Tweet
~~~~~Updates and Corrections after the fold~~~~~
Donna Rose, one of the four transgender women listed as a member of LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee, made a comment in her blog on February 3rd that’s serious in its implications if there’s even a modicum of truth to it:
Almost a year ago I was approached by people from Hillary Clinton’s campaign (who also happen to be involved with HRC, which should not be a surprise to anyone) to join a GLBT steering committee that was being formed. I agreed. Since that time I haven’t gotten one call, not a single personal email, nothing asking for guidance or input. When I see things I don’t like and send an email expressing my concern it never gets returned. Not once. So as far as I’m concerned this GLBT steering committee is there to (a) collect names but provide no steering and (b) raise money.
Given that Sen. Clinton, in her last two public statements, didn’t clearly advocate for inclusion of gender identity in future ENDA legislation, it leaves me wondering about her commitment to transgender issues. That Sen. Clinton’s campaign asked Donna Rose to join it’s LGBT steering committee, but then gives her no opportunity to participate in steering, leaves me with the impression that either Sen. Clinton’s LGBT steering committee doesn’t actually do any steering, or it’s steering has been limited to it’s LGB members.
So, is that true?
I asked Melissa Sklarz, Dr. Dana Beyer, and Barbara Barbra Casbar-Siperstein the three other transgender women listed as members of The LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee, about Donna Rose’s comment. Melissa Sklarz wrote:
I have been to the Clinton Arlington, VA. campaign headquarters and received the tour, along with others from NSD, and met with Ann Lewis , Patti Solis Doyle, and LGBT Coordinator Mark Walsh.Mark and I have had on-line chats and telephone chats and a few face to face meetings in New Hampshire and Washington DC. [
BarbaraBarbra Casbar-Siperstein] and I expressed concern over the ENDA blip on the Website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt) and it was upgraded to include a line about gender variant identity.I have volunteered in NYC and in NH and they knew who I was and were happy to have me involved with the campaign.
Barbara Barbra Casbar-Siperstein wrote:
I confirm everything that Melissa has stated.In addition they actively sought me to be on the ballot as a delegate rather than go for an at large slot.
I think the difference is that Melissa and I are present and past heads of LGBT political organizations and are treated as such by the campaign. Being trans is obviously not an issue, being political leaders is what is important.
Dr. Dana Beyers wrote:
I have been asked for help with language, but that was awhile ago. I have also been in close enough contact with the leaders in the [steering committee], and always speak my mind, but that may have something to do with proximity to power.
And that could be significant. Melissa Sklarz is based out of Sen. Clinton’s home state of New York, Barbara Barbra Casbar-Siperstein is out of neighboring state of New Jersey, and Dr. Dana Beyers is based out of Maryland, not too far from the DC beltway. All three of them are heavily involved within the Democratic Party.
Donna Rose, by comparison, is based in Arizona, and is much less of a Democratic Party operative than the other three transwomen. Her location, as well as lesser involvement in Democratic Party politics, could explain why she is less involved in steering Sen. Clinton’s campaign than the other three.
What location and lighter party participation doesn’t fully explain; however, is why Sen. Clinton’s LGBT steering committee leadership haven’t responded when Donna Rose specifically reached out to them. They knew she lived away from the beltway, and they must have known she was probably more of an issues idealist than a political operative when they asked her to be on their LGBT steering committee — ignoring her when she tried to talk to them just seems odd.
If the primary function of the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee is to advise to the candidate on tough, LGBT issues, then having an activist on the team would seem important. If the LGBT steering committee was formed primarily to harness votes by communicating the campaign message to the LGBT community by committee members, then asking a likely issues idealist onto the team was probably a rather unwise move.
And that’s because idealists, I’ve found, are a noisy bunch. As an idealist myself, I’m often more concerned about issue purity than about winning. That Sen. Clinton hasn’t been making statements that don’t sound very supportive of gender identity inclusion in future ENDA bills just adds to the reasons why an activist more ideals motivated than candidate or party motivated — like I believe Donna Rose is — would have real problems with the way Sen. Clinton is running her campaign. And not to say the other three wouldn’t care about the same issues Donna does, it’s that their approach to working with the campaign would likely be more behind the scenes, more within the campaign’s structure.
It’s worth noting what Donna Rose wrote, as well as what Melissa Sklarz, Dr. Dana Beyer, and Barbara Barbra Casbar-Siperstein wrote in reply. I think I’ve learned something about campaigning in general, and Sen. Clinton’s campaign and the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee in specific while investigating this story. Melissa Sklarz, Dr. Dana Beyer, and Barbara Barbra Casbar-Siperstein didn’t convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton this coming Super Duper Tuesday, as I strongly believe what a potential public servant communicates to the public during a campaign matters a great deal.
~~~~~
Related:
* With Regards To LGBT’s T, Trying To Define “Change” This Election Year~~~~~Updates/Corrections~~~~~
Barbra Casbar-Siperstein sent me an email and corrected me on the spelling of her first name. I usually call her Babs, as many call her, so when I used the “Barbra” spelling to double-check the spelling of her last name on Google, it incorrectly corrected my spelling of her first name too. * sigh * If you can’t trust Google, who can you trust? 
Secondly, she clarified some of the commentary on Sen. Clinton, and added to my complaints about Sen. Obama with some comments of her own:
When I did ask [Sen. Clinton] to clarify her statement re ENDA she did and they put it on the web.Being close politically gives us an opportunity to be heard … and have insiders hear us. It makes those that are visible hard to ignore.
Obama, except for the beltway and California $$ has done little LGBT outreach, in fact in NJ and MD that i’m aware have no LGBT delegates on ballot.
Obamas campaign snubbed National Stonewall last spring in Vegas at our training [with] young Democrats.
I should also point out that right after Donna Rose talked about her problems with Sen. Clinton’s campaign in her blog, she went right into talking about her problems with Sen. Obama. I have to admit, before Sen. Edwards dropped out of the race I was leaning his direction.
Although I like Senators Clinton and Obama far better than any of the Republican candidates, but like Donna, I’m not sure I’m “in love” with either of the two Democrats left in the campaign either.
But, I do love and deeply respect Babs, Melissa, and Dr. Dana. If there were any people who could convince me to vote for Sen. Clinton, they would be the ones to do it.
.
9 Comments
RealityHRC: wants your money. HRC's HRC: wants your vote. HRC and HRC's HRC: have no desire to see trans people become politically or legally equal to gays and lesbians. Kat
tokens, props and bragging rights Looks to me, like both candidates are using the LGBT citizens they can muster as props and tokens, so that when later questioned, they can brag that they FORMED these committees and utilized a member of the community to head it.
They still have their hands out for money, and they usually get it from gay and trans folks.
I’m still shaking my head at HRC and the LCR. Especially the LCR, how many times do they need to be slapped to get it?
I’m disgusted with the sort of straddling that the candidates are doing.
But rest assured my friends, you’ll still be getting the short end as your taxes and money serve people who aren’t even citizens than you can save for yourselves.
The only reason I might still hang in there with BO is that the Supreme Court would get stacked in the WORST way against the gay and trans community if someone like McCain or Huckabee are in office.
And we really can’t be having that. SCOTUS could well be the last hope.
I will vote for Hillary Because I am a Woman too.Over the weekend I read Robin Morgan’s “Good-bye to all that. II.
http://www.womensmediacenter.c…
Robin Morgan closed her piece with: “As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
As a WBT I put being woman identified first. As a woman identified woman I am aware of all the misogyny and woman hatred directed towards Hillary.
As a woman I am aware of the centuries upon centuries of the patriarchal oppression of women. I know what it means to be treated as semi-human at best, deemed too stupid to be anything but a sex toy or servant. Or presumed a potential bearer of children due to my femaleness.
Women in the US have had the vote for less than 100 years. In the 1950s I had teachers who were suffragists.
My mother gave me “The Feminine Mystique” to read when it first came out to show me what my lot would be were I to get a sex change operation and become a woman.
It did not discourage me as I was already headed towards becoming a radical, first SDS and then Women’s Liberation and feminism.
As a feminist I had my consciousness raised and I learned of all the injustices done to all women.
Robin Morgan and other feminists from WITCH, Red Stockings and all the other feminist groups of the second wave contributed to my becoming a woman identified woman and putting women first.
Transsexualism was something I was treated for not who I am. As Helen Reddy sang, “I am woman, hear me roar.”
I echo Robin Morgan’s words.
I am supporting Hillary Clinton with both my money and my vote not because she is a woman but because I am a woman and I believe she offers the best concrete programs and vision.
I am voting for Hillary because not doing so would be a betrayal of my feminism and everything I have stood for since the 1960s
Why Hillary?Mrs. Clinton is to the left of Mr. Obama. Her proposed health care plan is more inclusive than his. She is quite willing to fight the Republicans. If Mr. Obama thinks he will get a pass because he’s a “nice guy” – he is sadly mistaken.
By the way, for some more information on this stuff – go to Paul Krugman’s blog – Conscience of a Liberal.
He does lay stuff out very clearly.
We are just emerging from the administration led by a “cheerleader president”. That does not work. We need a president who has ideas, experience, and is willing to do the work necessary to be familiar with the issues. ”Hiring the best people” is what GWB said he would do – it’s also what many of the old robber barons did — usually those folks have no connection to us poor folks in the “real world”.
I want real plans to address our most pressing problems – not “pep rallies”.
Oh yeah, though I’ve often disagreed with Robin Morgan, this time I agree 100%.
Words vs. Words – Words vs. ActionsWith all due respect [I know many say that but I genuinely mean it], in reviewing some of your recent comments I get the impression you’re trying awfully hard to FIND reasons not to vote for Sen. Clinton more so than to vote for Sen. Obama. You thought her response to Jason Bellini’s question was unsatisfactory because she did not echo the T-word; others listen to her answer and think that “all” means ALL. In fact, I saw a comparison somewhere to Bill Clinton’s famous selective definition of “is.” But I think a much more valid reference is Sen. Obama’s calling for “Full equality” for LGBTs yet deducting “marriage.” Doesn’t that make his belief more like “Fourth-fifths equality”? Decision: Clinton.
Similary, you dissed her for not using the T-word in her SF Chronicle questions response about job and housing protection. Doesn’t “no one should be barred” mean NO ONE?
I do agree with you that campaigns should actually utilize, get input from, the constituency groups they solicit. If the performances of Hilary Rosen [Clinton campaign] and Stamp Corbin [Obama] on Michelangelo Signorile’s show are any indication, both campaigns are sorely lacking in any detailed knowledge of LGBT issues beyond bullet points and propaganda. And Rosen and Corbin are waaay up the in the food chain. I was appalled at how ignorant they were about the issues, irregardless of their candidates’ positions. Returning to my original point, however, you only discussed, then dissed, the Clinton campaign, without comparing it to the Obama campaign.
Finally, while their US Senate LGBT-related actions/non-actions are essentially the same, have you written about the one instance where Obama had an opportunity to prove how serious his commitment is that Clinton has not? Specifically, the LGBT rights bill in the Illinois legislature.
Obama told “The Advocate” in his McClurkingate damage control interview that he, “was a chief cosponsor of and then passed” “the human rights ordinance in Illinois.” The easily demonstrable truth is that after belatedly [in the first instance four months after someone else introduced it] signing on as a cosponsor to three other bills that eventually died in committee, Obama let nine months go by while the bill which eventually passed was being debated without joining as any kind of cosponsor. After failures over three decades, Equality Illinois and black LGBT groups in the state lobbied feverishly for the bill against the opposition of highly-financed right wing religionists, celebrating when it passed by only one vote. He didn’t even vote for it as he had been elected to his US Senate seat by then. His replacement both signed on as a cosponsor and voted for it. Neither Equality Illinois nor “Windy City Times” make any reference to Obama in their detailed accounts of the nearly year-long fight. If he felt so strongly about advancing our rights, couldn’t he have taken a few seconds out of his US Senate campaign to sign his name to whatever document would make him a cosponsor?
Both candidates have paid a great deal of lip service to supporting federal LGBT rights legislation; 100% of which could be sincere. But only Obama had the opportunity to effect that change in a way Sen. Clinton has not and he was missing in action for nearly a year.
Actions speak louder than words.
Don’t assumeDon’t assume that just because a leader is a women that she will be a good leader.
While I strongly support having more women in leadership positions in politics, I am leery about voting for someone mainly because they are a woman. Anyone remember the first woman Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher? At first I thought great, finally we have a woman running things. Turned out she was the worst thing to happen to the UK in more than a generation.
I am not comparing Clinton to Thatcher; I’m just saying we’ve been burned before and that makes me cautious.
Hypothetical question for you, Suzy: If Clinton wasn’t running, but there was a credible female candidate running for the Republicans, would you be inclined to vote for her despite misgivings you might have about her party or policies?
You must be joking.Vote Republican???? You’ve got to be joking… Other than a few mayors like Bloomberg and senators like Spector and what’s his name there isn’t a rtepublican that qualifies as human much less worthy of my vote.
But this is totally irrelevant because Hillary isn’t a Republican.
My experience with the Clinton campaignI’m on the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee, and I also happen to be a Latina trans woman too. So if anyone is keeping score, please make note. I am also deeply involved in the Democratic Party at the local, state, national level, holding significant leadership roles at every level.
I’m in Oregon where we are next to the last on the order in which states have their primaries. So traditionally we don’t get a lot of Presidential Candidate attention as compared with the states who vote earlier.
I can’t comment on Donna’s experience with the Clinton campaign, but I can certainly give a glimpse into what my experience has been.
I’ve received regular emails and communications with the campaign. My concerns expressed via email or by telephone have been answered within the business day. Yesterday, I received an inquiry from the local media for information. I received a call back and answer within the hour.
Why did I decide to join the campaign? In my roles within the party and here in Oregon, it’s not uncommon for candidates to personally call me to ask for my personal support and advice, not just for money.
I have to say it was to the credit of the Clinton campaign that I was sought out. With all of the candidates who were in the race back then, the Clinton Campaign looked past “what” I am and looked at “who” I am. At the end of the day, is that not a sign of character?
In 2004, the trans community was weary of Howard Dean. Everyone was scouring his speeches and press releases to see or hear the word “Transgender” as part of the lexicon of “Gay and Lesbian”. Politics is certainly not the art of the perfect but rather it’s been called the art of the possible. To the credit of the Democratic Party, the Trans community has a viable and credible shot at the possible. A possibility that is certainly not present in the Republican Party.
In 2008 we’re having essentially the same conversation and combing every bit of information concerning candidates’ stand on trans issues. Understandably so, in light of ENDA and all the other brouhahas we’ve endured.
Senator Clinton’s statement on Our Chart, is clear in it’s meaning and intent. Holding a candidate accountable to what they say on the stump ultimately depends on what happens after the election. A process by which we switch from campaigning to lobbying by staying fully engaged in the ongoing process.
With regards to number of trans people on the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee, I have a couple of questions. How many trans folk are holding significant roles in other campaigns?
More importantly, a question we need to ask ourselves, why aren’t there more trans people engaged and participating in the “main stream” political process? In my political experience the only hurdle to personal involvement is most often a mater of walking in the door of a campaign or local Democratic Party office.
We, everyone, in the LGBT community needs to be fully involved and engaged. We can not rely upon the great work of our community advocacy organizations. We need to continue the work to transition our communities into the larger and more diverse universe of politics.
Laura Calvo
Portland Oregon
Hi Laura……I’m paying attention, and “keeping score.” I didn’t recognize your name — my apologies.
Laura, one of the reasons I have problems with the Obama campaign is that even though I’ve seen their statements being clearer, and written earlier, I don’t know any transpeople who have his ear. You make number 4 or 5 tranasperon that has Sen. Clinton’s ear.