If Democrats learned anything from their 2000 and 2004 presidential defeats, it’s that a viable political candidate needs one thing: charisma. Unless your last name is Bush and your campaign is funded by black gold, a candidate must also be intelligent and disciplined, and have a knack for thinking on their feet. A fine group of handlers can assist with the rest, and momentary lapses in intellectual fortitude can be corrected with shrewdly written follow-up statements from a savvy communications director.

But there is no substitute for charisma – something Al Gore and John Kerry lacked to the nth degree. Bill Clinton has it. And, dare we say it, George W. Bush has it too, even though we don’t see it. To recapture the presidency in 2008, Democrats need to be hunting for budding Bill Clintons under every rock and behind every tree. (Our suggestion is Hillary/Obama 2008.)

The same is true in the GLBT political arena, except that instead of looking for up-and-coming Bill Clintons, we need to be looking for up-and-coming openly GLBT candidates. While the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund makes it their mission to groom qualified GLBT candidates for public office, their mission does not always translate into GLBT community support. And garnering our community’s support is the number-one responsibility of organizations whose mission is to stump for GLBT and GLBT-friendly candidates.

Case in point: One of the items on the agenda at the San Diego Democratic Club’s Feb. 23 meeting was to consider endorsing in the 52nd congressional primary in June. The club was presented with three Democratic candidates, all of whom scored 100 percent on the club’s candidate questionnaire. The candidates were Navy veteran and businessperson Derek Casady, community association manager Karen Otter and businessperson, educator and minister John Rinaldi, who is openly gay. Following a 30-minute Q&A with the candidates and considerable debate, the club voted 24-20 not to endorse, choosing instead to rate all three candidates “acceptable” going into the primary.

Members who opposed endorsing one of the three candidates argued that endorsing in the primary would be less effective in defeating longtime incumbent U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., because it’s a better strategy to have three Democrats beating away at Hunter’s reputation during the primary season. Hmm. Not if those three candidates are also beating away at each other, vying for the Democratic vote.

Another member said club resources should be directed toward priority races, such as Congressmember Bob Filner’s run for re-election against his Democratic challenger, Assemblymember Juan Vargas, D-San Diego. Again, we disagree. If it’s money and resources that are the issue here, then club guidelines for what candidates can expect after they receive its endorsement need to change. Early name recognition and backing from trusted organizations can make or break a candidate in the primary.

All other factors being equal, a predominantly GLBT organization should endorse an openly gay candidate over other equally qualified candidates. Period. That isn’t nepotism, that’s political strategy.

And nepotism certainly isn’t the issue in Rinaldi’s case – he really was the most qualified candidate to vie for the San Diego Democratic Club’s 52nd congressional primary endorsement. A businessperson, an educator, a minister and an active member of the San Diego Democratic Club, Rinaldi also has the charisma, the intelligence and the ability to think on his feet. And he was the only candidate of the three who had any endorsements at the time of the meeting – endorsements from state Senator Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and the California Labor Federation, to be precise.

Would SDDC have voted not to endorse in the 52nd congressional primary if, rather than Rinaldi, the third candidate was Toni Atkins? Chris Kehoe? Of course not. Both Atkins and Kehoe would also have scored 100 percent on the club’s questionnaire, and both candidates would have garnered early endorsements – just like Rinaldi has. So why wouldn’t the club endorse the openly gay, equally viable candidate?

We don’t just need a seat at the table, we need as many seats as we can get if we’re ever to convince society that our sexuality is a non-issue.

Democratic clubs need to lead. They need to endorse in every single race, and they need to get behind their candidate early, rather than let a handful of “acceptable” candidates duke it out in the primary, wasting what could be a more centralized pool of resources.

Certainly not all, but the majority of GLBT voters are Democrats, and GLBT-friendly Democratic clubs need to act as a resource for these voters to turn to for guidance on every single race. There is no box to check on the ballot for “no position,” and there is no excuse for wasting a vote – even in the primary.