Seeking LGBTs to Serve the Next Administration  | Election 2008 | Advocate.com

||  Election 2008  ||
Seeking LGBTs to Serve the Next Administration
The Victory Fund begins vetting those interested in working for the next president with far more applicants than when the process first took place in the '90s.
By Andrew Noyes
An Advocate.com exclusive posted April 19, 2008
Seeking LGBTs to Serve the Next Administration

When President Bill Clinton took his oath of office in January 1993 and again four years later, "there was a line around the block of openly LGBT citizens wanting to serve their government," recalls David Mixner, a veteran political strategist who was part of Clinton's first transition team. Now, after eight years of George W. Bush, activists are aflutter over the possibility of working for a new administration.


The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the nation's largest LGBT political action committee, was a catalyst in the Clinton era crusades for LGBT inclusion and is starting the recruitment process early this time. The group's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute in March unveiled a nonpartisan project to attract LGBT individuals who want to work for the next president -- be it Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain.

Hundreds inquired about the initiative in its first few weeks and more than 100 applications already have been received. The goal, according to Victory Fund President Chuck Wolfe, is to "put out and outstanding people up for consideration" and help those who are interested decide whether a prominent job in public service is right for them.

Presidential appointees are exposed to public and sometimes congressional scrutiny and "an important part of the project is helping people make the decision not to do it," Wolfe says. Still, the more LGBT staffers stock the executive branch, "the more we change the face and voice of American politics," he says.


During the first Clinton administration, the transition team was extra cautious because openly gay and lesbian appointees held so much promise for great societal advances with yet equally as much potential for setbacks if things went awry. Those first historical appointments "had to able to withstand tough vetting and even more tough confirmation fights," Mixner says. Their backgrounds were "checked from birth to death [and] several had to be told outright that they would never survive a Senate confirmation fight," he admits.

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Be the first to comment on this story.

Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.