Hildebrand to Obama: Don't Defend DOMA

When Steve Hildebrand was given just three words to introduce himself at an LGBT event Wednesday at Netroots Nation in Las Vegas, he said simply, "Don't hate Obama." All attendees were allotted the same number of words, but Hildebrand, who served as the deputy campaign manager for Obama in 2008, stood out because he's had somewhat of a love-hate relationship with the administration he helped elect ever since it entered the White House.

In an interview following the event, Hildebrand told The Advocate that he still thinks his former boss's heart is in the right place on LGBT issues but that he is at turns frustrated with the Administration and fundamentally believes the Justice Department should not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, especially after a federal district court judge in Boston found portions of it to be unconstitutional in no uncertain terms.

"I'd like to see the president and Attorney General Holder announce that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act and to agree with the judge's findings in the Massachusetts court case," Hildebrand said.

Why did you choose your three words?

I brought it up because over the course of the past 1.5 years the progressive blogging community -- not completely unfounded -- has been incredibly critical of President Obama and oftentimes using pretty outrageous language almost to the point that it's coming across as very mean-spirited and angry.

My three words were simple -- "Don't hate Obama" -- and if I would have had a chance to elaborate, I would have said, 'This is a guy who isn't going to do things exactly the way you want him to do, but know that his heart is in the right place. He has his priorities, they're in line with our priorities and he's going to do them at his pace.

That at the end of this four-year period, and ideally an additional four years, I don't think the gay community will be disappointed with the progress that we made under this president.

I think it's very important that we keep pressure on the president, the White House, and the Administration, and on elected officials across the spectrum but to understand that President Obama is an incredibly important and good friend to the gay community in this country. He's not our enemy, we shouldn't treat him as if he were; we should keep our on eyes on who our real enemies are.

Many activists argue that given the huge Democratic majorities in Congress and the potential that's slipping away, we should keep a close eye on our friends at the moment. Is it a red herring to keep our eye on our enemies?

I think it's fair to say that we have Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate -- but we do not have pro-equality majorities in the Senate, at least we don't have the 60 votes regularly to get our agenda completed. And in the House we've got a pro-equality majority that's not being utilized.

I believe we can get majority votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate but our priorities are not high enough to warrant votes and we ought to exert immense pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other members of the House and Senate. The protest that GetEqual did yesterday was important. I think it was successful. The pressure was at the right moment and at the right point, but it was also respectful. They simply were saying, "Senator Reid, schedule a vote, let's get Employment Non-Discrimination passed in the Senate."

Those kinds of activities are good and what our community should be doing to exert pressure. I think we should continue to pressure the White House and this president, I just don't believe that some of the rhetoric that has been used and the venom that has been expressed toward this president is warranted.

I too would like to see this White House be more aggressive at getting more pro-equality legislation passed while we have this moment. Every day that we don't get ENDA and "don't ask, don't tell" [repeal] passed is a lost opportunity, and I would like to see its priority raised within the strategy at the White House.

Have you had conversations with your friends at the White House about your concerns?

People shouldn't overstate how much I communicate because I think it's used appropriately. I've made it very clear that I believe the approach the president has taken to secure passage of DADT is the right strategy. I'm at odds with many in the gay community about that, but if we don't have the support of military leadership for repeal of DADT, members of the Senate will use that as an excuse to oppose it and we will never have the votes in the House and the Senate to pass repeal if we don't have the military leadership.

I don't like the game playing that's going on, but I want to see it passed. I don't just want to see a vote scheduled, I want to see it passed.

The president's been very clear that most military leaders don't come to the conclusion [on DADT repeal] very easily. That the military leaders have laid out some criteria for how they believe it can be done right, and we can ignore that at the risk of losing a vote in the House or the Senate, but I don't believe it's worth risking ultimate repeal of this law.

Is there anything you're disappointed with that you've communicated to the Administration?

I'm very perplexed on the Administration's continued defense of DOMA in the courts. The Justice Department is not required to defend laws passed by Congress; [it has] a history of doing it, but it's not a requirement. The ultimate duty is to defend the Constitution of the United States and if Congress passes a law that is discriminatory and doesn't pass muster of constitutionality, the Justice Department in my opinion should not defend those laws. In fact, they should find ways to make sure that those laws are stricken down by the courts.

I'd like to see the president and Attorney General Holder announce that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act and to agree with the judge's findings in the Massachusetts' court case.

The other thing I would say related to DOMA is that holding out hope that Congress will repeal DOMA is a crazy idea. I don't foresee in my lifetime Congress having the guts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We can't even get workplace protections passed. How do we expect them to take on religious institutions in this country who hold marriage [as an institution] only allowed between a man and a woman?

What's your feeling about the larger progressive movement vis-a-vis the Obama administration right now?

I think there's a lot of sentiment in the progressive community that their voices aren't being heard within the Administration, that there's not as strong of a partnership as there could be. A lot of people in the labor movement are very disillusioned. There's a story that just came out that the White House is moving forward with the nomination of a Republican to be the U.S. attorney [in Utah] -- a Republican candidate who actually lost two statewide elections to be attorney general to a Democrat -- and there's real confusion as to why this administration would choose this Republican over a Democratic nominee or, frankly, a Republican nominee who would be acceptable to the people of the state, since this one was rejected twice.

I think the White House could do a better job of explaining these situations when they're making these kinds of decisions.

I mean this is going into an election season where the base needs to be highly excited and committed to this president, and I don't think they're doing as much as they could to excite the base.