Come next month, we may not be talking about gas prices or health care or the economy, or Barack Obama being anointed the Democratic nominee. We may be talking about whether the Democratic party discriminates against gays. Not only would that be off-message for the Democratic convention, it would be about as badly off-message as a Democrat could get two months before the election.
Let me step back a second. You may remember that last year I posted about the Democratic National Committee firing their gay liaison, Donald Hitchcock. (Here's DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias' response to the allegations.) This happened at the same time that Hitchcock's boyfriend/partner, longtime Democratic politico Paul Yandura, was publicly raising a lot of concerns about how the DNC does or does not address gay issues. Well, after Donald got fired, things went from bad to worse, and Donald and Paul sued the DNC for defamation and discrimination. Today we find out that the DNC's attempt to throw the lawsuit out (called "summary judgment" in legal circles) failed. That means the judge believes Paul and Donald have a legitimate case, and the suit is not just frivolous. I know Paul and Donald, and Andy Tobias, and I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of this case because it's not really relevant to my larger point, which I get to below (well, I also have no idea what really happened). Read on.
A judge in the case of a gay man suing the Democratic National Committee rejected on Wednesday the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, pushing the case closer to a possible trial.
Donald Hitchcock, the DNC’s former head of gay outreach, accuses the party of anti-gay discrimination and retaliation. His partner, longtime party activist Paul Yandura, had criticized the DNC in an open letter to the gay community prior to Hitchcock’s dismissal.
The DNC has denied the claims and sought summary judgment in the case after months of often contentious deposition testimony. The parties in the suit are scheduled for mediation on July 31.
In her ruling this week, Judge Jeanette Clark rejected summary judgment, citing possible defamatory remarks made by DNC Chair Howard Dean and party treasurer Andy Tobias and the possibility that they “aided and abetted the DNC by participating in a scheme to discriminate and retaliate that resulted in plaintiff’s termination of his position at the DNC."
Why does this matter for Barack Obama? Because once you become the Democratic nominee, you become the putative head of the DNC. This is no longer just the DNC's problem, it's Obama's problem.
That leads me to a more general point I've been thinking about over the past week. As Obama moves to the middle there's been a lot of talk in the press about how this is a necessary and expected move for any presidential candidate. And they're right. The primaries are about winning your own party, the general election is about winning the middle. But, that doesn't entirely tell the story. Even after you've sewn up the nomination, there are good reasons to maintain good relations with your own party base.
For example, in the Democratic party, MoveOn is a huge fundraising machine with the ability to get media at the drop of a hat. It's probably better to have MoveOn on your side than to tick them off, and have them raise less money for you and do things that get you unwanted attention in the press.
Or take the blogs. Sure, the liberal blogs and their readers will vote for Obama no matter what he does (within reason). But blogs are about more than votes (and raising money). Blogs excel at monitoring the media and keeping it fair and honest. Blogs are our party's first real echo chamber. In addition to fighting back against media bias, blogs can also create themes that the media then turns into stories, and they can defuse right-wing attacks before those attacks become news at all. That's a pretty helpful thing for any politician, as the Republicans have known for over a decade with their own right-wing echo chamber of talk radio and conservative churches. However, when the blogosphere feels taken for granted, when it feels that it's been left behind and its readers disowned (or some would even say "betrayed"), it tends to say so publicly. That's the nature of the blogs - subjective but fair, honest and quite open, and not very big on pulling a punch. A number of blogs have been criticizing Obama of late over the specifics of his move to the middle, and their criticism has actually been feeding into right-wing talking points about Obama's perceived weaknesses. Why is this a problem? Because the left-wing echo chamber may be cementing right-wing smears about Obama in the public mind and the mind of the media. It's the noise machine in reverse, and it's a dangerous thing for any candidate.
There's a reason key constituencies in the party are key constituencies. Typically it's because they have power. Whether that power is based in money or activist followers or influence with public opinion, it's the kind of thing that can go awfully wrong if it's not continually cultivated. Now, how does this all relate to Donald and Paul and the DNC? Well, the gay community is a part of the Democratic Party, and one could even argue that we're part of the "base" of the party. It would be easy to argue that 75% of gay people will vote for Obama like they always do for Democratic presidential candidates, and they probably will. But come next month, when Barack Obama wants the entire country talking about why he's the best man for the job of commander in chief, he doesn't want to be talking about why his DNC fired a gay guy, and have that open up a larger discussion of DNC relations with blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and every other core civil rights constituency. And if Obama is forced to talk about it, he really really really wants the gay community, and all those other communities, on his side, so the story doesn't spin out of control and ruin the most important messaging moment of his campaign. Obama has the gay community, like he has any core Democratic constituency, until he doesn't have them. The gay community, like most core constituencies, won't walk come the election. But that's not what a politician should be concerned about. The gay community, like any "base" constituency, are a rather uncontrollable beast that can get you really off message if you've failed to maintain good relations and suddenly something goes wrong.
That's was a bit long winded, but my overall point is that you don't need key constituencies when things are going well. You need them when things are going like crap. And as Michael Dukakis learned in 1988, you can go from well to crap in a matter of weeks. Move to the middle, to be sure. Just don't forget who brung you to the dance.
