Gay Paper: Obama Refuses To Talk With Gay Media

UPDATE: The publisher behind the anti-Obama editorial donated $1000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Queerty reports:

Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal's no doubt pleased with this week's edition.

His paper made a splash yesterday when it published both an extensive interview with Hillary Clinton and a big, blank middle finger to Barack Obama, who PGN accuses of avoiding the pink press. But an Obama interview isn't the only thing missing from the paper.

Segal - who did the Clinton interviewed and also penned an exhaustive editorial bashing Obama's - failed to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in March of 2007.

* * *

The Philadelphia Gay News is hammering Barack Obama for what they say is his consistent refusal to speak to gay media outlets.

In its latest issue, the paper features a front-page interview with Hillary Clinton and a large blank space under a photo of Barack Obama, with a banner headline reading, "Clinton Talks, Obama Balks."

The paper's accompanying editorial states:

At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we're able to view the candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them...

The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews...was in 2004, before he became a U.S. senator. The other limited interview occurred after controversy erupted when his campaign added an anti-gay minister to his tour of the South. It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community.

You can read the full interview with Clinton here, and CBS News' coverage here. Queerty has more.

UPDATE: Queerty points out that the editor and publisher is a Hillary supporter, having donated $1000 to her campaign.

Comments

[MaineMike]

Obama's new Advocate interview:

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=53285

[Meanwhile]

It's so charming when a so-called journalistic professional throws a big hissy fit because a public figure declines an interview.

[noamjunior]

This article is about as significant as Obama snubbing an interview in the Lancaster Penny-Saver.

Get over yourself-Philly gay news

[poppyseed]

Don't believe the smear told by Mark Segal. Like most of the drivel coming out from Camp Clinton, it simply isn't true. But you can believe what you choose, I just hope your decisions are fact driven, not Clinton propaganda driven.

Here's the truth, check it out for yourself:


Obama had ads in both TX and OH gay papers
www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52408.asp
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003785226

Obama explains to Advocate why he is the best candidate for LGBT Americans
www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

Senator Barack Obama, a 2008 presidential candidate, recently granted an exclusive interview with PULSE, a magazine produced by Gay Men of African Descent (GMAD), a New York-based social service and advocacy agency.
http://adhc.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/obama-in-exclusive-interview-with-black-gay-magazine/

Barack Obama's Campaign Names His Gay/Lesbian Supporters
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/04/barack_obama_ca.html

Obama LGBT
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT Community
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/open_letter_from_barack_obama_to_the_lgb.php

[Aput]

could you repost the advocate link? It's giving me a "page not found" error.

from what I've read so far, it seems that there definitely is some form of a smear campaign being done with or without the Clinton camp.

it seems from the links above, Obama has been advocating LGBT rights to a point.

[Aput]

While I do support Obama's presidential campaign (not that it matters much, being a foreigner and all) it does come as a huge question mark: Why doesn't he address this issue?

I mean, he's countered every other issue he's been put through so far, from his former pastor, the Clinton attack ads, and even his health care initiatives and supposed lack of experience to be the president.

However, looking at it objectively, one can only sum up that he'd rather lose the LGBT vote than the majority who do not support his cause in more conservative areas, who actually would vote for him over McCain.

[RoboA2008]

Hillary talks to the gay community because she is gay. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speak to the black community because they are black and at home in the Black community. But just like she let Bill make a fool out of her with a 24 year old intern, she doesn't have the guts to admit that she is gay. She is also a bald faced liar (misspeak is spelled liar in USA and Bosnia). The latest Hillary whine? The press has a double standard with me. What a victim!!!

[Middbrain]

More this man is unveiling less he looks like the liberal god he is being projected as.

[MaineMike]

Obama supporters have pointed out that information regarding his position on LGBT rights can be obtained from the http://www.barackobama.com under People->LGBT.

Clinton supporters have now pointed out that information regarding her position on LGBT rights can be obtained through this URL: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt but I can not figure out how that information can be obtained from the Clinton home page. For example, a casual visitor to www.hillaryclinton.com might want to review her positions on various issues. How would that person find the LGBT page?

If there is an easy way to get there that I just missed, would someone please reply to this comment with the menu choices to get to Clinton’s LGBT information.

If there is no way to navigate to that page from the home page, that would be disturbing.

[kmdippenger]

So if the issue is the homophobia among the black community, wouldn't it be a good thing to have Barack Obama as president? Seems to me the time is now to address the undertones in our society that are blocking our progress, that's the message I get from Obama. From Hillary, I only get the message that if it works for her, she'll use it.

[NursePatric]

I think anyone interested in civil rights in this country should be talking about a lot more than Black and White. Hillary does - consistently. Obama does not. Before we had a Black candidate and a Woman gay rights were referred to as the new frontier in the movement. Are we now to be relegated again to some invisible place?

[dapperd72]

Any hint of consistency in Clinton's purportedly progressive remarks is questionable, given her snide insults towards Obama & anyone who supports him or questions her authority as a candidate. While I'd prefer to give anyone of any political stripe credit where it's due, I always must take her sincerity with a grain of salt. I've watched all candidates of both major parties with an eagle eye for over a year & Obama has consistently struck me as the most intellectually honest among those remaining, other than Kucinich before he unfortunately dropped out. One needn't constantly repeat oneself on a critical issue such as gay rights to convince listeners of her/his sincerity. The kindest thing I can say about Clinton's remarks on any pertinent issue such as civil rights (ie. sexual orientation) is that she tries too hard to persuade us of her sincerity. If your heart's really in it, then you needn't superimpose your alleged belief in the issue. Suffice to say, Clinton has gone way beyond the pale of insults, snide remarks, contradictions, pandering to the right-wing media & politicians and bold-faced lies ad nauseum to trick me into believing anything she says, no matter how relevant her remarks may be. Obama knows he can talk honestly about gay rights or any other pertinent issue, regardless of whether everyone agrees with him, because he can agree to disagree. This is one of many telltale marks of true leadership.

[Mattie]

can you give us examples of her snide comments. I can give you a disgusting one by the Obama campaign, when they brought up Monica Lewinsky. So examples please.! Why do the politics of hope and change always lie and call names, just wondering!

[mamamay]

Even the folks who are interested in civil rights think with their brains. Why is everything turning to roles of sexual pereference. One does not have to hate because another prefers same sex. Why does that have to become a part of decision making.? Hil is who she is and Obama is who he is. Why all of a sudden now preference is pertaining to the gays, the gay media. I don't get it. Folks should be able to work, play or whatever, regardless of their gay or straight ness. Stop hurting folks because they are not who we want them to be. Stop hurting folks because they make choices that are not what we may or may not have chosen. If the gays prefer Hil, so be it. This may or may not have anything to do with whether she is the best Candidate for Pres. Get over it.

[northeast73]

WHAT A REDICULOUS TITLE!!!

THIS is what we mean by the media "protecting" Obama. The fact that he has BLATANTLY avoided any "gay" media contact should be the story...not that ONE gay editor donated money to her campaign. Does that change the fact that Obamd didnt speak to them? NO>

Obama is very cautious about the gay thing because, among other things, THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS V E R Y ANTI-GAY, lest he lose his 90% voting block.

[SharonB]

"...THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS V E R Y ANTI-GAY..."

Well, thank you for that lovely remark, Mother Teresa!

[daltexdude]

making generalizations about a community is never a good thing -- while there are some blacks who are anti-gay, there are many who are not. i know, -- i am black. by the way, there are many whites who are anti-gay as well........

[MaineMike]

Calling the PGN a "media outlet" is like calling the Pennysaver a "media outlet". They both serve a purpose, but I wouldn't turn to either for real news.

[dapperd72]

Though Obama doesn't support gay marriage per se, it may a semantic issue since I've heard him publicly state he supports "civil unions." He may not be as enlightened on gay marriage as we'd like, but neither is Clinton. In fact, Kucinich is the only candidate who has ever supported gay marriage & all gay rights who I've ever seen. Having been actively involved in a church over 20 years that embraces non-heterosexuals (Jeremiah Wright's venue where he was unjustifiably lambasted by the major media), it's patently absurd to imply that Obama is any kind of homophobe. It's equally ridiculous to accuse Arianna Huffington of bias toward Obama or dismiss this entire site as bought & paid for by Obama's campaign. I've always been impressed by the ideological diversity herein, welcoming views from across the ideological spectrum, not only Clinton supporters. but Republicans as well, such as John Fund. Limbaugh, Hannity & O'Reilly probably stereotype this site as a left-wing haven, but they're as ignorant as a pile of humanure anyway. It's the public's responsibility to enlighten Obama with virulent pressure as to the merits of universal gay rights including marriage so our society will eventually cross that threshhold into more egalitarian respect. Democracy depends on the grassroots to make the difference. After all, if the people lead, the leaders will follow no matter how long it takes.

[pgate127]

And so..........why hasn't Obama sat for an interview with the gay media? Your answer soars with wonderful rhetoric with the need for the public to enlighten the Senator, but gives no thought or opinion as to why he hasn't yet put his thoughts in writing in the gay press.

Fact of the matter is, this is a red-hot issue with the African American community, and Obama knows that, should he publicly, on the written gay-media record (or, OK, YouTube for the generation that doesn't read), state that he is pro-civil union he's going to get some less than happy fallout from his base.

I personally find this offensive and manipulative. But then, it is the "silly season", now isn't it.

Please note: this comment is NOT directed toward either candidate's stance on the issue; it's specifically about their willingness to put their comments on the gay-media record. While Hillary Clinton has been very clear on her stance regarding the gay marriage / civil union issue, she worked tirelessly to make sure that 9/11 survivors received the same benefits as heterosexuals, and has sat for at least two interviews with the gay press (the one mentioned above and one with the Washington Blade in February of 2008); that says a lot, in my book.

[Vern58]

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50101.asp
I think the Advocate counts as Gay Media- slightly more than this Philly local bar rag does.

[Vern58]

Just what constitutes the "Gay Media" anyway? The Advocate or a bar rag?
If i am assuming, you think a bar rag, then, certainly, you are correct. If as i am inclined to think it is the Advocate, then my point is made
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50101.asp

[RedBirdy]

I agree. I think my reason for not supporting Obama, is I know how deep homophobia runs in the black community and especially black churches. And I know if/when he is elected, it will be hard for him to get a second turn if he comes all out for supporting the gay community. The religious blacks, like Donnie, who support him will call in for their favors. I just know this. Growing up in black churches, I have seen this time and time again. So many "former gays" who god has saved. It is sad. I don't know if his stance on gay marriage or unions is stronger than hers. I just know she's been more vocal, and he really can't do too much talking about it without upsetting his base support. Any gay person from NY, knows Hillary's efforts to support the community. The 9/11 issue was huge.

[Johnbon]

Semantics? Sure, what’s the difference between one railroad car and another? Front of the bust back of the bus. Why argue? Don't get uppity or you might not even get a seat on the bus. Watch out for that backlash. It’s just semantics. After all, all water fountains are created equal... right?

People still swallow this rubbish. P. T. Barnum was right, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Perhaps Winston Churchill’s was correct when he said that “The best argument against democracy is a ten minute conversation with the average voter.

What bitter irony in the fact that Barack Obama remains the only presidential candidate who would deny marriage equality purely for reasons of religion. This position has been repeated, open, unapologetic and unequivocal. This issue is a virtual no-brainer and few in the press have had the courage to mention it when the irrefutable facts and legal dynamic are beyond dispute. One can only wonder of the watch dog press has sold out to become the mere lap dogs of Madison Avenue pretenders to journalism.

"If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical reasons [religion] one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama's position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!" See "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73 .

[Vern58]

Are you really serious about using an op ed piece in the BAR as evidence for your assertion that Barack Obama is "against" gay marriage? The truth is his opinion on the subject is based on civil grounds, not religious ones. The rub with Gay Marriage yes, is based in the perception of Christian denominations of what constitutes a "marriage". What Obama does is takes the subject out of the hands of the Church and into the law. Let's face facts. If the main objection to "Gay Marriage" is based in religious belief(and it is) what both Obama and Clinton support is taking the essential civil and legal protections conferred by the term "Marriage" and installing them into a federal Civil Union law. Face another fact. There are more Christians who object to the term "Gay Marriage" than there are Gay Persons (at least those of us who live open lives) This makes common sense to me. We need right now, to look at what we can get(Civil Unions) and stop drooling for what we may never get (Marriage)

[Tumult]

Civil Union and marriage are the same things, people just tend to see marriage in the religious context. Which is why the government should not make a determination one way or the other in that regard.

But in terms of Obama not giving an interview when he campaigned here in Ohio I did not see any interviews he gave exclusively to one paper. Aside from the Chicago newspaper I have not noticed any Newspaper specific interviews he has given, since this is an issue what are the total number of interviews he has given to all newspaper sources, and what are Clintons. It was on Huffington that Clinton gave an interview to her one time political enemy but Obama had not at the point it was reported on. And are we sure this particular paper sought access equally to both candidates? Or is this paper deliberately creating a story about this. For some reason a number of Clinton supporters seem to feel the need to "fabricate" issues slanted in her favor.

[utleftie]

Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing. Civil unions are Jim Crow laws for gay people. If all gay people are given the "opportunity" to enter into a civil union, then laws will be passed that specifically deny certain benefits for people with civil unions. It is ridiculous that a Black person supports these types of "separate but equal" laws for anyone.

[domdella]

allright lets get facts straight here people....unless you know anything about donnie mcclurkin please do not speak with your sound-bited knowledge......donnie mcclurkin is a former gay....he was sexually abused when he was younger and turned gay when he was older...if i remember correctly...speakin mainly because i read his biography...here is a quote i got off of wikipedia from his biography.....

"The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."[7]

He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man" and left his homosexual views....... he sounds more like a conservative than an anti-gay person.....and since he is a christian its safe to put him in that category.....i seriously doubts he hates gay people....seeing how he was one at some point in time....i only ask that people get there facts straight thats all

[Didi47]

This article is about as ridiculous as it gets. Talk about stretching the anti Hillary stuff as far as it goes; well this one takes the cake. The headline and 'story' would give one the impression that the $1000.00 donation and supporting Hillary - is akin to having some kind of unacceptable disease -is somehow dirty, or something to look at with disdain and contempt. I hope the writer understands that HALF the COUNTRY prefers Hillary and to continue this media backed incessant vilification of both Hillary and her supporters - is making a mockery of democracy and of the free election process.
Not to mention - the writers credibility also has to be questioned, when a $1000.00 donation and supporting a candidate - becomes some kind of smear. Like where's the logic here?

Go Hillary 08!

[Vern58]

Good Grief Folks! Get off your cross Mary, somebody else needs the wood.
Obama is as pro civil rights for Gays as Hillary is. There is virtually no difference.
Donny McClurkin was used as a tool in South Carolina to get votes. Can you honestly say HRC has not used scrungy fringe types to get votes? Do you understand the Black Church? It is full of homophobes. America is full of homophobes. This is our challenge.
God knows i do not condone the views of bigots. But i am not blind to the facts. Since South Carolina, which may have well been ages ago, do you see any phobes in the Obama retinue? I do not think so. He got rid of him. Period, and has repudiated his philosophy. The next obvious line of attack for you folks is to drive Wright into this. Do not try it. Wright is a minister in the UCC, the most gay freindly of ALL the mainline churches. So leave that one at the door.
We are now beginning the struggle for equality within the religious arena. Even my own church, the Episcopal Church one of the most left leaning and tolerant denominations is struggling with this. You do not think you can get away with that struggle without confrontation. You all seem to want equality without confrontation. Get used to it. Our job is to get everyone a seat at the table.

[WaynesWhirled]

That's the problem Obama expects the Gay Community to sit down and be quiet even though he's invited a loud mouth group of anti-gay bigots that are constantly screaming that gay people are the root of all evil and that we need to be "cured".

That is not having a seat at the table (as you seem to think). What it is, is Obama telling the Gay community that we have to take a seat at the back of the bus and be quiet. But to the LGBT community Silence=Death (our history has taught us that much).

[WaynesWhirled]

THE MAN IS A WALKING ADVERTISEMENT FOR GAY SELF HATRED! Being Gay is NOT a sin. Gay people do not need to be "cured" and anyone who preaches this "Ex-Gay" garbage is worse than a bigot, they are idiots. Sexual preference cannot be changed, and those who try to warp gay teens into believing they can be made into heterosexuals are demented! Not to mention that those same type of "Ex-Gay" ministries are responsible for totally screwing young kids up. Gay teens shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their sexuality, and definately should not be told that God hates them because of it.

DONNIE McCLURKIN IS A BIGOT AND A SELF HATING HOMOPHOBE - OBAMA WAS WRONG TO HAVE HIM REPRESENT HIS CAMPAIGN. AND OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS ARE FOOLS IF THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST IGNORE BIGOTRY AND RACISM THAT PEOPLE LIKE DONNIE McCLURKIN REPRESENT. IF YOU LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU GET UP WITH FLEAS!

[RedBirdy]

Thank you WaynesWhirled

[RedBirdy]

He turned gay? What kind of crap is that? Donnie is the reason many gays don't want to join churches. He gives the impression that god loves him because "he's saved" from the gayness. Oh please, I read his biography, and I still think he's full of gay self hating bullshit. Maybe you should get your facts straight.

[ESerafina42]

I guess that means I can completely disregard anything negative about Hillary that I read on this site, since it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign and I'm sure that Arianna has donated more than $1,000. In fact, her in-kind contributions in shilling for him day after day must be astronomical.