The editor of the Washington Blade weighs in. He makes some fair points. But two questions remain unanswered, and they merit an answer. The first is about Senator Clinton’s speech to HRC. Pace Kevin Naff and John Aravosis, no one has claimed that Clinton was the only candidate invited to address HRC’s board. The real question about the speech is: why was it not announced beforehand? Why was the press not told? Why was it not on the senator’s public schedule?
The content was no secret – a video of the event appeared almost instantly on the web. So why were the press thrown off the scent? You’d think HRC would be thrilled with the attention. You think Focus on the Family would hide the fact that a leading Republican candidate addressed them? Please. The official explanation is that it was a Board Meeting and thus closed to the public. The usual exclusiveness and secrecy. So why release the video? My fear is that either HRC (the group) or HRC (the senator) believes that wide press coverage of Senator Clinton addressing HRC would be damaging to both. So they did it on the downlow. They’re intimidated by the far right. It’s the same defensive crouch we saw when Clinton could not even rebut Peter Pace’s comments on the "immorality" of homosexuality a couple of weeks later. The implicit message is: Clinton will back us but only if we keep it quiet. This is a political version of the closet, and it simply won’t wash. If HRC wants to endorse Clinton, fine. But welcome her and endorse her in the open in the light of day. Have her address the group with the press present. Get clear promises from her. Hold her accountable in office. Instead, we got a classic example of HRC’s dysfunctional secrecy, cravenness and partisanship. And we risk the same mug’s game that we went through with her husband. If Clinton isn’t comfortable standing up in public in front of the press defending gay rights to a gay group, then she has no business addressing it in the first place. Cut out the defensiveness. And cut out the secrecy.
The second question is one posed again by Naff. It’s simple. How many members have paid the recommended minimum membership fee of $35 in the last year? HRC has the answer. They won’t tell us. They feel contempt for the press and for much of the gay movement. In Naff’s words:
HRC should answer the questions raised about its actual membership and resolve this distraction once and for all.
How about it?
The Dish 