Obama Expected to Pick Hagel for Defense Next Week

[oberliner]

8. The anti-gay stuff doesn't bother you?

Hagel offered a pathetically weak apology two weeks ago for having opposed the nomination of openly gay James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg when President Clinton nominated him in 1998. At the time he'd called Hormel "openly aggressively gay" and therefore unfit to represent the country abroad, because being gay is "an inhibiting factor." But all Hagel will say about it now, releasing a statement only after the Human Rights Campaign expressed concern over a possible nomination, is that those remarks were "insensitive."

Insensitive? Come on, Senator. Surely you can do better than that. And if you can't, you don't deserve the job.

Hagel scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign's Senate scorecard between 2001 and 2006 (which is not that long ago), voting against pro-gay initiatives and for anti-gay ones, and was on record as opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the military (calling it a "social experiment&quot , let alone representing this country as ambassadors. And yet in his recent apology for the Hormel remarks, he seems surprised that LGBT Americans would question his "commitment to their civil rights," says he supports open service and claims that the remarks about Hormel don't represent "the totality of my record."

Am I missing something here? From what I see, the remarks do pretty much represent the totality of Hagel's voting record -- a big fat zero on equality. The Washington Note's Steve Clemons, a noted and respected foreign policy expert who is openly gay and a friend of mine, lauds Hagel as pro-gay and as perfect for the job of defense secretary, explaining that Hagel, whom he knows personally, has made a dramatic transformation on gay rights that few have known about. Steve chides critics for not reaching out and asking Hagel about his supposed change over the years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/why-chuck-hagels-gay-prob_b_2393894.html