'So let's call out the obvious,' says Schnenk, 'HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is an endorsement of the candidate they think is most likely to win.' (Image: Human Rights Campaign)
Jan 22, 2016
I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm not telling you who I'm voting for. Heck, I'm not even telling you which party I'm registered with (secret sidenote: I'm a hardcore Democrat).
But the Human Rights Campaign is not holding back with their affiliations. They just weighed in and threw their unanimous support behind Hillary Clinton. And that was disingenuous and unnecessary. And when the Human Rights Campaign does disingenuous and unnecessary, holy hell, they go all out.
Stroll on over to their website and Secretary Clinton's face is right there on the homepage. Click on it and you will see a paean to Hillary's views on LGBTQ rights, an ode to her LGBTQ accomplishments and a tribute to her relationship with the LGBTQ community
What you will not see is a mention of Bernie Sanders. You will not see a mention of his exemplary (and steady, non-flip-floppy) record on LGBTQ rights. You will not see one mention of his many efforts in Congress. You will not even see a mention that sounds like, "Also, there is another guy running and he seems pretty o.k. with the gay community too."
This just doesn't make any sense. Why endorse Hillary now? And why do it in such a one-sided fashion?
So let's call out the obvious: HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is an endorsement of the candidate they think is most likely to win. That's Politics 101, right? Given the two candidates, this endorsement can't possibly be wholly about LGBTQ rights, but instead is an off-shoot of politically savvy HRC throwing their support behind the stronger establishment candidate. If you endorse the candidate most likely to win, then you get in good with the candidate who is (wait for it) most likely to win.
So why not say that? Why make it sound like Hillary is the only candidate with a pro-LGBTQ (possibly not as steady, maybe kinda flip-floppy) past? Sure, it's impolitic to say, "This is why we are supporting this candidate and not this one," but it is disingenuous to create a Hillary Clinton PAC page on HRC's website as if she is the only pro-gay candidate running.
The most significant piece of HRC's endorsement was the fear-based admonishment: "Think of all the progress we've made under President Obama's leadership and what could be rolled back." Given this umbrella, HRC's endorsement should have contained the line, "We don't think Bernie Sanders has the support to win." That would have been more genuine than what they gave us.
HRC missed a real opportunity here. They could have celebrated the fact that we have two candidates with incredible pro-LGBTQ words and records to their name. Let the primaries happen. Let us vote. And then put a face up on your website. To ignore one candidate in his entirety at this point in the process? That unnecessary. To imply that this endorsement was based on anything LGBTQ? That was disingenuous.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Huffington Post
Ken Schneck
Ken Schneck, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Director of the Leadership in Higher Education Program at Baldwin Wallace University. He is also the producer and host of This Show is So Gay, a nationally syndicated radio show/podcast focused on people using their voices in a unique way to create dialogue around LGBTQ topics.
I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm not telling you who I'm voting for. Heck, I'm not even telling you which party I'm registered with (secret sidenote: I'm a hardcore Democrat).
But the Human Rights Campaign is not holding back with their affiliations. They just weighed in and threw their unanimous support behind Hillary Clinton. And that was disingenuous and unnecessary. And when the Human Rights Campaign does disingenuous and unnecessary, holy hell, they go all out.
Stroll on over to their website and Secretary Clinton's face is right there on the homepage. Click on it and you will see a paean to Hillary's views on LGBTQ rights, an ode to her LGBTQ accomplishments and a tribute to her relationship with the LGBTQ community
What you will not see is a mention of Bernie Sanders. You will not see a mention of his exemplary (and steady, non-flip-floppy) record on LGBTQ rights. You will not see one mention of his many efforts in Congress. You will not even see a mention that sounds like, "Also, there is another guy running and he seems pretty o.k. with the gay community too."
This just doesn't make any sense. Why endorse Hillary now? And why do it in such a one-sided fashion?
So let's call out the obvious: HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is an endorsement of the candidate they think is most likely to win. That's Politics 101, right? Given the two candidates, this endorsement can't possibly be wholly about LGBTQ rights, but instead is an off-shoot of politically savvy HRC throwing their support behind the stronger establishment candidate. If you endorse the candidate most likely to win, then you get in good with the candidate who is (wait for it) most likely to win.
So why not say that? Why make it sound like Hillary is the only candidate with a pro-LGBTQ (possibly not as steady, maybe kinda flip-floppy) past? Sure, it's impolitic to say, "This is why we are supporting this candidate and not this one," but it is disingenuous to create a Hillary Clinton PAC page on HRC's website as if she is the only pro-gay candidate running.
The most significant piece of HRC's endorsement was the fear-based admonishment: "Think of all the progress we've made under President Obama's leadership and what could be rolled back." Given this umbrella, HRC's endorsement should have contained the line, "We don't think Bernie Sanders has the support to win." That would have been more genuine than what they gave us.
HRC missed a real opportunity here. They could have celebrated the fact that we have two candidates with incredible pro-LGBTQ words and records to their name. Let the primaries happen. Let us vote. And then put a face up on your website. To ignore one candidate in his entirety at this point in the process? That unnecessary. To imply that this endorsement was based on anything LGBTQ? That was disingenuous.
Ken Schneck
Ken Schneck, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Director of the Leadership in Higher Education Program at Baldwin Wallace University. He is also the producer and host of This Show is So Gay, a nationally syndicated radio show/podcast focused on people using their voices in a unique way to create dialogue around LGBTQ topics.
I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm not telling you who I'm voting for. Heck, I'm not even telling you which party I'm registered with (secret sidenote: I'm a hardcore Democrat).
But the Human Rights Campaign is not holding back with their affiliations. They just weighed in and threw their unanimous support behind Hillary Clinton. And that was disingenuous and unnecessary. And when the Human Rights Campaign does disingenuous and unnecessary, holy hell, they go all out.
Stroll on over to their website and Secretary Clinton's face is right there on the homepage. Click on it and you will see a paean to Hillary's views on LGBTQ rights, an ode to her LGBTQ accomplishments and a tribute to her relationship with the LGBTQ community
What you will not see is a mention of Bernie Sanders. You will not see a mention of his exemplary (and steady, non-flip-floppy) record on LGBTQ rights. You will not see one mention of his many efforts in Congress. You will not even see a mention that sounds like, "Also, there is another guy running and he seems pretty o.k. with the gay community too."
This just doesn't make any sense. Why endorse Hillary now? And why do it in such a one-sided fashion?
So let's call out the obvious: HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is an endorsement of the candidate they think is most likely to win. That's Politics 101, right? Given the two candidates, this endorsement can't possibly be wholly about LGBTQ rights, but instead is an off-shoot of politically savvy HRC throwing their support behind the stronger establishment candidate. If you endorse the candidate most likely to win, then you get in good with the candidate who is (wait for it) most likely to win.
So why not say that? Why make it sound like Hillary is the only candidate with a pro-LGBTQ (possibly not as steady, maybe kinda flip-floppy) past? Sure, it's impolitic to say, "This is why we are supporting this candidate and not this one," but it is disingenuous to create a Hillary Clinton PAC page on HRC's website as if she is the only pro-gay candidate running.
The most significant piece of HRC's endorsement was the fear-based admonishment: "Think of all the progress we've made under President Obama's leadership and what could be rolled back." Given this umbrella, HRC's endorsement should have contained the line, "We don't think Bernie Sanders has the support to win." That would have been more genuine than what they gave us.
HRC missed a real opportunity here. They could have celebrated the fact that we have two candidates with incredible pro-LGBTQ words and records to their name. Let the primaries happen. Let us vote. And then put a face up on your website. To ignore one candidate in his entirety at this point in the process? That unnecessary. To imply that this endorsement was based on anything LGBTQ? That was disingenuous.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.