Gay Press Shouldn't Be Frustrated By Obama's Approach

Item: Gay Press Frustrated By Obama Approach

Thoughts:

1. Reality of politics: campaign communication planners have to budget Obama's time so as to maximize the number of eyeballs who read the words that Obama utters. Campaigns consider the gay press to be "specialty press." There are only so many hours in the day set up for specialty press interviews. There are only so many gay votes that Obama can reasonably expect to obtain on the basis of an interview with a gay newspaper in Philadelphia.

2. Obama has organized his campaign around "affinity groups," not around identity groups. He does not like to participate in identity politics, although he is forced to do so. (As Obama told the Advocate,

", I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family."

Arguably, it is more important for Obama to speak about gay issues to general audiences than it is for him to speak about gay issues before gay audiences.

Postulate: Gay newspapers should give Obama a break.

Comments

The election is about Gays, Guns, and God!

Isn't it?

Posted by D | April 10, 2008 2:19 PM

Does ambinder send invoices to the obama camp?

Yesterday, for at least the second time ambinder was making excuses for obama breaking his word on public funding. Today he is making excuses for obama's lack of access to the "specialty press."

Some might think mcculkin, obama not willing to take a picture with SF Mayor Gavin Newsom and obama's lack of access to the "specialty press" is a pattern. Add in obama being for public funding before he was against it and obama voting present when he was a state senator on core dem issues and some think obama is just another poll doing whatever he has to to get elected. Now thanks to ambinder we know different.

I wonder how much ambinder charges?

Posted by hadenough | April 10, 2008 2:36 PM

hadenough,

And I wonder why you have nothing better to do than going around to accuse all journalists of all kind of bias. This is an ANALYSIS blog, and this is the kind of stuff that makes it INTERESTING. Get over it. Most people here accuse Ambinder of being in the tank for Clinton; reading people like who you then suddenly accuse him of being for Obama only proves that people REALLY HAVE TO CHILL.

Posted by Dan | April 10, 2008 2:42 PM

i agree with the guy above, ambinder has been a bit tilted towards obama. it is sad when you read these political commentators, who are supposed to be neutral, and yet it is so darn easy to see which way they are voting. i know they are people, and they have preferences, but if you could hide it a little better by being just a tad more neutral, marc, i would appreciate it.

Posted by scott | April 10, 2008 2:44 PM

I agree with you on this one, Marc (who knew). As a progressive homosexual working in the California legal community, I have been dismayed at the constant inability of Gay Press and Gay organizations to formulate a coherent message of their own that can be tied to a greater message of American civil rights and values-- these Gay groups need to give Democratic candidates a break and focus more on gettting their own acts together.

These groups spend too much time focusing on process and not on substantive message or results--hmmmm... who does that sound like?

Paging Senator Clinton...

Posted by Gary Goodman | April 10, 2008 2:55 PM

I absolutely agree with Marc's last point about the importance of meeting with general interest groups over smaller, niche groups. I think that not only is it more efficient, but it also reinforces Obama's message of inclusion and addressing all Americans with the same voice.

Posted by Howard B. | April 10, 2008 2:57 PM

I agree with Marc's analysis regarding gay press. Obama should not waste his time too much.

As a gay, I barely have an interest in reading the gay press. It's really not that interesting - more about products, parties/benfits, tanning/gyms, dating, outing, self love/hate.

The gay community could create a NATIONAL PRIDE DAY tying it to a greater unity message - forcing politicians, corporations and Americans to take note. Instead, we hop to pride party-to-pride party (like a cricuit)for a good time.

Posted by chris | April 10, 2008 3:10 PM

"hadenough,

And I wonder why you have nothing better to do than going around to accuse all journalists of all kind of bias. This is an ANALYSIS blog, and this is the kind of stuff that makes it INTERESTING. Get over it. Most people here accuse Ambinder of being in the tank for Clinton; reading people like who you then suddenly accuse him of being for Obama only proves that people REALLY HAVE TO CHILL.

Posted by Dan"

How do you know I have nothing better to do? And whats better to do than hold the press accountable? Also I don't "accuse all journalists of all kind of bias." You just made that up. And dan, anybody can comment here no matter if you like it or not. So get over it.

Posted by hadenough | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM

There is a reason why Obama is avoiding gay press. It's because the Larry Sinclair issues is getting mainstream. Here the article:

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=274

Posted by Hazel Diane Rasheeda Moore | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM

There is a reason why Obama is avoiding gay press. It's because the Larry Sinclair issues is getting mainstream. Here the article:

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=274

Posted by Hazel Diane Rasheeda Moore | April 10, 2008 3:43 PM

I think hadenough's comments, contrasted to all the previous accusations levelled against Ambinder about him "being in the tank" for Clinton, really says something. Maybe it's all perspective.

I have to admit I have taken issue with Ambinder in the past, but it wasn't about bias so much as it was about him not fleshing out his posts with references and links.

Anyway, the gay community's support of Clinton confuses me. Is it because it's easier to identify with a white woman with an established name than a black man, since the black community has generally been pretty stacked against gays? Are they confused and think she's Judy Garland? Is it because of the Elton Johns of the world supporting them? I mean, Bill Clinton passed DOMA and actively campaigned in the south against gay interests!

Posted by socctty | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM

Read the Advocate interview of Obama and decide for yourselves. http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid53285.asp

Posted by mikeyes | April 10, 2008 4:28 PM

socctty,

That was pretty funny. In an empty souled ignorant kinda way.

Posted by hadenough | April 10, 2008 4:37 PM

hadenough - thanks for elaborating, and playing the victim. I was merely making the point that it seems like everyone accuses Ambinder of supporting "the other guy".

This made me laugh when I saw it linked over at Andrew Sullivan's: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillarys-appeal-the-diva-theor.php, because of my half-minded reference to Judy Garland. Of course, maybe just me and the writer of that article are mysoginists bigots. I'll wait around for some knee-jerk reaction to tell me which way it is.

Posted by socctty | April 10, 2008 5:05 PM

"hadenough - thanks for elaborating, and playing the victim.

Posted by socctty"

Good Gravy!

Posted by hadenough | April 10, 2008 5:48 PM

" There are only so many gay votes that Obama can reasonably expect to obtain on the basis of an interview with a gay newspaper in Philadelphia."

Seems like that would be more true in the general, rather than in the Dem primary.

In the general, McCain would be a very unappealing alternative, so Obama could afford to not give much face time. In the primary, gay voters could go with Clinton or Obama, so a significant vote count could be lost.

Posted by Jon H | April 10, 2008 11:09 PM