Sen. Obama's Advocate interview

[construct]

The Advocate has posted a three-page interview with Sen. Obama. I was very pleased with most of his answers. He provides a reasonable response to the claim that he has not spent enough time talking to gay folk. He also covers the Wright and McClurkin incidents. Finally, he recaps his priorities with respect to gay issues and explains his reasoning. Topics include DADT, DOMA, ENDA, and strategic lessons to be learned from the black civil rights movement. His frank talk to those who differ with him is a principle reason I support him, and it is on display in this interview.

http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_id53285.asp

 

[jetsonboy]

Cool. Wonderful interview. He sounds so much more sincere than Hillary or John.

"Sounds". You said it just right.

 

[construct]

He did slam Donnie. Don't you remember essay in the Washington Blade? Denouncing him and keeping him in the rally was a major factor in my deciding to support Sen. Obama.

I was actually a little displeased with how far he distanced himself from Wright. But Wright was retiring, and they're still on good terms; so I can't get too upset about it.

 

[JayHawk]

^ What he said

 

[construct]

Construst..."slamming" someone involves consistency...that's all I'm saying. You can't distance yourself in the heat of the moment and then pass it off as a bigger "inclusion" message later.

Then I guess he didn't "slam" either one of them. I think it's often best to condemn a person's statement rather than rejecting entirely the person's desire to work with us. That's what he did with McClurkin. He wrote an essay denouncing McClurkin's position on the "ex-gay" phenomenon and kept him on the roster to perform at the rally. It was all at the same time.

The McClurkin incident is a part of a much needed conversation about gay issues within the African-American community. Obama has demonstrated leadership in advancing that conversation by bringing up gay stuff at an African-American church on Martin Luther King's Birthday. He obviously sees the parallels between the two struggles, and talks about it with both groups without denying the differences. That's more than I've seen anybody else do effectively.

I fear you may be asking Obama for a cut and dry soundbite rather than persuasive argument in places where the cut and dry soundbite will never be effective. Do you remember the rally in Beaumont where Obama's crowd was with him until he got to the gay part? He rephrased it into a "what would Jesus do" type of affirmation that a lot of unchristian things get said about gay folk, and he had the crowd right back with him. That is the kind of advocacy we need, and that is what Obama provides.

 

[construct]

Mattie, all I can say about Leland is that he appears to be so angry with the more vociferous anti-Clinton folk that he's lost sight of the big picture. I don't think his tirade is helpful to gay folk.

 

[construct]

Absolutely not...I'm just asking for him to be consistent. Distancing yourself from someone but embracing the message they bring to your campaign is not consistent...and in this case correct. The anti-gay, ex-gay "You can find heterosexuality through God" message has no place in the Democratic Party....on either campaign.

I'll stop here with this...I think we've said our thoughts and will have to agree to disagree. Unless you have something you want to add.

The only thing I can add is that you appear to have gotten the distancing and embracing backwards. Obama embraced the people and distanced himself from the message. (I know I used the expression "distanced himself from" someone above, but I wasn't making the distinction between people and statements at that point.)

And as you may have gathered, I'm not bothered in the least by a lot of things that others see as inconsistencies. That may be more a difference between our personalities and approaches. Don't worry. I've always believed there was plenty of room for all us gay folk.

 

[rickm28inil]

Cool. Wonderful interview. He sounds so much more sincere than Hillary or John.

That's because he is.

 

[iman]

The local gay newspapers in Pennsylvania are frustrated that Obama will not do interviews with them. I presume that Obama does not want to offend segments of the Pa voters that would not want to see Obama's picture on the widely didtributed gay papers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9503.html

Mark Segal didn’t want to wait. After weeks of requests to interview Barack Obama, the publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News concluded the senator’s aides may never make him available.

So even as the Obama campaign held out the possibility of an interview before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, Segal published a half-blank front page to represent what he described in an editorial as Obama’s “disrespect of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] local media.”

 

[construct]

The local gay newspapers in Pennsylvania are frustrated that Obama will not do interviews with them. I presume that Obama does not want to offend segments of the Pa voters that would not want to see Obama's picture on the widely didtributed gay papers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9503.html

What do you think of Sen. Obama's explanation in the Advocate article linked in the original post, iman? That's actually the first question in the interview.

 

[construct]

You guys don't think that reply is just a little weak? I mean...the other candidates find time to do national and local press while keeping the same hectic stump schedule he does. Local press is just as important as national press...issues are different in each market. Take poverty for example...the general message of the issues with poverty play well across the board, but poverty is not the same in the New England states vs the south or inner cities. Plus, Sen. Obama does local press all the time...I think he just concentrates on the local press that plays to his base and that's just smart money.

No, I don't see it as a weak answer. It drilled down to the underlying issue (i.e. whether he was ignoring gay folk and their issues), answered that question in the negative, and explained his answer fully.

And if your last sentence is true, then isn't that a good thing?

 

[Lostlover]

You guys don't think that reply is just a little weak? I mean...the other candidates find time to do national and local press while keeping the same hectic stump schedule he does. Local press is just as important as national press...issues are different in each market. Take poverty for example...the general message of the issues with poverty play well across the board, but poverty is not the same in the New England states vs the south or inner cities. Plus, Sen. Obama does local press all the time...I think he just concentrates on the local press that plays to his base and that's just smart money.

What do you want him to say? He was gay in his past life? Or that he's had gay sex before?

He said what I wanted him to say on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" nonsense.

I didn't buy his speaking to the masses, ignoring the specialized papers argument but Obama nonetheless made me proud to support him.

 

[iman]

I don't accept Obama's explanation. I understand that his campaign has a different strategy from the Clinton/Penn approach, but Obama has certainly targeted segments of the voter population when he needed them, African Americans, students and wine & cheese types to name three.

I think he has chosen to not become to identified to controversial groups so as not to alienate critical constituencies like White Males.

Clinton has targeted groups like gays and Hispanics and that has not hurt her (although other things have). For me, the Obama strategy is just too cute, too careful, too commodified. He is "post political" in the sense that he is being marketed like a new detergent.

I think the traditional retail politics which makes connections with individuals and groups gives the population a connection with and an investment in the candidates.

 

[jetsonboy]

That's because he is.

And what makes you feel so sure of that, may I ask?

 

[Lostlover]

I don't accept Obama's explanation. I understand that his campaign has a different strategy from the Clinton/Penn approach, but Obama has certainly targeted segments of the voter population when he needed them, African Americans, students and wine & cheese types to name three.

I think he has chosen to not become to identified to controversial groups so as not to alienate critical constituencies like White Males.

Clinton has targeted groups like gays and Hispanics and that has not hurt her (although other things have). For me, the Obama strategy is just too cute, too careful, too commodified. He is "post political" in the sense that he is being marketed like a new detergent.

I think the traditional retail politics which makes connections with individuals and groups gives the population a connection with and an investment in the candidates.

Did you read the article? Seriously?

He said he is speaking to the wider audience. Meaning more than just one demographic. He doesn't tailor his message to his audience each night like Hillary. For NAFTA and then against NAFTA in Ohio.

And her supporters are OK with it. Not the other MAJORITY of Dems and Republicans and Independents.

And as for Hillary speaking to gays or Latinos... BY NOW if people haven't figured out by now that Hillary will say whatever to get elected, then the people are freakin' fools.

Her words mean shit to reasonable people. She's as transparent as always.