April 7, 2008

I take back everything I said about Barack Obama…

…not being a homophobe. He is a homophobe.

How many times have you heard one of the anti-gay brigades (oh, I don’t know — just pick your favorite gay-hater, like Pat Robertson, or some idiot from the American Family Association) protest, “I am not homophobic!” quickly followed by the explanation that a “phobia” means you’re really a-skeered of something? “I’m not homophobic,” they say, “because I am not afraid of homosexuals.”

You know, and I know, that that’s just so much horse puckey, as the definition of “homophobia” has evolved to mean an aversion to — and usually outright hostility toward — homsexuality, and gay people.

But the tighty righties do have a point. If we’re going to do a Greg Brady and live by exact words (or definitions), then technically the gay-haters of the world are not homophobic — they don’t (usually) run screaming in fear at the sight of k.d. lang.

So, until now, I’ve been, yes, defending Barack Obama as not-a-homophobe. In truth, he fits the non-literal, right-winger definition of a homophobe — one who is averse to gay and lesbian people, but not necessarily scared of us.

Well, I take it back. Obama is scared of us. I’m certain of it.

What happened to make me so certain occurred a few days ago, but I’m glad I waited to blog about it, because some other interesting stuff has come to light since.

I’m talking about the April 4-16, 2008, issue of the Philadelphia Gay News. Here’s the front page:

The headline says: “Clinton talks; Obama balks.”

The little box in the middle of the big white space says (misspelling of “Barack” deliberate or not): “It’s been 1,522 days since Sen. Barak Obama has spoken with local gay press. See EDITORIAL, Page 11.”

And on page 11, we find:

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 it. While Sen. Hillary Clinton has been accessible to the local LGBT press with numerous “no rules” interviews, Obama simply has not. The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews, which appeared in chicago’s Windy City Times, 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. The question is now this: Is he trying to play it safe or has he become a managed candidate?

But there’s more to this story.

The LGBT press, which has been fighting for respect since its inception, expected this to be the year that candidates would respond to us as they do to the Hispanic, black and other community press… The local gay press is to our community what churches are to the black community — our lifeline for information. The local gay press now has a national weekly audience of some 2.2. million readers, not including our Web sites. Collectively, we reach more LGBT people than any other source. While Obama has issued numerous statements, he has only granted one interview in this campaign. This begs the question, is he uncomfortable with the LGBT community? …

So whom has he spoken with in that time? Christianity Today, local Philadelphia sports radio station, Grist and Paris Match. Guess he’s going for the French vote.

After giving PGN the runaround, PGN complained to Obama’s communications director that the campaign’s “actions, not just to PGN, but to the entire LGBT press, have been disrespectful,” noting that Republicans Bob Casey and Arlen Specter (no friends to the gay community, they) and even “nightstick-carrying” former Mayor Frank Rizzo have granted interviews to PGN.

“The last candidate running for office that refused an interview with PGN,” the paper reminds us, “was Sen. Rick Santorum.”

PGN then speaks directly to Obama, whomping him over the head with this hard little truth: “We were treated with more respect by Republican John McCain’s campaign than yours.”

The lone interview Obama has given during this campaign was to The Advocate, in which he made a pitifully lame attempt to defuse the outrage over the Donnie McClurkin insult (and during which he stepped even deeper into his own doo-doo by suggesting that queers and Democrats — as if the two groups were mutually exclusive — are “hermetically sealed from the faith community”).

And that interview was six months ago.

(And, for the record, the pandering, meaningless campaign ads he took out in gay print publications just prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries do not count as “interviews.” Neither does his appearance at the LOGO debate; for one thing, his absence would have been more than conspicuous, and for another, the questions lobbed at him weren’t even softballs, but wiffle balls.)

So what, you say? So, Obama hasn’t given an interview to the gay media (even the outlets that support him) since.

And it’s not like he hasn’t been asked. Repeatedly.

Which brings us to Gay People’s Chronicle reporter Eric Resnick, whose guest article for The Bilerico Project — written a full month before the PGN story — details his exasperation with the Obama campaign’s genuine homo-phobia:

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. …

Both candidates were approached for interviews through multiple routes, including calls and e-mail directly to their Ohio and national press offices, through the Ohio Democratic Party, and through LGBT individuals working at high levels with the campaigns.

Initially, both campaigns were thrilled to be asked for interviews.

The Obama campaign stopped being “thrilled” after Resnick laid out two simple ground rules: no surrogates, and live interviews only — “no written statements or written questions.” (Resnick reflects: “Having candidates only speak through open letters and privately to small groups offering endorsement does not build confidence.”)

That was Wednesday. On Thursday, the Obama campaign offered an open letter in lieu of an interview. I told them no. I can’t ask a letter questions. Then they suggested written questions, even though I told them earlier that wouldn’t be acceptable. Again, I told them no.

By Friday, about the time it would take for them to figure out the [New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission report] 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.

Resnick (who, it must be noted, is a Kucinich supporter with no dog in this fight) wisely follows his editor’s edict not to “speculate in the article as to why the Obama campaign got cold” — but adds that “reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions.”

Resnick goes on to compare the way Obama “denounced” and “rejected” the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan (albeit under heavy pressure from Tim Russert and finally Hillary Clinton, whose support was not solicited, with the way Obama refused to do the same with Donnie McClurkin, whose support was solicited.

Had Obama used the same rationale to explain Farrakhan, the Jewish community would have been irate.

Resnick wanted to ask Obama to “explain the difference between McClurkin and Farrakhan.” A fair question indeed — but one with which the Obama campaign took umbrage:

The Obama campaign, however, treated the question with indignation, claimed that the reporter mischaracterized events, and erroneously claimed that “Senator Obama spoke out against the hateful views of both Donnie McClurkin and Louis Farrakhan.”

As far as the Obama campaign is concerned, the issue was resolved last January:

It is also apparent that Obama sees his obligation to the LGBT community as fulfilled since his Martin Luther King Day speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church where he called on African-Americans to work against homophobia. …

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

This attitude is mirrored, ad nauseam, by Obama supporters. (If we had a nickel for every Obamabot who rails hysterically against any mention of McClurkin with “Obama spoke out against homophobia! In a black church! What more do you want from him?!” we would have many, many nickels.)

Finally, Resnick’s frustration explodes, and rightfully so:

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!

Take a moment to catch your breath. No matter how many times I read that last sentence, I’m still flabbergasted.

I’m not so sure what I’m flabbergasted by, however — that the media contact for a major presidential campaign would act like such a jerk, or by the now-obvious fact that the bullying so characteristic of Obama supporters is not some strange fluke, some spontaneously-generated anomaly, something isolated or unusual, but comes from the top down.

I’ve long believed that there was no way the Obama campaign could possibly be as nasty as Obama’s supporters — but that there must be something about Obama that evokes such nastiness.

(What kind of nastiness? How about the reason behind the exodus of Hillary supporters from DailyKos? How about the reason for the similar exodus of Hillary supporters from Democratic Underground (which really should be renamed “Obama Underground”)? How about the treatment of Hillary supporters at various state caucuses? How about Randi Rhodes calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “effing whores“? How about the way one relatively levelheaded Obama supporter gets the crap kicked out of her for daring to “beg” her fellow Obamanuts to “stop the hatred”? And they wonder why we call them a cult?)

Back in January, I mused:

It’s no secret that the Obama cult is creeping us out. In meatspace conversations, I’ve opined, many times, that while Obama himself may not be entirely responsible for the drooling infatuation of far too many slack-jawed, glassy-eyed Obamaniacs (who react with sheer hostility when you ask them to cut the “He’s so inpirational!” crap and actually define their idol’s policies), he’s not doing anything to tamp down the frenzy, either.

You have to wonder what “inspires” this kind of cult-like frenzy in the first place. Obviously, there’s something The Man is saying, or doing, that taps into some primeval instinct devoid of rationale. Do they implant chips in Obamaniacs’ brains at every rally? Are they beaming some sort of subliminal signal through the TV during Obama’s speeches that turns viewers’ brains to mush?

Ironically, when I wrote that, the answer was staring me right in the face: I was blogging about the indocrination of Obama supporters by campaign organizers.

I didn’t fully realize then that the hate is coming from the top. (Can you say “monster“? Can you say “Barack & Randi, Cozy As Can Be“?)

The Obama campaign is based in Hillary Hate, and Obama’s supporters are soaking in it.

But I digress. As usual. Back to the rightfully-exasperated Mr. Resnick, and the practical slap in the face he got from Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs:

Would Gibbs treat a New York Times reporter this way? How about a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter?

Look, both senators Obama and Clinton are opportunists. Either would throw us under the bus for their own political advancement. That’s why, both lawyers who know that separate is not equal, continue to claim that civil unions are equal to marriage. …

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.

Here’s another article you’ll want to read on this subject:

Segal: Obama Hasn’t Spoken to Gay Press Since 2004

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Comment on this story