The Object of Our Affection

Her husband let us down, she won’t support marriage equality, but still we can’t stop dreaming about Hillary. Sean Kennedy sits down with the front-runner for the White House and finds out what’s keeping the romance alive.

From The Advocate October 9, 2007

"I come from a very middle-class background,” Hillary Clinton is telling me. “I consider myself to be pretty much a typical American, and I think a lot of people my age and older are really having to think hard. Younger people are much further along. You just have to keep pushing that door open.”

She’s talking about the gay rights movement, about the soul-searching it’s causing many Americans -- including herself -- but it’s typical political boilerplate: all form, no content. She’s not really saying anything, just bunting back a question about marriage equality with the least amount of provocation possible. That’s what politicians do, and by all accounts she’s become a great politician.

Yet I find myself believing everything she says, my natural skepticism put on hold. I’m enamored with her. She just has that effect.

Indeed, mere moments before, she was wowing the crowd at the Logo–Human Rights Campaign Democratic presidential forum on LGBT issues in Los Angeles, in spite of her evasions on same-sex marriage. Maybe it was the way she looked, resplendent in a coral jacket and chic black pants. Weeks earlier at the CNN–YouTube debate, John Edwards, clueless as usual, panned a similar, if not identical, outfit—though Barack Obama, befitting his stylish reputation, complimented it—and when moderator Margaret Carlson, the longtime Washington journalist, introduced Clinton to the L.A. studio audience, she good-naturedly exploited the incident for a joke. “I don’t know if Senator Edwards is still here, but from the last debate, let me go on the record,” she said with a smile. “I like the coral jacket.” On cue, the senator -- and her audience -- laughed. Clinton chose the last slot on purpose, and this was why: She was killing without even talking about the issues yet.

Just why are we so in love with Hillary? Her husband signed the vile “don’t ask, don’t tell” law and the nefarious Defense of Marriage Act, she refuses to endorse same-sex marriage even though everyone suspects she privately supports it, and on other issues important to us she can sound a little soulless.

Nevertheless, it’s Clinton whom gay voters are carrying the torch for this campaign season. While Edwards has been accused by a former political strategist of saying he’s uncomfortable around gay people—and often looks that way discussing LGBT issues, in stark contrast to his magnificent wife—and Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Bill Richardson just seem out of touch (and forget Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who didn’t show up at the HRC-Logo forum), she’s the one who captured our hearts long ago, and neither of us will let go. Only Obama has cast a similar spell, but as much as he’s called a “rock star” (so cliché!), it’s Hillary who’s the true megawatt one-named wonder of fame -- and Obama’s record on gay issues pales in comparison to hers.

Sure, to some gays, as to so many Americans, Clinton is just a politically calculating, frigid, liberal monster, a nightmare who won’t go away -- her unfavorability rating, cited with relish by foes, currently stands at 48%, according to a USA Today–Gallup poll. But by the end of her turn in the hot seat that August night in Los Angeles, it surely wasn’t a stretch when moderator Carlson suggested that Hillary is our girl. “I am your girl! Absolutely!” Clinton replied, as a wave of adulation once more ripped through the crowd.

Before I know it she appears in front of me. Fresh from the stage, she walks into the nondescript green room with a big smile and shakes my hand warmly, saying my name. I’ve caught her in a rare down moment -- next door a gaggle of friends and staffers waits, and after this interview she will head directly to the West Hollywood watering hole the Abbey, where a viewing party for the forum, doubling as a Clinton fund-raiser, is to conclude with an appearance by the candidate herself.

A campaign staffer told me she was up all night, having arrived in Los Angeles on an 8 a.m. flight, and she looks it, the lines on her face pronounced like a road map of the enormous life she’s lived. But even though I can tell she’d rather put her feet up and kick back, she is a study in composure, her campaign face on, the gears clicking in her head. She talks buoyantly, often looking into the middle distance, and appears to be in a reflective mood. Yet I know she’s just trying to say the right thing. No mistakes, certainly not with a journalist from the gay press. Stay on message.

Up close and personal, I experience Clinton with a kind of double vision. I have been a fan of hers since the 1992 campaign. I was just a freshman in high school, and her willful iconoclasm exerted a powerful hold on my imagination, my sense of who I could be. I felt a connection with her in the same way I did with Madonna -- as a suburban kid who already felt exceedingly different from my peers, I found their disregard for conventional wisdom thrilling to behold. Since then, Clinton has continued to inspire me with her smorgasbord of public identities: the trailblazer who taught Arkansas a thing or two about modern women and Washington about political wives. The wronged woman who, like some country and western heroine, won’t be kept down, whether by failed health care reform or adultery. A feminist who knows what it’s like to be discriminated against for simply being who you are. Finally, though her campaign is loath to talk about it, Clinton is a woman who enemies have tried more than once to caricature as “lesbian.” So she knows firsthand the stigma associated with homosexuality.

One of my strongest images of Clinton is from years before she rose to national prominence, when she had a brief taste of the limelight following her impassioned commencement address to the graduating class of Wellesley in 1969. She took to task the previous speaker, Massachusetts U.S. senator Edward Brooke, for being a symbol of political inaction. “Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn’t do us anything,” she said pointedly then. But this person talking now -- “I come from a very middle-class background” -- reminds me less of her idealistic younger self than of Diane Keaton’s neurotic intellectual in Manhattan, who during a snobby conversation about fine art says, “I’m just from Philadelphia, you know? I mean, we believe in God.” Woody Allen’s character retorts, “What the hell does that mean?”

In every presidential campaign cycle of recent vintage, the hopes of LGBT people have been raised high, only to be painfully dashed. Like a blushing schoolgirl, we take the varsity jock’s flirtations at face value, deluding ourselves into believing he’s going to ask us to the prom, when in reality he’s just using us to get to our sexy friend who will actually put out. The Democratic presidential candidates whisper sweet nothings into our ear and gladly take our money, but they never say what we truly want to hear: “We think you should be able to get married.” It’s an understandable impulse -- our hunger to be recognized is so great that only the president (or a credible wannabe) can sate it -- but isn’t it asking too much? According to polls, some 60% of Americans are against same-sex marriage, which means it’s too risky for a presidential candidate to go p there. Still, with our affection unrequited, we want him or her to go there anyway.

And Clinton won’t. That she has by far the longest and best record on LGBT issues -- she’s an original cosponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the hate-crimes bill currently pending in Congress; she helped devise strategy to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate; she’s pushed for expanded funding for HIV and AIDS services; and as her queer supporters love to point out, she was the first first lady to march in a gay pride parade -- is a moot point. She doesn’t support same-sex marriage, arguably the only litmus test that counts anymore for a politician who really wants our vote. Her Achilles’ heel is so exposed that even my contact at the campaign, the press officer for specialty media, Jin Chon, pulled me aside before the interview and tried to persuade me not to ask Clinton about marriage equality. In a conference call that morning with two of her policy advisers, I had apparently asked “a lot” of questions about the subject. “She’s not going to change her mind about it,” Chon told me.

Her verbal maneuvering on the issue frequently seems like an elaborate in-joke between Clinton and gays, as if she knows we know she supports marriage equality personally but that we understand she has to pretend to be against it publicly for the sake of winning elections. (Isn’t the general electorate so funny!) During the forum she resorted to two explanations for not supporting federal marriage rights for gays: that the states should “maintain their jurisdiction over marriage,” for which she was roundly criticized, and that her opposition was simply a “personal position.”

She seconds the latter answer when I ask her about it -- “It’s probably rooted in my background, like we all are results of our experience,” she says -- but despite what seems to be sincerity, it’s still hard to take. We’re supposed to be convinced that this brilliant Yale-educated lawyer and lifelong feminist, who hobnobs in Martha’s Vineyard and Malibu with her well-heeled friends from the business and entertainment worlds -- who famously declared that women’s rights were human rights at the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing while China was on lockdown -- is having trouble with the concept of same-sex marriage?

Could she perhaps be a closet supporter of marriage equality? Her “evolution” on the issue has been much ballyhooed since she said at a private meeting of New York City and State gay elected officials last year that she wouldn’t be opposed if a pending marriage bill in the state became law. It was an opinion, people have noted, she wouldn’t have dared voice in her inaugural run for office seven years earlier. But there also wasn’t a bill then, and poll results have changed for the better. Then this summer Clinton came out against the part of DOMA that prevents the federal government from recognizing states’ decisions on same-sex unions, saying it should be repealed. And why would she tell me that marriage equality is something “I’m going to keep thinking about, obviously” if not to leave room to eventually embrace it?

But when I suggest that her “personal position” is actually not her position at all, she quickly interrupts me, sitting up in her chair with a start. “I don’t think that would be fair,” she says. “Because, you know, I would tell you that. This is an issue -- I’m much older than you are -- and this is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically. But it is also one that has enormous room and support both in my heart and in my work to try to move the agenda of equality and civil unions forward.”

It’s anyone’s guess how Clinton really feels -- maybe she is legitimately wrestling with same-sex marriage, who knows? -- but her supporters are more than willing to play her game. Later that night at the Abbey, after Clinton has come and gone, delivering her stump speech to a thunderous ovation, I talk to two clean-cut professional guys in their 30s. Police officers are still patrolling the closed-off street outside, and as the sign-holding demonstrators -- antiabortion activists, “Impeach Bush” types, Hillary fans -- start to pack up, the men cite the usual reason for supporting her: her experience. But they also tell me they’re disappointed by her position on marriage equality.

“She has the ability to lead on this issue, but for whatever reason, she’s not,” says one. Then he whips out his digital camera and excitedly shows me the photos he’s just taken of her. “We were right by the velvet rope!” his friend squeals, referring to the club world staple that held back the senator from rabid admirers like them.

Story continues on next page...

Page: 1 | 2 | 3

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Be the first to comment on this story.

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.