Segal: Obama Hasn’t Spoken to Gay Press Since 2004
In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it’s been looking as if Philadelphia’s LGBT community would be pretty much thrilled with either candidate currently barnstorming Pennsylvania. Then Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal unleashed a bombshell this morning: a glaring blank spot on the front of this week’s edition, meant as a huge rebuke to Barack Obama for refusing the paper’s recent interview request — and for refusing to speak with any members of the local gay press nationwide for more than four years.
Daily Examiner caught up with Segal this morning in between calls from other reporters, all wanting to talk about how a little weekly in Philly has viscerally demonstrated a potential major weakness in Obama’s campaign: If he loses the gay vote, he could lose the nomination. An impassioned — and maybe more than a little hurt — Segal talked a blue streak about Obama’s seeming rejection until he ditched us for another news outlet. — Jenna Bergen
So, we saw the front page. Tell us about what’s been going on.
PGN, since 1976, has always asked the presidential candidates, editorial candidates, mayors, what have you, for an interview when they’re campaigning in Pennsylvania. We feel that it’s very important for the LGBT community to be apprised of the issues that are a concern to us. On election day, 3 percent of all votes in Pennsylvania are LGBT votes — and in this election, that percentage is going to be very important. We thought it was extremely important to reach out to both campaigns.
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.
So how did you come up with leaving the front page blank? That’s a pretty bold statement. You guys weren’t short on ads or anything, were you?
[laughs] We don’t put ads on our front page, so we didn’t lose any money by doing so. Although, no publisher wants a blank space in their paper! Or as we call it, you know, creative white space! [laughs] We wanted to make it clear from the very start that we had done our research. And I think what is shocking is that the campaign has not been able to refute our facts. It has been 1,522 days since he’s spoken to local gay press.
Wow.
That goes back to 2004. That’s not acceptable. I am the former president of the National Gay Newspaper Guild, and last week, during a break in the meeting, former publishers and editors were sitting around the table, and half of them were Obama supporters. And we all started discussing the fact that practically every one of them has gone after Obama for an interview — and they’ve all gotten the runaround!
I’ve been doing this for 31 years. There is nobody in the gay press that has been doing it as long as I have. And PGN has a reputation for doing interviews with politicians — including people like Frank Rizzo! We’ve interviewed everyone, with the exception of the one who refused: Senator Santorum. Which I find kind of comical. Because I don’t want to put Senator Obama on the same level as Santorum! I find that offensive. Can you hold one second, please?
Sure.
[long silence; Segal eventually returns] There’s another reporter on the other line.
So … have you heard from Obama or his people since publishing it?
I have e-mailed them and told them what my position is. We are willing to meet him anywhere, any time, whatever his schedule allows. We are more than willing to do it over the phone. We’ll give him the same amount of time that we gave Hilary Clinton, and we will feature his interview as prominently as we did with Hilary Clinton. And the subject matter would only be LGBT issues. All the same rules that we had for Hilary Clinton.
You guys seem to really be behind Hilary …
I did not say we are behind Hilary. I’m personally on the fence. The space was left open to show that we are willing to feature him equally. We will put his answers to the same exact questions. It’s in his ballpark. He’s the one who doesn’t want to play fair.
Who do you think would do a better job?
We will make our endorsement the Friday before the primary election. And right now, we have no choice.
Are you trying to say …
I gotta run, I gotta run. [click]
April 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
How can Segal claim to be “personally on the fence” when it comes to choosing a candidate? He donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.
http://tinyurl.com/5reaqe
If Obama’s press people knew Segal was a four-figure Clinton-backer, it’s no surprise that Obama declined the interview request.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I would urge anyone who doubts Obama’s commitment to the GLBT community to read this, his open letter:
http://tinyurl.com/39ytr2
April 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“3 percent of all votes in Pennsylvania are LGBT votes”. What?! Generally, the accepted statistic for the exclusively homosexual population is 10%. If you include bisexuals to that percentage, I can’t even guess what the percentage would be. Where is he getting this statistic?
April 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I think the stat refers to people who vote with LGBT issues as a prominent issue, like the Soccer Moms or NASCAR Dads. That other 7% would be LGBT people who don’t really value LGBT issue positions in deciding who to vote for, but rather economic or perception of security issues.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
If Clinton is such a strong GLBT supporter, why is none of this information available on the Clinton website? Perhaps a link to your publication, a reprint of the article, or a clear explanation of her position on gay rights could be added to her website. None of that information is there now.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
If Hillary is really such a strong supporter of gay rights, why does she oppose the complete repeal of an anti-gay law like DOMA? She supported it entirely until last year, when she switched to oppose one part of it. She still supports the rest of it. Obama supports repeal of the entire law.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Segal is ridiculous, although I give him credit for finding a novel way to seem more important than he is. I vote GLBT issues, and from “don’t ask” to DOMA, Clinton has been a poseur at best and at her worst (borrowing from her pal Carville), a Judas. For eye-opening background, check into *her* DC prayer group. And while it’s not in the headline, Segal said “local” gay press. Obama gave the Advocate an interview just last fall. Don’t they count?
April 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
There is NO difference between the positions of Clinton and Obama on Gay issues…except for the fact that Obama wants to repeal the entire DOMA statute while Clinton only wants to repeal one section. So gay people need to decide who to support based on other, more important issues. Obama is the clear choice for serious change in this country and would make a clean break with the past in this country!
Let’s not decide who to make our next president based on Mark Segal’s ongoing dramatics. Maybe Mark just didn’t stomp his feet enough to get Obama to pay attention.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Your headline is misleading, and suggests and agenda by the paper and Mr. Segal.
Obama has been interviewed by the gay press. A simple google search would represent otherwise. If you wonder why folks don’t want to subscribe or buy copies of your newspaper, perhaps you should look into the agenda of of your editors (or at least the folks who write your headlines). Yellow journalism is so 2002!
April 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Senator Hillary Clinton is receiving calls from Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Dodd and others to drop out of the Presidential Primary even though the difference between the two candidates in both is minimal and neither candidate can win the nomination without the Super Delegates. The question no one is asking is, “If the fortunes of the two candidates were reversed, would there be calls for Senator Obama to withdraw?” Frankly, I doubt it. The DNC would be afraid of alienating the loyal and highly vocal African American base. More than likely any attempt to push Senator Obama out of the race would be met with charges of racism.
Women comprise fifty-one percent of the population and an even greater percentage of the voting electorate. Yet, women are vastly underrepresented in all three branches of government, from the congress to the cabinet, not to mention the Presidency. On a personal level, I am reminded daily of the subtle yet significant government sponsored sexism that permeates my life. Not a single piece of paper currency has a picture of a woman on it and the vast majority of pictures on stamps are of men. Pick up any newspaper and compare the number of photos of men vs. women, and you’ll be astonished by the results. From Wall Street to the White House, we are a nation of “men and girls.” Women are undoubtedly still the second sex earning 77 cents to the dollar when compared to their male counterparts.
Hillary’s candidacy is significant to me as a woman. She knows what it is to be a woman, to be marginalized and sidelined. A woman in the White House is CHANGE, REAL CHANGE and the most significant political event of my lifetime. I am a registered democrat, but if Hillary is pushed out of the race, I will not vote and I urge other women to do the same. Why should I be loyal to a party where a group of men try to shame the first female candidate for the Presidency out of the race?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Google Larry Sinclair - that might be the reason that Obama does not want to do an interview that involves gay.