Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama Allegedly Refused to be Photographed with Gay Friendly Mayor

By


“I gave a fund-raiser, at his [Obama’s] request at the Waterfront restaurant,” Brown told the Chronicle. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.”

“One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me,” Newsom told Reuters, “even though I’ve done fund-raisers for that particular person — not once, but twice — because of this issue.”

Newsom, who attended a Town Hall meeting with the Clinton campaign on Monday, said he still looked forward to voting for Obama — in eight years.

The Obama campaign refutes the allegations.

Seems Hillary Clinton is not afraid to be photographed with him.

I thought Obama stood for telling people what they needed to hear and not what they wanted to hear?  Doesn’t he go into board rooms and tell the corporate powers what they need to do even when they aren’t going to thank him for it?

That’s the spin anyway.  

But when it comes to gay civil rights it is okay to sweep it under the rug, because, you know, there is an election going on.

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that the man who is happy to let people believe he didn’t vote for the war even though he wasn’t in the Senate in October, 2002; voted present 60 or 70 too many times in the Illinois legislature; and doesn’t want to be pictured with gay rights supporters when it could be politically harmful is the embodiment of hope and change he wants us to believe he is.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. on Tuesday, due to a headline that caught my eye.  

    <

    p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…

    <

    p>You will not feel the love for posting this.

    <

    p>You may also hear from an Obamarama fan (you know who you are), who will suggest that the snub was due to the adultery scandal that Newsom found himself embroiled in.  The only problem with that…is that scandal came out in February 2007, and the snub occurred four years ago.  I recognize that many Obama fans seem to think he’s prescient on all matters, but unless he has a crystal ball – I don’t think  this was really at the heart of the snub.

    <

    p>I do think it’s an issue, but I don’t think it’s one that people here will want to discuss openly.  

  2. the A Number One critic of Gavin Newsome at the time was…drum roll please…Cong. Barney Frank of Mass. He was highly critical of Newsome in 2004 and blamed his actions for some of the backlash against same sex marriage in Massachusetts. So that Obama did not want his picture taken with Newsome might be a bit understandable given the context of 2004.

    <

    p>Or maybe Obama didn’t want to look like too much of a San Francisco liberal.

    <

    p>Or maybe Obama doesn’t like Newsome.

    • ..he is happy to use Newsom’s political cache to get money for his campaign war chest?

      <

      p>Please help me make money, but, by the way, I don’t want to bee seen with you?

      <

      p>Sorry, but that is wrong any way you slice it.

      <

      p>

    • …as Barney Frank is concerned –

      <

      p>At least Frank had the nerve to be public about his feelings, and of course, one of the only federal politicians in full support of same sex marriage.

      <

      p>For the comparison to work Obama would have to be willing to 1) admit to what he did and 2)state why he did it.

      <

      p>He hasn’t, and likely won’t.

      • Newsome is one of Clinton’s national campaign co-chairs.  So it’s important to consider motives here.

        <

        p>Also, Obama didn’t exactly duck on gay and lesbian issues during his Senate race. He’s been consistently – like Clinton and the other Dems this cycle – for civil unions.  Here’s an interview he did for Chicago’s gay/lesbian paper in February 2004, during that campaign.  Not a lot of dodging and weaving or trying not to be seen supporting scary gay people that I can see.

        <

        p>Hard to imagine that if he found gay marriage so radioactive he’d be answering questions on the subject for Chicago’s gay paper.  If he really had a problem with the topic, he would have to know that he’d certainly be more likely to excite attention with his interview than he would from an obscure photo with a mayor no one in Illinois would recognize.

        • But that’s not what was happening THEN.  At the time, gay marriage was radioactive.  Do you recall the outcry across the country when Massachusetts started marrying gay people?  Oh sure, it’s a cakewalk now…but not then.

          <

          p>I think Anthony makes a good point about Mr. Obama’s ability to withstand the heat of a firestorm, if he’s a such fair weather friend.  Newsome was on the front lines…and Obama was just pocketing the donations. Not a guy I’d want in a foxhole with me, thanks.

          <

          p>BTW, the snub is probably the very reason Newsome is one of Hillary’s co-chairs.  I wouldn’t discount it.  

          • It was conducted THEN.  

            <

            p>As a member of g/l community, when I think about fair weather friends, Bill and Hillary certainly come to mind.  They were happy to take contributons from the gay and lesbian community, and for our loyalty and support we got DADT and DOMA.  

            • You do know that it was Republican Senator Bob Dole that sponsored DOMA right?  And you do know that it was a Republican majority that delivered it, right?

              <

              p>Explain, Bean – because you always duck when I ask you the hard questions, like what does “democratic wing of the democratic party” supposed to mean relative to the supporters of Mr. Obama (as if the rest of us weren’t democratic)- explain how it is solely Hillary’s fault that a Republican majority in Congress delivered up that bill? The Republicans controlled Congress after the 1994 elections.   You do recall that Hillary is the candidate?  

              <

              p>I love you guys.  You want Hillary to run this race by leaping over the obstacles of every one of Bill’s mistakes, and Bill made a mistake in signing DOMA.    

              • He didn’t.  He signed it.  He also ran radio ads called “Moral Values” trumpeting his support for DOMA in the south on Christian stations in 1996 when he ran against Dole.  

                <

                p>You might also have a care about reminding folks about Hillary’s connection to the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994.  Many think her hamhanded management of the healthcare initiative was a major factor in the loss.

                <

                p>So go easy with the revisionist history.  I voted for Bill both times, and I contributed to Hillary’s first Senate campaign.  I’m no reflexive Clinton basher. But I’m in my 40’s – and I remember the Clinton years very well – both the good and the bad.    

            • Notice that when I disagree with you, I don’t give you a “3” or less.  I generally don’t rate you at all, because it’s tempting to abuse the system.  Like you.

              • And perhaps you might want to read the rules of the road, since clearly you haven’t thus far.

                • Note that is says “personal attack” and not “personal comments.”  You just don’t like your straw’s eye view to be challenged, “boy wonder.”  That’s okay, though.  I am still waiting to hear about the meaning  of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” unifying around Mr. Obama as it relates to those of us supporting other candidates….and how is square with the hope and unity message that’s being peddled.  

                  <

                  p>Policy

                  <

                  p>The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

                  <

                  p>We expect contributors to adhere to the fair use doctrine, which means at a minimum that all direct quotes must be linked or otherwise identified and that copyrighted works should not be reprinted in their entirety if an excerpt will suffice. A useful discussion about fair use can be found here on Wikipedia.

                  <

                  p>Ratings

                  <

                  p>The comment rating system has thus far been underutilized on this site, by us as well as by everyone else.  We would like to change that.  We encourage all users to rate all comments using the convenient drop-down menus that appear on each comment.  We have revised the ratings system so that The Editors, and certain Trusted Users we may designate from time to time based on their cumulative average comment ratings, can give comments significantly higher and lower ratings than those available for most users.  Comments that receive enough very low ratings will automatically be hidden.  By enabling the “hidden comments” feature, we hope that the community, rather than the three of us, will become the primary enforcer of this site’s policies.

                  <

                  p>Penalties

                  <

                  p>Users who consistently violate our policies will receive a warning.  Users who fail to heed our warning may be banned from the site.

                  <

                  p>– Bob, Charley, and David

                • I’d suggest you focus on this part:
                  “Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.”

                  <

                  p>Re: the meaning of the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party,” where have you been over the last 5 years?  It’s a Howard Dean reference, reflecting the desire to restore the party to its principles, rather than DLC corporate compromises.

                • knows the difference between a “personal attack” and a personal comment.  But evidently in your little cocoon, it’s just one and the same, isn’t it?  

                  <

                  p>I knew exactly where the quote came from, Bean old boy.  I just wanted to see one again how a “Divider” from the same party pretends to be a “Uniter.”  You do remember where that quote came from?

            • …and what of it.  Duplicitous requires that one be talking out of both sides of their mouth.

              <

              p>Also, Hillary had NOTHING to do with DOMA or DADT.  And they weren’t taking contributions at the time, Bill was.

              <

              p>They are two different people you know, and only one of them was president in the 90’s.

        • …difference between civil unions and same sex marriage.  One is the party line and the other is a campaign killer.  

          <

          p>At the end of the day, Obama, in my estimation, appears to be lying about something.  

          <

          p>Sorry, but if you are lying to me, I get to fill in the blanks.  

    • …that a candidate for the democratic nomination for president is willing to take money from San Francisco citizens and use their mayor as a political tool but doesn’t want to be photographed with him and is very likey lying about it now is not substantive?

      <

      p>Sorry, but that is just silly.  You might not care, but there is substance nonetheless.

      • He wasn’t a candidate for president then. Certainly you are not suggesting that Hillary is better on same sex issues than Obama?  

        • ..that Mr. Obama, who sells himself as a man who stands up and speaks truth to power was too afraid to be seen with a gay activist when he was running for the senate and is now lying about it because admitting that he was a wimp then makes him look like a chump now.

          <

          p>He and HRC espouse the same platform about gay issues now, so this is less of a gay issue and more of a character issue.  He is not all that he pretends to be.

          • a Gay activist is more than a bit of a stretch. He is the mayor of San Francisco. Another politican. And as it turned out later a fairly infamous heterosexual one at that.

            • …politicians can’t be activists and you need to be gay to be a gay activist?  Do you need to be a woman to be a feminist?  Were the only real civil rights activists in the 60’s black?

              <

              p>Some politicians are activists.  What Newsom did is text book activism.

              <

              p>I know any number of people who are proud to be gay activists regarless of the fact they are heterosexual.

              <

              p>To insinuate that calling Gavin Newsom a gay activist is a stretch doesn’t sound very progressive.

          • Isn’t the content of his character better determined by looking at his votes than who he chooses to take photos with?

            <

            p>Correct me if I am wrong but this is not an issue of the company Obama keeps. He has won the support of many glbtq organizations, activists, etc. Both Obama and HRC received 89% scorecard  from Human Rights Campaign. Not really clear why this is an issue. If Obama avoided getting photographed with all GLBTQ leaders that would be another story.

            • …of his character is best determined by looking at as much of the picture as is possible.

              <

              p>This is an issue of the company the Obama would rather ther be no record that he keeps when he is afraid it will hurt him politically and how he responds when challenged on his choices.  Oh, and he took the money, didn’t he?

              <

              p>

      • “and is very likely lying about it”

        and could we a bit more reluctant to accept negative spin about Democrats? Could we perhaps wait until all the information is in? Or is the urge to gossip too strong?

        Substance would be

        • votes cast
        • legislation sponsored
        • advisors chosen
        • policy proposed

        Silly is personal slights.

        • …on the record stating something took place and corroboration from staff members is something more than gossip.  It is an allegation which seems credible to me and others.

          <

          p>I cannot conceive of a reason why Brown and Newsom would lie about this, considering they were still willing to do Obama a favor, his snub notwithstanding.

          <

          p>This is not negative spin, it is information that I find compelling.  Not all news about democrats is good news, sorry.

          <

          p>Character is substance and I find it hard to believe you don’t think so.

          <

          p>It is very likely (to me) that Obama and/or his campaign is lying.  That is not a personal slight.  

          <

          p>He put his character and status as a no nonsense, honest to a fault, purveyor of change front and center.  It that assertion is less than true, it is substantial in my estimation.

          <

          p>

          • Aside from the fact that he’s apparently not gay, your argument seems to be saying that the only reason Obama might snub Newsom is because of Newsom’s support of gay marriage.

            <

            p>Maybe I am remembering things poorly but doesn’t a certain MA Governor who has been all over the place for Obama believe the same thing and actively work for it? Hasn’t Obama taken many many photos with this same MA Governor?

            • …is not gay, never was.  Not the issue.

              <

              p>The political tide has turned a bit since then hasn’t it?  That is the point.  

              <

              p>It is possible that Newsom was snubbed because of his activism.  Whether that is the case (I believe this is likely) is not really at the center of the issue.  Obama was happy to take the money Newsom helped bring him, allegedly refused to be photographed with him and now appears to be lying about it.  Why?

              <

              p>Whatever the reasons it seems clear political expediency is at the core.  If it was to avoid the taint of gay activism while running for the senate that is the worst case scenario.  If it was because he doesn’t like Newsom for some other reason but is happy to take the money all the while snubbing a donor, that is still pretty unsavory in my book.

              • Are you outraged because you think this is an affront to the GLBT movement or because

                <

                p>

                is happy to take the money all the while snubbing a donor, that is still pretty unsavory in my book

                <

                p>If it is the latter then my response is “who cares?”  I give donations to lots of candidates and never get to take photos with them.  

                • …to pick my outrage.  They are both bad.  One worse than the other.  I am satisfied simply to get it all on the table.

  4. back then, it was a political decision by Obama to not be photographed with him.  Newsom was seen to the the person who started or pushed the issue of marriage equity.  Plain and simple, Obama didn’t want to be associated with it.  It’s not hard to figure out. SFGate has an article on it too.

  5. …but perhaps the explanation might not be his stance on gay rights, but perhaps it was something else. Newsom did have a reputation for being a ladies man. The dinner was held in 2004. In January 2005 Newsom divorced his wife and he was sleeping with his aide’s wife.  Or perhaps there was another reason.

    <

    p>Deval Patrick was pro-SSM and Barack had no problem campaigning for him. As mentioned above, BArack does have strong pro-LGBT rights creds, and there are legitimate concerns about certain Obama LGBT stances. I don’t think this 2004 incident is the anti-LGBT slap it’s made out to be.  

    • ….he campaigned for Patrick after he was in the Senate.

      <

      p>The issue is political opportunism and dishonesty.  That Obama’s snub appears to relate to a keepting deliberate distance from the SSM issue makes matters worse.

      <

      p>I don’t just care about his positions today.  If four years ago he kept his distance because it was too hot an issue for him…that bothers me.

      <

      p>A lot has changed in four years.  And the lying that seems to be going on now is troubling.  Why lie?  If he thinks Newsom is unsavory, say so.

Archives