The LOGO Debate and Hillary's Cautiousness

So I guess Bill Richardson really messed up at last night's Human Rights Campaign/LOGO debate on LGBT issues. He said homosexuality was a choice and really didn't do a good job of damage control. But I want to highlight Hillary Clinton's answer on the subject of gay rights, because I think it's not only damaging, but illustrative of how she'd run her Presidency (at peril to the progressive movement):

I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.

"If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well."

Clinton still has this defensive position which tells gays and lesbians to wait their turn until the country catches up, instead of forcing the kind of change needed for the country to catch up. If we waited for civil rights there would still be whites-only drinking fountains in Alabama. It's absurd to continue to look at today instead of planning the future. Hillary Clinton is simply not a leader. She's a finger-in-the-wind establishment politician who will be very competent, but will only push change as far as she believes the most cautious and conservative Democrat is willing to go.

That's not what we need. Because you can bet that the Republicans will push and push and push without giving a damn about public opinion. They'll loudly suggest that the public is with them. And unless we on the other side offer a competing narrative, nothing meaningful will get done.

I agree that Republicans are a trashed brand and that the country is moving further and further away from them. But this is only an opportunity, not a fait accompli, for Democrats. And Democrats that don't stand up and offer principled resistance to the status quo will eventually lead us right back where we were in 2002.

Things are looking extremely bleak for the GOP pirates, and it's fun watching the rats jump off the ship. Now all we have to do is stand for what we believe in and do the difficult work of holding ourselves accountable, standing in the way of Mr. 23% for the remainder of his term, and passing legislation that will benefit the American People for a change, rather than GOP monied interests.

The more I read from Hillary Clinton, the more I see her as the poster child for the 90s-era cautious competence that will simply keep us running on a treadmill rather than changing the paradigm.

(I'm particularly shocked that my state Senator Sheila Kuehl, one of the more prominent gay politicians in America, has endorsed Hillary and given creedence to this "art of the possible" mentality that will put us in stasis for eight years. Yes, politics is the art of the possible, but somehow this worldview suggests that you give up your side of the argument before the battle is even joined. This is why we get crap like the FISA bill passed. The negotiating skills of the establishment Democrats are terrible.)

UPDATE: This quote from Markos is what I'm driving at, although I'm not sure he totally believes it:

"We're proud Democrats, confident and secure in the belief that we're on the right side of history and Americans will side with us if we can only get our message out. The DLC thinks this is a conservative country and we can only win if we blur distinctions with the GOP."

Welcome to Hillaryland.

UPDATE II: I'm completely aware, and ashamed, that the position of all the major Democratic candidates on the issue of gay marriage is anti-gay marriage but pro-civil unions, and that their position is for nakedly political reasons. But I see this pattern for Clinton across a number of political issues, while other top candidates have shown a willingness to buck conventional wisdom in far more direct ways.