Politics
EXCLUSIVE: Annise Parker, Lori Lightfoot outline path to victory for Harris
Former Houston and Chicago mayors emphasize importance of big cities

Former Houston Mayor Annise Parker and former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot spoke exclusively with the Washington Blade last week in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention.
Among other topics, they discussed their impressions of the convention, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s path to victory in November, the Democratic campaign’s efforts to mobilize voters in key battleground states, the candidates’ proven track records of fighting for LGBTQ rights, and the ways in which their administration would build on this work of expanding freedoms and protections for the community.
This year’s DNC was the last Parker will attend as president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which works to elect LGBTQ candidates to public office, and the LGBTQ Victory Institute, which coordinates placement of LGBTQ federal employees and administers training and networking events.
“It’s not my first convention, but I have to say it is the most exciting and energetic convention,” she said. “There’s an energy around Kamala — the surprise, the sense of change and possibility that I’m not used to, and it feels really great.”
Prior to President Joe Biden’s announcement on July 21 that he would step aside to clear the path for Harris’s nomination, Parker said that “respectfully, some of us were slogging through” because “we knew he was the better candidate than Donald Trump, and we were going to support him because of that reason.”
“Now we’re excited because we have somebody new and different,” she said, “a shift in personality and also a shift in energy, and that works its way through the campaign.”
Lightfoot agreed that “there is a tremendous amount of energy and excitement,” but hedged that “if that doesn’t translate to butts at the polls, it doesn’t matter.”
“So, everywhere I’m going and talking to folks, it’s like, this is great; step one, get the base reunified, because it was very fractured, I think, even a month ago,” she said. “The level of excitement, consolidating the votes for the nomination, positive press, the amount of money that’s being raised — that’s all good stuff, but it’s got to have a significant ground game, because people need to show up.”
Lightfoot noted that folks from Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, a deep blue city in a largely blue state, are traveling to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota because “no one wins in November unless they win the Midwest, so we’re reaching out to our friends, our neighbors, and saying, ‘you got to plug in; you got to pay attention, educate yourself and get to the polls.'”
Parker echoed those remarks. “Our job is to bring in those who are not the regular Democratic rank and file,” she said, “the independents, and even disaffected Republicans, and there are a lot of those out there.”
The former mayors agreed that Trump’s narrow electoral college win in 2016 was made possible in part by the decision of many voters to stay home because they believed Hillary Clinton’s victory was not just likely — but certain.
The 2024 presidential election will be very close. Harris’s emergence as the nominee has put some states in play for the Democrats that were out of reach when Biden was leading the ticket, but even as she pulls ahead, recent polls in key battlegrounds show the candidates are in a near-dead heat.
In this race, Parker is counting on the “push-up” effect. Down-ballot candidates can expect a boost from Harris, she said, but likewise “we’re going to turn people out to vote for their school board candidates,” or in city council and statehouse races “and they’re going to vote at the top of the ticket as well.”
Lightfoot said that part of the task before the Harris-Walz campaign will be to engage a “broad cross section of Americans who, frankly, are still disengaged, disenchanted, angry, frustrated, scared” and otherwise struggling as they recover from the “traumatic shocks” of COVID.
The pandemic worsened preexisting skepticism toward the government, she said, so the candidates must “talk about why they are the solution to a lot of the concerns that the average voter has” particularly by “speaking to those incredibly important swing voters in the seven or eight states that are in play.”
First they must win
As Democrats, Lightfoot said, “we have a great propensity, sometimes,” of “trying to make the perfect be the enemy of the good” but “we need to win first, right?”
“This is one of those Bill Clinton-Al Gore moments back in the ’90s,” she said. “It’s like, I get it, I get it, but let me get there first, let me win, and then we can accomplish great things together.”
Parker and Lightfoot, both out lesbians, agreed that LGBTQ issues are not necessarily what Harris and Walz need to be talking about on the campaign trail with little more than two months until the election.
Rather, the focus must be on “the issues [that are] top of mind for the American voter,” Parker said, because the candidates “need to be talking to that great middle America out there that needs to show up to vote.”
Of course, she and Lightfoot said, it is important for LGBTQ folks, especially those who have a seat at the table, to make sure the community’s policy agenda is understood by the candidates, and likewise for the campaign to remind voters of Harris and Walz’s pro-LGBTQ backgrounds — even if, as Parker said, “that’s not how she’s going to win this election, talking about that.”
With respect to their commitments to advancing LGBTQ rights, the former mayors repeatedly stressed that the vice president and the governor have nothing to prove. “They don’t have to promise anything,” Parker said. “They’ve already done it.”
“We are working with folks who have a proven track record of understanding the importance of our community,” Lightfoot said. “They’ve hired, they’ve appointed, they get it.”
Expanding freedoms and protections for LGBTQ people has been a through line of Harris’s career in public service. For example, well before it would have been politically advantageous, she fought for same-sex marriage when serving as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California, defying legal restrictions to perform some of the country’s first gay and lesbian weddings.
Additionally, the past four years have cemented the Biden-Harris administration’s legacy as the most pro-LGBTQ presidency in American history, in no small part thanks to the work of the vice president.
And for his part, practically from the moment he was chosen as Harris’s running mate, Walz has been attacked by Trump and his conservative allies over his pro-trans record as governor. Before he entered public life, Walz was a high school teacher and football coach who served as faculty adviser to the student-led gay-straight alliance club in the 1990s, an anecdote that was shared by Harris when she appeared with him for the first time on stage at a rally on Aug. 6.
The campaign has also made outreach to and engagement with LGBTQ constituents a major priority. During an Aug. 21 meeting of the LGBTQ Caucus at the DNC, Harris for President National LGBTQ+ Engagement Director Sam Alleman outlined plans for additional activity and investment in Out for Harris, the LGBTQ national organizing push.
Putting aside the looming election, when asked whether there are specific LGBTQ policies she would like to see in a Harris-Walz administration, Parker said those conversations will be possible in earnest only if Democrats are able to win not just the White House but also flip control of the House and hold onto their majority in the Senate.
Then, she said, “we’re going to want to make sure” that LGBTQ appointees are picked to serve in key positions throughout the federal government, noting that historic numbers — 15 percent — were nominated and confirmed under the Biden-Harris administration.
“I expect that to continue,” Parker said.
Congress will play a critically important role in effectuating the Harris-Walz agenda, including on LGBTQ issues, she said, but policy is implemented “in the departments and in the bowels of government” which is why representation in these spaces matters, too.
The Democratic candidates’ support for LGBTQ rights is of a piece with the positive and inclusive spirit of their bid for the White House, which stands in stark contrast with the approach seen from their opponents.
“There is a joy, truly, about Kamala Harris’s campaign,” Parker said, and while it is unclear whether and to what extent the good vibes will be sustained until Election Day, “you get the sense that she’s really, emotionally, she’s all in it.”
Lightfoot agreed. “What happened within the next 24 hours,” after Biden endorsed his vice president to run in his stead, “no one could have predicted it. No one could have scripted it. It was this organic movement and coalescing around her with really genuine enthusiasm.”
The former Chicago mayor also praised Harris’s digital team. “Their social media game is off the charts,” she said. “They are hitting home runs every single day,” maintaining the vice president’s positive message while trolling Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio.
Meanwhile, as he has done in previous campaigns, Trump “hurls insults and slurs,” deploying a strategy of “constant attack — disrespecting, vilifying people on the other side,” Parker said. “It’s negative, negative, negative.”
Harris “doesn’t have to do that,” she said. Moreover, “people don’t want her to do that.”
Lightfoot agreed. “It would be easy” for the vice president “to roll in the mud with with Trump, and my money’s on her, but she hasn’t done that — what she’s done is addressed the criticism to some extent, but then immediately pivoted to a more positive, forward thinking message.”
The approach is “clearly throwing off the Trump world,” Lightfoot said. “I love it. I think it’s exactly what people want to hear. They don’t want to see, you know, WWE in their presidential candidates.”
Voters “want somebody who is strong, who is ready and up for the task,” but — at least just as importantly — they want a leader sho is “always making sure that they are tuning in with those people who work hard every day,” she said.
Parker said Harris made “a great choice” picking Walz as her running mate, adding,” I’ve met him before, and he’s the real deal.”
Nodding in agreement, Lightfoot said, “I grew up in one of those small towns where football was everything” and “it’s unimaginable, unimaginable, that the football coach” would have publicly embraced the high school’s LGBTQ students as Walz did, including by chairing the GSA club.
Tapping into the power of cities and mayors
Conservatives are fond of characterizing Democrats from progressive coastal cities, especially those from San Francisco, as out of touch elitists whose values do not align with those held by the overwhelming majority of American voters.
Nancy Pelosi, the longtime Democratic leader whose congressional district includes most of the city, balked when Vance sought to smear not only Harris but also Walz, her former House colleague, as a “San Francisco-style liberal,” a label that the former speaker has co-opted for herself and worn as a badge of honor.
Not only was the governor beloved by colleagues when he represented Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District, but he was also widely seen as a moderate, she said. “I can say this with some authority: He’s not on the left,” Pelosi told NBC News. “He was right down the middle, right down the middle in his values and leverage in the debate in the Congress.” (As it happens, Walz had never set foot in San Francisco before last month.)
Parker and Lightfoot agreed the matter strikes at an issue that is deeper than misleading political rhetoric targeting the 2024 Democratic candidates.
“Americans live in the big cities across the country,” the former Houston mayor said. “We are a powerful voting bloc, but we’re also where people’s lives happen. Trump has built this mythology — there’s tires burning in the streets, barricades and riots everywhere, there’s armed camps.”
“He’s been attacking cities,” she said, and we need to reclaim them.
Together, America’s largest metropolises are “like 80 percent of the GDP,” Lightfoot added. “So, why are you attacking the economic engine of our country? Why are you attacking the places where innovation happens? Of all the good things that come in America, a huge percentage of that comes from big cities.”
Not only has Trump characterized D.C. as a crime-ridden hellscape, but he has also pledged to “take over” the district — potentially exercising the authority he would have, if elected, to put the police force under his control and arrogate powers that are exercised by the D.C. Council and the mayor.
“I think Mayor [Muriel] Bowser has done a yeoman job under difficult circumstances where she doesn’t get to make her own calls, because she’s got to worry about folks in the federal government, and particularly in Congress, second guessing everything that the good citizens of D.C. do,” said Lightfoot, who noted that Bowser is a close personal friend.
Cities “are the heartbeat of this country, and I think a leader who says, ‘I want to bring everybody together, I want to be the leader of the free world,’ — well, you got to start with being a leader of cities and recognizing our importance on every single issue domestically,” she said.
Parker and Lightfoot agreed that the Harris-Walz campaign would be well served in the election by reclaiming cities.
“All things local,” Lightfoot said. The chief executives of municipalities are some of “the best surrogates to get the message out, particularly mayors of the towns like those that we represented.”
“If the [Harris-Walz] campaign is smart, and it’s getting there, it’s going to galvanize mayors all across the country to be those surrogates,” she said. “Mayors like me who governed under Trump, governed under Biden and Harris, and [can speak to] the sea change and the difference in how cities in particular were helped and recognized and respected in a way that we didn’t see in the previous four years in the previous administration.”
Parker agreed. “Mayors can talk about their cities. Mayors are the public face and the voice of their cities.”
This does not mean one should avoid talking about the challenges facing places like D.C. or Chicago, but there must be an understanding that “cities have to be strong and healthy, or America’s not strong and healthy,” she said.
Next up for Victory
Parker announced her planned departure from Victory at the beginning of February, though she will continue leading the organizations past the election and through the end of 2024 or “until I find my successor.”
She told the Blade that “the goal” is to choose a new president and CEO in September.
“I’m sure that they’re going to find somebody amazing to step in,” Parker said, but in the meantime, “I’m going to leave it in good shape, I can tell you that.”
Over Parker’s six-year tenure, annual budgets were doubled, contributions to candidates served by the Victory Fund were increased fourfold, and the Victory Institute’s David Mixner Political Appointments Program was relaunched to advocate for LGBTQ representation in government.
Strikingly, during this time the number of LGBTQ officials served by Victory swelled from 450 to more than 1,300. “I would love to take credit for that, but some of it is truly the Trump effect,” she said. “The more we are attacked as a community, the more people want to stand up and say, ‘no, I’m not going to put up with this.'”
“The work of Victory has continued for more than 30 years,” Parker said. “The work is still there, it’s still important, representation still matters.”
“We need to elect tens of thousands more [LGBTQ] people to achieve parity,” she said, because even though the number of out elected officials has more than doubled in six years, 1,300 is only 0.25 percent of the “hundreds of thousands of open positions.”
Lightfoot added, “her leadership has been phenomenal. Phenomenal. I mean, really, the organization is stronger now than when she found it. It’s going to be stronger when she leaves it. The amount of things that we’ve been able to accomplish — the programmatic gains, the financial gains, these would not have happened without Mayor Parker.”
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Congress
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week

Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.
The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.
The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.
Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”
He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.
Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.
Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.
In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”
While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:
“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.
“Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”
The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:
“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.
“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Activists protest outside Hungarian Embassy in DC
-
Virginia4 days ago
Spanberger touts equality, reproductive rights in Arlington
-
Books4 days ago
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
-
Theater4 days ago
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics