Clinton talks; Obama balks No interview from Obama for Philadelphia Gay News.

PGN invited both Clinton and Obama, as well as presumptive Republican candidate John McCain, to speak with us. Only Clinton granted an interview.
---------
PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they can’t get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.
--------
PGN: What changes would you make toward governments that execute gay people, such as Iran, Egypt and Iraq and numerous other countries in the Middle East and Africa? Will you offer political asylum?
HC: I would be very strongly outspoken about this and it would be part of American foreign policy. There are a number of gross human-rights abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent such atrocities from happening.



http://www.epgn.com/

...she is interested in gay rights?

Sure...and I gotta bridge...:eyes:

....need only remember that Bill SIGNED DOMA.

He didn't have to.

He could have vetoed it and forced Congress to override his veto (which they probably would have done).

But he was under political pressure and we gay folks aren't an important enough constituency to make a stand for.

I still have the tire tracks from the bus they threw us under.

Bingo!

It was republicans who brought us both DADT and DOMA.

Obama should have spoken with PGN, too. I don't care about McCain.

But, I give her props for that too. I don't give the point-scorers here any props though, since they leave out the fact that she gave them the shaft before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5377075#5381897

politically motivated (I never assume her motives are altruistic), but I hope Obama's decision not to participate wasn't either.

Too often in campaigns, groups become "blocks of voters" and cease to become just people and American citizens.

There must be a solid reason behind Obama's not agreeing to an interview, or putting off an interview, and I haven't seen anything on it. I can't believe he was simply dismissive of them. I've had the impression that Obama was very much FOR the gay community, as I am, as my church, St. John's, is too, so why didn't he consent to an interview? On the other hand, why is granting an interview to this paper so important if he's shown his support for gays? Does the paper need his interview badly, for instance, to claim some kind of legitimacy?

What do you think is behind this?

I'd like to know if they actually contacted Obama for one.

After that, I'd like to know if he actually turned them down, and if so, for what reason.

Right now, I'm navigating PGN's website (which isn't too user friendly - page after page is mainly ads.. but then again, I'm only on page 7) trying to find out if there's a natural reason for him rejecting their offer (along with Edwards, McCain, and Clinton) for grounds other than being a gay newspaper (ie: is it a tabloid/gossip rag?).

I can't speak for him. I can however, point out that HRC (and yes, Edwards and Obama) rejected them as little as a month ago. Considering that they all took part in the Logo debate, I doubt that it's because it's a GLBT targeted paper.

edit: now on page 9, and I'm getting the fact they're very, very, pro-HRC. Not that that's any reason to turn down an interview, but it does make me question again, whether what they're claiming is quite true.

and my post is quoting PGN's homepage, with a link.

Thanks for asking. :hi:

It simply states their prior efforts were to no avail. There are many reasons, other than "rejection", why a national candidate wouldn't schedule a local interview until the time of a primary. You read too much into these things.

You're welcome. :hi:

:rofl:

:eyes:

I can't believe I responded to one of the most rabid disruptors here. My bad.

and me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5377075#5381897