Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | News | Pennsylvania | Philadelphia

Barack Obama Gets Blank Space Punishment from Philly Gay News

Philly

Fed up with the fact that Obama has not done an interview with local gay press in 1,522 days, the Philadelphia Gay News, which yesterday published a long interview with Hillary Clinton, made their point with a big white space in the paper today.

BarakThey even let a typo in his name go uncorrected.

The paper's publisher Mark Segal spoke to the Philadelphia Inquirer: "We had great success with the Clinton campaign. They were very open to us and inviting from day one. The surprise to us was the Obama campaign. When we realized we weren’t getting very far with them, we decided to enlist other people — who are supporting Senator Obama — to assist us. These people happen to be some of his superdelegates and his strongest political supporter in the state: [U.S. Senator] Robert Casey and congressman Pat Murphy. All of whom advised him this was an interview he should do. We were told there had been scheduling problems. We’ve been told this now for weeks."

UPDATE: Segal neglected to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in 2007.

Segal: Obama Hasn’t Spoken to Gay Press Since 2004 [the daily examiner]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Im a Gay man and Yes Clinton is saying she'll be "good to the gays"...and so wil Obama....I just want a Dem to be elected - so IF Obama has too for-go his "pro-gay" stance for a bit - thats fine with me...I know he'll do the RIGHT thing when it comes to gays....20yrs of the same familys Bush.Clinton..is enough - America needs change....Im voting Obama

    Posted by: Rex | Apr 4, 2008 4:33:24 PM


  2. OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. This is his one and only time in the big game and when he's done (and he will be soon) He can mover over and let a Clinton do what the Clinton's do best... run this country with Good Solid Ideas, Passion and Grace. Hillary '08!!

    Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 4, 2008 4:36:01 PM


  3. But he's a uniter!!!

    Posted by: jmg | Apr 4, 2008 4:36:57 PM


  4. so. childish.

    Posted by: Michelle | Apr 4, 2008 4:41:23 PM


  5. Maybe he realized they were going to give HRC a pass on real issues, and, endorse her, so, why the need for a sit down interview? Or, his staff has been reading gay blogs and see some of the vitriol about him and the sainthood many gays have given HRC and realizes he won't win anybody over with whatever he says, and most certainly not the publisher of this paper, so, more shrill and no facts from HRC supporters who were and will not ever listen to anything Obama has to say, thank goodness the rest of the country see's right through her and her man and her sense of entitlement.

    Anybody but the $55 million dollar rich woman who offers the country nothing but the same old same, Bush/Clinton, ENOUGH ALREADY of these two families!

    Posted by: Sebastian | Apr 4, 2008 4:43:52 PM


  6. This doesn't excuse Obama's evasion necessarily, but it's been reported that PGN publisher Mark Segal has donated to the Clinton campaign. In the interests of full disclosure he should be making this clear to his readers.

    Posted by: aidanc | Apr 4, 2008 4:44:08 PM


  7. "Oh, brother!" to the news outlet that did the white-out and to anyone who reads into his not doing the interview. It's like the editors are behaving the same way as that nutty, aggressive autograph-seeker Obama had to deal with recently. I'd react the same way if it were Hillary—they're not going to do everything. I think some people think Obama is perfect, and that's a mistake, but it's bewildering to me why so many gay people are so blindly loyal to Clinton (as opposed to all of the gay people who support her intelligently) that they seek to destroy the amazing, positive things Obama has brought the party. How jaded to beat down a candidate chiefly because he's outsmarted your personal candidate when both are in your party. I voted for Hillary and would be happy with either. More Dems should be thinking along those lines.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Apr 4, 2008 4:44:10 PM


  8. I hope you Obama supporters are working on a good rationalization for this one for your cocktail parties as you head into the weekend...

    Posted by: kllbb | Apr 4, 2008 4:51:45 PM


  9. Barack knows where most of gay folk stand already--in the Clinton Camp. No matter how many times he's spoken of civil rights for gay people in front of hostile audiences, he gets NO credit.

    There's plenty of time to do interviews with gay newspapers--after the convention. Y'all aint goin' no where, you are?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 4, 2008 4:53:01 PM


  10. This is insane. As anybody in Philly will tell you, the PGN is the gay publishing world's answer to the Springfield Shopper. If anything, I found it somewhat embarrassing for HRC that she'd stoop to wasting time with the hacks behind that rag.

    Posted by: Dan | Apr 4, 2008 4:53:05 PM


  11. Clinton gave an interview to a gay paper. The only time she speaks on gay issues is to a gay audience. Obama has spoken and defended gay rights to the general population as well as reprimand a conservative christian audience for being hypocritical when it comes to gay rights.

    I would rather have an advocate who fights for my rights all the time not just when I am in the room.

    This newspaper did a disservice to their readership because of vanity.

    Posted by: rene | Apr 4, 2008 4:53:52 PM


  12. Too bad "The Washington Blade" and Ohio's "Gay People's Chronicle" didn't have the balls to do the same thing when Obama [unlike HC] refused interviews with them. And maybe LOGO News could have just shown a blank screen for 15 minutes after he [unlike HC] refused to talk to them—after all he's written about being "a blank screen upon which people can project anything they want."

    Eric Resnick, reporter for the Ohio paper, and the one who interviewed Sen. Clinton, wrote about his treatement by the Obama camp:

    “Occasionally, the stories behind what went into reporting the news are as informative as the news. This is one of those times. Additionally, the stakes are high, and the LGBT community needs to have discussions like these before the result, not after.

    Immediately following the February 18 Wisconsin presidential primary, I began, on behalf of the Gay People’s Chronicle, to work on getting interviews with Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. …

    By Friday, about the time it would take for them to figure out the New Jersey report [on civil unions] contradicts their candidate, the Obama campaign stopped returning my calls. When I was lucky enough to reach press staff, they were very quick to tell me they didn’t think they could work an interview into the candidate’s schedule.

    This is a good time to be clear. I am not in either candidate’s camp. I supported and voted for Dennis Kucinich. I was elected the Kucinich convention delegate in the 16th Congressional District of Ohio.

    With Kucinich out of the race, my only dog in the fight is that the LGBT community has the best information with which to make the best choices. As a community, we are not at a point where we can afford fair weather friends. ….

    Obama spokespeople pivot to the MLK Day speech as though it settles every debt to the LGBT community, past and future.

    In my 12 years as a reporter, I have never experienced anything quite like Obama’s national communication director Robert Gibbs, either. I wasn’t biting on the crap he tried to feed me, and he got offended.

    When I stood there not writing any of it down, Gibbs said to me, “Let me tell you how this works. I talk and you write down what I say.”

    “I’ll write down what you say when you answer the question,” I responded, adding that “I’m no campaign’s stenographer.”

    Gibbs actually took the pen and pad out of my hands and wrote his own answer!…

    Both campaigns knew that talking to me wasn’t going to be like the made for Saturday Night Live performance of Melissa Etheridge on the Logo forum. (This is not an insult to Etheridge. I can’t sing. We should all do what we’re good at.)
    Nonetheless, it was Hillary Clinton, with her much longer record of talking to our community, who stepped up to the guillotine, and Obama who refused.

    Regardless of what was said, Clinton gets points in my book for her willingness. It is somewhat troubling that it appears that LGBT people are starting to flock to Obama, despite his lack of vetting.

    This has nothing to do with Obama. It’s good politics. It has everything to do with the LGBT community. It’s stupid citizenship. We deserve better and we need to demand that candidates at least answer our questions.”

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 4, 2008 4:55:44 PM


  13. PGN publisher Mark Segal donated $1,000 to Clinton, as reported here:

    http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=SEGAL

    If Obama's press people knew Segal was a Clinton backer, I'm not surprised the senator declined to be interviewed by PGN.

    And frankly, PGN's childish overreaction to Obama's "no" seems like rank partisanship. Segal sounds like a real jackass. Of course, that's par for the course in gay publishing.

    Posted by: 24play | Apr 4, 2008 4:56:47 PM


  14. Did I miss some memo that states Clinton still has a chance?

    (i also think the newspaper is being completely childish - but childish is what most gay mags are so its par for course)

    Posted by: yoshi | Apr 4, 2008 4:59:00 PM


  15. RE: RENE

    exactly what i was going to say before getting distracted at work!

    Posted by: Lito S. | Apr 4, 2008 5:00:24 PM


  16. Obama was probably to busy getting "spiritual guidance".

    Posted by: z | Apr 4, 2008 5:01:42 PM


  17. I think what irritates me about Obama is his and his supporter's holier-than-thou attitude. And it shows in both not interviewing with PGN, and whatever comments Obama candidates make at this forum.

    Posted by: Landis | Apr 4, 2008 5:03:37 PM


  18. Perhaps Obama was too busy for a podunk gay rag that subsists on ads for escorts and news about circuit parties. The gall!

    Posted by: jeff | Apr 4, 2008 5:06:42 PM


  19. ... and what bothers me about Hillary supporters is their inability to get the minds out of the gutter. C'est la vie.

    Seriously - take one look at PGN's "website" and try telling me this is a credible site. I've seen high school newspaper sites with more significant presence. Add in the typos, poor formatting and clunky writing... How can anybody take this paper seriously? Is Hillary that desperate for media she'll sit down with any schmuck with an iMac and a copier?

    Oy.

    Posted by: Dan | Apr 4, 2008 5:08:05 PM


  20. Hmm....interesting tactic. Blame the gay paper for not being the NY Times!

    Soon we will be hearing from people saying that the PGN is not really a gay paper because it's not printing what gay people are supposed to think (by analogy with people who think that gay republicans are not really gay because they vote republican, or Condoleeza Rice is not really black).

    Posted by: jmg | Apr 4, 2008 5:13:44 PM


  21. Condi's BLACK?!?!

    Posted by: wow | Apr 4, 2008 5:15:43 PM


  22. So, Hillary's backing a full repeal of DOMA?

    *crickets*

    Uh-huh.

    Posted by: AG | Apr 4, 2008 5:19:22 PM


  23. Just think about it for a second. Both Hillary and Obama must get hundred, if not thousands of requests for face time with various media outlets. Any media handler who's doing his/her job will look at the source, look at their credibility, look at the people behind the paper and decide when/where to grant access accordingly.

    My guess is that Obama's folks took one look at the PGN, decided it was a typical fly-by-night paper (primarily used to advertise bars and escorting services, as noted by Jeff) and it simply wasn't worth his time. Hillary's folks saw some free media (and they love free over there) from a committed supporter.

    Would I like Obama to set aside some more time with the gay media? Sure. But not with some POS bar rag. That's just embarrassing.

    Posted by: Dan | Apr 4, 2008 5:19:29 PM


  24. I love how childish crap like this totally overshadows any chance at real political discourse. Who cares about anyone's stance or record when we can have them jump through news media hoops to make us happy?
    Obama hasn't done an interview yet - does this mean a damn thing in regard to his potential presidency? How will his not granting an interview affect the outcome of the war in Iraq? Global warming? The economy?
    This whole interview thing is clearly very important to some people, so someone out there must have some awesome, logical theories establishing a connection to REAL campaign issues.

    Posted by: scientitian | Apr 4, 2008 5:20:56 PM


  25. Why would Obama talk to this paper? It is so beneath him! Hillary will talk to anyone because she's low class like that. If you've ever read this paper, you are not good enough to vote for Obama anyway. Only the right gay people matter. Why are we questioning what Obama does? It scares me when people do that. He's busy and important. He will toss the gays a bone later, when more important people than us aren't looking. Don't worry.

    Posted by: Incredulousity | Apr 4, 2008 5:44:26 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #270« «