing more than civil unions that you can't interpret it in any other way. - Even if civil unions is exactly like marriage in terms of a legal benefit. - Right. - Right. Because it's the word. - Well, that I think is like, well, I don't know. I disagree with you on the marriage thing. I agree with you on the morality thing. Because if you look at the polls it hasn't changed much. If you ask Americans "Is homosexuality immoral?" We haven't won. We don't even have a majority. I don't know where it stands now. The last time I saw the data was a little while ago, but it's like the needle has moved a little bit, but on everything else, it's moved huge. If you ask specifically on the issue discrimination, civil unions, it's moved 20, 25 points in a generation in a right wing era for God's sake. It's actually moved a lot. I think there's something when it's the civil unions versus marriage thing, because if you ask people, "Do they deserve hospital visitation?" You know, all the individual rights. We've won. We have a 75, 80% of Americans. They just don't, you know, it's just, there's some. And I think it's this heterosexism. I think it's like. - I think sex is the word. - Well, sex might. - I think sex has to do with morality. - But you know, in this day and age where. - Right, well, that's why the morality hasn't. - Where Ann Coulter can say the F word about John Edwards. - And not lose her job. Like I miss. - Exactly precise. - But candidates still can't say the M word. They can't say marriage. That is too charged a term. And I think that you're right, it is a generational shift. And this is also where there's difficulty. Because when you look at younger voters, younger voters are far in a very different place when it comes to the question of marriage. Here's where we have the problem of potentially frustrating young LGBT voters who are less willing to accept a candidate saying, "Well, I'm not with you on marriage, but I'll give you civil unions that have all the same rights and protections." Because at the end of the day, they don't get, you know, "Why can't I have the same rights as everybody else?" And when you ask it that way, I don't know that anybody gives a good answer. Why can't I have the same rights as anybody else? - Well, I think the difference in the issues to me and because I'm a legislator and a lawyer is I think the difference is what I would call the majesty of the law. What happened when I saw Amazing Grace, you know, that movie about the parliamentarian that finally got a bill through parliament to end- - [Torie] Wilberforce. - Yes. Mr. Wilberforce and slave trade in the British empire. The majesty of the law, all of the advances that we've made because of a movement organizing to get them have really been in the law. And I've often wondered because we had this conversation in the '60s about racism. Do you just put an ENDA in place title seven for discrimination law so that you can't discriminate on the basis of race in employment? You can't discriminate on the basis of sex in employment. It's just in the law. I don't care what your attitude is about them. And then because you're working with us because we're there, the attitudes get dragged along in a way. And it's this attitudinal thing about morality, which may or may not change, but in a way it's like, "I don't care. As long as I can get married. I don't care what you think." You know. - There's a good piece of literature, social movement literature that says, "That on issues that people think of as personal moral issues, whether it be abortion, frankly women's rights and gay rights that the public attitudes have to shift first." This is just what the historians say. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong. And you know, I think you have to do both, but I think that, I mean, call me crazy. You know, I'm the cockeyed optimist. I think this young generation coming up the question is whether they'll be too alienated, that they don't vote in the election year. And I believe that they're going to, as much as young people vote anyway, which isn't a whole lot. But I think that when the next great social movement, which I think is percolating now, and I don't know whether it's gonna lead with climate change or poverty or what, but it's not gonna be about individual human rights. It's gonna be about life versus death and the planets. I mean, I don't know what the discourse is gonna be or what it's gonna just maybe it's just gonna be about justice or, you know, democracy. I don't know what the word will be, but I think what will happen is that then when you create the next era of opening up the political space for people to change, we will move the needle on the morality issue. We have been in a right wing era, Michael Kearns, a right wing era. The fact we've gotten as far as we have is a God damn miracle. - No swearing on the air please. (Torie and Michael laugh) - The legal strategies are as important as the political strategies. When you look at issues with respect to race discrimination in civil rights, the key legal victories, whether you go back 60 years to the Westminster case that really teed up the ability to have brown versus board of education. When you look at marriage and you look at loving versus Virginia, that changed the way we as a nation looked at interracial marriage. The legal strategies and the legal approaches are just as important. And that's why electing executives matters because these are the people that appoint- - [Sheila] The Supreme Court. - And not just the Supreme Court, but federal judges and on down the line. - And not only that, but propose an agenda to the Congress, you know, for better or for worse. - Can I just say also, I mean, we look at this imprint of homophobia that exists among all of us, including probably the four of us on some level. I mean, if that is so impossible for even us to conquer, I mean, the incidents of crystal methamphetamine use, I mean, we could list a plethora of social ramifications that come from a place of self hatred or lack of self honor. And that's what that morality word just makes me just sad. - Well, I remember when Kennedy was running, John Kennedy was running, I was 19 years old. And he was so different from anyone I had ever, ever perceived in politics. And the way he talked about it, there was a moral basis that really appealed to me. It wasn't just that he was young or he had great hair or, you know, I mean, any of those things, it was a kind of a, that's where I was. I mean, at 19 and I have to say at 66, I still care about what's fair. You know to do what's fair. And it really spoke to me. And I guess we're wondering if Obama. - Okay, I'm gonna put something out there that could be totally wacko, it's just spontaneous. I'm thinking about this thing. I mean, we're in a puritan society, I mean, this is about sex. It's about in a puritan culture. It's about sex phobia and homosexuality is like completely linked. But here's the thing, I think this issue of, for me, it's economics. Some people will take it as an environmental. But let's say both environmental and economic insecurity, we live in the most insecure world. And I mean, for privileged people and for wealthy nations, I'm not talking about, you know, multi-generational poverty, a dollar a day in a developing country. I'm talking about for the first time in this country in '60 years, there is huge insecurity in the middle class, in the upper middle class, huge economic social anxiety, economic fear of falling in poverty. And just the lack of employment contract lasting more than a minute and a half. You know, labor unions are fighting for their life in a globalized world. So, okay here's my thought when there's this amount of insecurity, anxiety, how many friends do I have on meds? You know, I mean, I'm not talking about people who are dealing with diseases. I'm talking about a level of psychological, psychic pain, spiritual pain that people are in. Not just any longer, I would argue because of internalized homophobia. I think it is social and huge. This guy that goes bonkers on the Virginia attack. Who's ranting at rich people. You can just call him mentally ill if you want, but there's this kind of madness about injustice in the world. Okay. Here's my thought. My own experience is that people have trouble dealing with have sex panic. I mean, the world that doesn't deal with their own sexuality of sex panic, they're going to get sex panic about sexuality when they're insecure. The moment that we have a movement, a world, a political space opening up that talks about humans right to security, whether it's basic economic needs being met because in the Maslow hierarchy, okay. If we don't have our basic economic and now our middle class being destroyed, then I swear to you and I may be dead, but I swear to you, we will then have the final revolution. - You're absolutely right. I mean, when you look at the history in lots of different communities, around discrimination and advancement, you really can chart it with economic security and economic wellbeing. If you look at Ellis, if you go to the museum at Ellis Island and you look at peaks of immigration rate and peaks of anti-immigration fewer, it really went with economic trends. When you look at the 1990s and the great expansion of corporate America signing on to employment non-discrimination language for their own corporate culture, it was at a time of economic vibrance for those corporations where they said, "You know what? I can't afford to lose these wonderful qualified employees. I've gotta keep them here. I've gotta protect them. And I've gotta give 'em domestic partner coverage." And as we get into more difficult economic times, there is a level of distrust of others. There is a level of insecurity, as you've said, that really does become part of the barrier. So, you know, the economic wellbeing of the country is a gay and lesbian issue. - Totally agree, well said. - But then there's the next step, which is here are these basic issues. Here are three or four or five Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination. Here are two or three or four or five candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. What do they do with what they perceive to be the case? Let's say there is insecurity. When you said mother and father, we'd like presidents to be mother and father. - No. We want father in times of insecurity. That's why fascism grows. That's why Arnold Schwarzenegger. - But the question is- - Arnold Schwarzenegger. - But I want mother and father. - Well, you do, but most people want dad in times of economic insecurity. - But that's what I'm saying How do they exploit that for their own campaign? And I think I see, we haven't talked at all about the Republican. - That's why Antonio Villaraigosa is actually an interesting candidate because he's actually a male female, you know, he's actually very mixed. He's got a little queer - [Michael] A lot going on. - He's got a lot going on, and he can seduce any audience, male, female, but he's very masculine. He's very interesting. He's the one of the few Democratic sort of up and coming you know, next he'll be ready for president of what, 15 years or whatever, but. - Let's run for governor first. - Whatever. But it's very interesting because in this time of it, it's why Arnold Schwarzenegger. I mean, everybody was so like surprised why Arnold Schwarzenegger won 80% of the gay vote for God's sake. 60% of the women's vote. This guy who had harassed or was allegedly harassed. I don't know whether it was proven. I mean, the guy couldn't, he's a cartoon character. - He's one of her constituents. So you've gotta be a little nice. - What odds occasionally? - Because people are desperate for leadership. They're desperate for leadership. They're particularly desperate for dad to save them, but they're desperate for leadership. Desperate. - But I guess I'm saying to exploit either. I see it as the hope Clinton was the man from hope remember sort of exploit your hope. - Elections are always about hope and fears. They're always about hopes and fears. - Well, whole campaign has been waged on fear. The whole war has been waged on. - But these are the overarching themes of most presidential campaigns. Hopes and fear. - Well, tell me in these candidates I don't see it working. I think that to a differing degree, they're all talking about hope. When you look at a Barack Obama who really, I don't know that you can peg down his policies, that he wants to advance as president, but he emanates this sense of hope. - [Torie] Even his track record. - Right? And I mean, reading his book, I was more frustrated than before I read it in trying to find out where he stood on issues, but he does telegraph this sense of hope that I think really underlies a lot of people's excitement and hope for him as a candidate. I think Hillary Clinton has a harder time connecting on the hope meter than some of the other candidate. - But that's because you're not a girl, John. - [John] That may very well be the case. - I mean the rooms full of women, listening to her speak and looking at their faces. I have to tell you, there's a different kind of hope. And maybe it doesn't all come from her, but people saying to themselves, "You go, girl." Who's ever come this far? Who's ever stepped out that far? Who's ever looked except for Gina Davis. Like they're gonna be, you know, president of the United States? And the women are wrapped by this. I have to say. There are just many, many, not all, but very taken by the possibility of breaking the biggest glass ceiling. I mean, we went bananas over Nancy Pelosi. - [John] That's right. - You know, and that's only two heartbeats away. It's a different kind of hope. And I think she does give us hope by her own policies, what she says. When she was talking to the firefighters, they jump to their feet and cheered and afterward what they said was, "She gets us." - See, but I think, and I don't wanna discount the level of hope that you're talking about, but I don't think it's one of the thematics of her. I think it really almost goes back to your early statement. She's right now in the primary showing that she could be a steadfast leader, that she could be a tough leader, that she can be, you know, that kind of a staunch leader and lead us through this. So it's a different type of hope. It's not touching on those same themes, that Bill Clinton touched on. And it's appropriate 'cause she's a different candidate. - Her trying to become sort of more of a decisive strong leader, 'cause she has to do that as a woman is to see that she can lead in a time of fear. - Absolutely. - Is to stave off people's fear and to show that she can be a commander in chief. - Right. And I think by and large, I think she is viewed as kind of the strongest of all of the significant candidates. So I think there's a new movement out there leading through and playing up your strengths and she's taking this as a strength. And it really almost does go back to what you were saying. Whereas John Edwards does play up his sensitivity does play up his empathy. And so based on where they're coming from, they have to touch on different themes. Now, when you get to a general election, when Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to be the nominee, I think that then you get back to the joint themes of her strength and hope. - Well, it's funny. Maybe then we are playing a role without even knowing it. I mean, going back to just the. - [Torie] LGBT? - The first thing I was talking about in terms of whether we've had any impact on how people are perceived to be able to be more androgynous. And not necessarily in the way they act, but in the sort of character elements that they put forth - [Michael] And spirit. - Or spirit in the native American sense, I guess. Huh. - That's right. I mean that's when Antonio, John Kennedy, Edwards, Clinton, those, they had that indelible charisma, what is that? - Barack has that. - Barack too. Absolutely. What is that? I mean, that's. - Reagan had that. - And there's a certain androgynousness that goes with that. - Well, you know, and Arnold too, I mean, it's interesting. Arnold is not a girly man. He calls other people girly men as a, you know, he says it was a joke now and we've all forgiven him. But in a way, the way he talks, when you listen to him talk and he puts out these huge ideas, not really one of which he's totally followed through with, but I have to give him credit because wherever he walks, the spotlight follows him. And the way he sort of gets people to hope for things. I think that, you know, he's trying to show that he understands how real people live. But then he turns around and insults. - Well, he was going nowhere until, you know, Susan Kennedy, a good lesbian went to work for him. Good Democratic lesbian went to work for him. - Right. And now he's even counting on Dan's and Golly. - And now he is got Dan's and Golly. - To do his entire healthcare reform. - Hair is the next issue on his agenda, or should be. (Sheila and Torie laugh) - Maybe Edwards could give him a referral. - Note to Schwarzenegger, hair. - With him, it's more of a question hair color. - You're right. It's 'cause it's got awful. Okay. - Okay. That was good. A little catty, but oh, well you know. - A little. - But the state capitals often had people with bad hair color. - That's true. - Ronald Reagan. - All the way through and even people who were in the. - In the White House. - But we won't talk about that. So what about the Republican nominees? We haven't said really a word about them. I don't wanna dismiss them because boy, talk about going back and forth on stuff - [Torie] Because Mitt Romney's gonna be a hell of a candidate. - See, but I think as we could all have a discussion about positive attributes of the Democratic candidates, and if you talk to Democratic voters, they're generally satisfied with the choices before them. And when you talk to Republican voters, they're not as satisfied with the choices before them. And I think that's why a Fred Thompson candidacy becomes an interesting one. Now in terms of thematics, Fred Thompson talking about his lymphoma and the fact that, you know, he's in remission and he's doing well in health and kind of diffusing that issue. And it almost hearkens back to the Elizabeth Edwards discussion. It's personalized him. He's an incredibly personable individual. And I think he's filling a little bit of a void that was left by people's frustrations by the other candidates on the Republican side. And it's because there's a debate about whether any of them is morally upright enough for the religious conservatives and in Mitt Romney's case where they would feel that he is he's the wrong stripe of religiously upright. His biggest problem I think, is with other Christian conservatives discounting his religious views, as opposed to appreciating how steadfast he is in his religious views. - Well, but we've been an issue on that side as well. - Absolutely. - I mean. And it's not just been the gay and lesbian community saying, "Talk about flip flops." You know, we get to talk about flip flops this time in terms of Republican candidates, but the Republican just the rank and file activists are very frustrated because their candidates all seem to be here. And now they're here. Maybe except for John McCain. But I think McCain as well. - Poor McCain tied himself to that war. - And that brings us back to what you were talking about in terms of people Generally around the country, caring more about the war than anything, anything, anything else. - It's so interesting. 'Cause without a mass anti-war movement, the American people have seen the light and acted on it in the November elections last year and people just totally get it without there being a social movement to teach them whether there's a shadow, a karmic shadow from Vietnam or what, but I mean, people totally get it. They get the absurdity of it. It's amazing actually. I'm just an ordinary, but there's more hope in that, in my view. And you know, some people say that if the war's going on, which it looks like it's going to be in November, it doesn't matter who the candidate is. The Democrat is gonna win. - Well, but getting back to them, all being flip floppers, you said maybe except for John Edwards. I mean, except for John McCain. Got it. Friday flip. But McCain was actually the first of the flip floppers. When you look at his 2000 presidential candidacy and his repudiation of Bush and others going to Bob Jones University and bowing down before the Christian conservative base. Now, when he announces the candidate campaign this time, what does he do? He goes to Bob Jones University and bows down before these same kind of philosophies. And he's moved, you know, his straight talk express has taken a few interesting detours. So you've got him flip flopping on Bob Jones University. You've got Giuliani, who's been on every side of gay and lesbian issues. And every side of choice. You've got Mitt Romney who I guess I called him the new Massachusetts waffler. When you compare what he did as a candidate against Ted Kennedy, what he did when he ran for governor, to what he's saying now as a presidential candidate, they're all over the map. And I think that speaks to the vacuum and the space that's created for Fred Thompson to come in from nowhere and already be in double digits behind just a couple of candidates. - Well, maybe the answer is for our community to be thinking, even though we may not be saying "My gay and lesbian issue is the highest thing in my mind on this election." But I think understanding, and I love doing a show like this, 'cause it brings out so many aspects where we are still kind of in the middle of the griddle in terms of what's going on in terms of whether the far right will be energized and whether we need to watch out for that in terms of the Supreme Court, in terms of, you know, what the Democrats are saying and how we bring them along, it could be we're deeply engaged as an issue and should be deeply engaged as a community. - And I do think that that's what we have learned. I mean, I'll be Pollyanna now. I do think that we have learned to contextualize ourselves in a bigger picture so that my concerns about gay and lesbian issues. They're probably at the top of my list, but not far behind is poverty and women's rights and you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that wasn't the case when we were just trying to establish ourselves as gays and lesbians. Now we have broadened our pallet, our concerns and our passion. And so I think that we're in a hopeful place. - So will you guys be working on the presidential candidates? I mean, everybody's candidate. - [Torie] Whoever it is. - Wherever it is? - [Torie] The reason I know was 6,000 votes was a small. - You were in New Mexico? - Yeah, I was in New Mexico and Albuquerque, that's where they sent us last time for Carrie. And you know, some of us were walking for acorn and some of the C3 stuff, and some of us were walking for ACT and some of us were walking for the Democratic Party and we get together at night and you talk about it. So I don't know if I'll be going back to Albuquerque, but you know, I think we all, I think that level, and by the way, you know, there hasn't been enough said about the enormous civic engagement that came up behind the Carrie campaign. ACT some of it nonprofit, not necessarily related to the party, but it is on the shoulders of that the elections in November happened. And that I think we're building a much broader engagement of the, not the 40% of America that don't usually vote. And gays and lesbians, particularly youth are in that. - Well it's interesting to me though, about two years ago, people were complaining that no one was paying any attention to politics. You know, everybody was watching these stupid shows and all the headlines were about stupid things and nobody was engaged in politics. It seems to me to be quite different now. - Well, in 2004, they were, and in 2006 if you look at the kind of populist upsurge. And then I think in 2008, you're gonna see even more of it. But I mean, I think, you know, once you kind of reengage, hopefully it'll continue, but I think it'll be very, very interesting and I'll be in Albuquerque or wherever they want me to be. - Well, I, of course I can never believe the hour goes by so fast, but we're down to like about 30 seconds. So I want to thank you, Torie. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, John. Thank you all for being here and thank you for being here. We've got still some time to go before even the presidential primaries. And so I hope that you'll not only get engaged and not only identify your issues, but get used to it. (funky guitar music)