truth tellers

White House Invites Blogs Over For Off-The-Record Chat, Which Bloggers Promptly Blog About

Over the summer the White House invited the gay blogs over for a little chat with aide Melody Barnes, the Obama administration’s Domestic Policy Council’s president’s assistant. The conversation was on the record, which meant afterward all the homos went online to discuss what happened. On Monday, the White House did something similar with black blogs. Except that was an off-the-record chat. And President Obama even showed up! We know this because many of them ignored the off-the-record rules.

With Valerie Jarrett as their host, bloggers from sites like Concrete Loop and Jack And Jill Politics were welcomed to a half-day of briefings led by Valerie Jarrett, who two days before got done chatting with HRC’s gays. The first half of the briefings were “on background” (i.e. the bloggers couldn’t identify who gave them any information), while the second half was to be completely off-the-record.

That didn’t stop Concrete Loop‘s attendees, including editor Natasha Eubanks, from posting photos, video, and a behind-the-scenes report from the meeting.

President Obama casually came in during the meeting and everyone was shocked. He walked around to each person, shook their hand and asked their name and affiliation. It was an honor to meet him in person, especially after being a big supporter of his during the election years.

I’m very excited that the Obama Administration is taking the new media approach seriously and it was an honor to be apart of the summit. I can’t believe how far Concrete Loop is taking me. Feeling very blessed.

Quick, now somebody complain how the black blogs got access to the president and Jarrett (a super duper senior aide), while the gays only got somebody’s assistant.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #blogs stories and more


  • K in VA

    Sorry, but there’s nothing particularly devious or prejudiced here.

    It’s politics. Blacks are around 13% of the electorate. We’ve been (according to exit polling) around 4% of voters in the last two presidention races.

    Now, if we had greater numbers — or could count on great numbers of allies consistently and reliably standing with us — then we’d have more clout.

    Politics is about votes. We don’t yet have enough to outweigh all the votes against us. End of story (for now).

  • Rainfish

    According to the CNN exit polls, 4% of the American electorate self-identified as gay or lesbian. That means about 4.8 million gays and lesbians voted in Nov. 2008.

    …Now, that’s complete and utter bullshit!

    For every member of the GLBT community, it would be very surprising if even one out of every two of us identified as Gay during an exit poll interview. When you live in an oppressive society where being identified as GLBT in too many places in the USA can get you fired from your job; kicked out of your apartment, and beaten to death on the streets, then that number of 4.8% is just the tip of a social iceberg where at least another seventy-five percent lies hidden (by necessity) from view.

    Most Democratic Strategists know that our actually voting numbers are far greater than that. Hell, regardless, Americans of Jewish ancestry in the United States (2008) is approx. 6,489,000 or about 2.2%. So, do their small numbers indicate that they have little clout in US elections?

    Please…it’s more than just numbers, it’s also about the ability to raise money and to influence media. Gays are very capable of that as well. GLBT wealth is far more that many racial minorities in other “disposable income” demographic categories –which is essential in political fund-raising.

    But to be more effective, Gays just to have to stop feeding the hog, and then wait and watch the Dems come begging for more, but with a little more political “quid pro quo” in return. The Dems have to “actually prove” to other minorities that they will represent their interests or lose their votes, but we just give it up like a desperate wallflower on the first date. And then we wonder why they don’t respect us in the morning. Go figure!

  • the crustybastard

    @K in VA:

    Do Democrats typically win by more than 4%?

    We have plenty of clout. We just need to use it.

  • Yet Another

    Sweet Baby Jesus.

    Way to make it black vs gay again Queerty.

  • the crustybastard

    @Yet Another:

    Can you name one prominent, mainstream LGBT activist who has denounced civil rights for black people?

    Yet there are scores, if not hundreds, of prominent, mainstream black activists who routinely denounce civil rights for gay people.

    It is hardly Queerty making the issue black v. gay.

  • Yet Another

    @the crustybastard:

    Its about Queerty making THIS article about Black vs. Gay.

  • ronbo

    I wonder if anyone asked him what he did with the Democratic Candidate Obama?

    I voted for President when he was a Democrat. Now, after seeing him implement or help to implement every Republican policy, I think he is truly a Republican. Why?

    The National Health Insurance plan implemented was first suggested by Richard M. Nixon.
    The Bank bailout plan was merely the second half of what Bush pushed through – with NO CHANGES!
    The financial regulation bill allows the financial institutions to regulate themselves – a Republican proposal,
    Extraordinary Rendition continues 100% the same as under Bush.
    The Gulf is now open for shallow AND deep-water drilling – as requested by the Republicans.
    The War on Terror (renamed) is spending MORE money under Obama than Bush.
    Obama has endorsed summary execution and killing of Americans – without due process.
    Obama has initiated ANOTHER war in Pakistan – just hasn’t declared it yet.
    Obama has expanded Unitary Executive power – just as the Republicans have requested.

    Guess what is Next? Social Security is under “review”. Since Republicans are unable to gut the program politically, they are “lucky” to have a self-labeled Democrat do the dismantling for them. Just look at the makeup of the Board in charge; self-declared opponents of Social Security from wayyyy back. The clear and simple solution is ignored (raising the payment cap) which would make the – currently solvent for 20+ year – program, solvent for the unseeable future. Why did they rule-out this simple solution BEFORE investigation? Could it be the same reason Obama ruled out the single-payer health system BEFORE negotiations began?

    Obama is a stealth Republican. Just because FOX calls him a liberal, socialist, commie doesn’t make it so. Would one wealthy corporation work to achieve their stated goals? Is a for-profit corporation actually for profit? Obama, by action, is clearly acting for Republican goals. He has a fairly clear history. What do you think Obama will do about the (non)crisis with Social Security?

    If we don’t primary Obama, we are the fools.

  • reason

    @Rainfish: Why wouldn’t you tell the truth on the ballot? You can’t be identified on the ballot: granted I have never run federal office, I have never voted on a federal ballot with my name on it. Have you? Regardless that is inconsequential, highly unlikely that voting numbers had anything to do with this.

    This is just silly, who knows what the presidents schedule was when the gay blogs were there? The president has been known to surprise visitors when he is available as has most presidents in recent history. It is not unknown if the president happens to have a break they will stroll through the White House and great visitors. The day the gay blogs visited he may have not been at the White House, dealing with a national security issue, gotten a call from overseas, in the middle of a military briefing, dealing with a family issue, or a million other things that would prevent someone from attending something not on their schedule. This sites putting this incident on the presidents disposition without having any idea about the situation is disgusting. I know the people that write these stories are not dumb, you know what you are doing. This is demagoguery in the fashion of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that you all are on the same team. Circuitously implying that the president values African Americans over anyone else especially gays, in a race and homophobia tinged post, three weeks before an elections reeks of political B.S.

  • the crustybastard

    @reason said, “Circuitously implying that the president values African Americans over anyone else especially gays, in a race and homophobia tinged post, three weeks before an elections reeks of political B.S.”

    If President Obama was legally barred from marrying the person of his choice on the basis of his racial makeup, and if there was a law in place that discharged from military service mixed-race individuals who refuse to “pass,” are YOU implying that he’d appeal decisions that struck down those laws?

    No, of course he wouldn’t, and he’d be correct to refuse to appeal.

    It is neither demagogic nor racist to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that Obama would indeed treat laws discriminating on the basis of race profoundly differently than he has treated laws discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

    The only political BS that reeks is President Obama’s indefensible homophobic insistence on keeping in place laws that violate the Constitutional, fundamental and civil rights of gay Americans.

    P.S. Exit polls have nothing to do with identifying oneself on a ballot. Derp.

  • Yet Another

    @the crustybastard:

    That has NOTHING to do with this article. This article isn’t about civil rights, DOMA, DADT, or anything else.

    It’s about the President popping up a meeting and leaving shortly thereafter. It’s not a referendum on the importance of gays or a measure of his policy position.

    This was a random occurance that’s being haphazardly lumped into a conversation about whether or not President Obama is a supporter of gay rights or not.

  • the crustybastard

    @Yet Another:

    No, it has EVERYTHING to do with this article and EVERYTHING to do with your original point “way to make it about black vs. gay again.”

    If you cannot see a pattern in how President Obama’s respectful and engaging treatment of black people is profoundly, spectacularly distinct from President Obama’s disrespectful and disparaging treatment of gay people, then you are being willfully blind.

  • Yet Another

    @the crustybastard:


    You’re being willingfully ignorant. As a black gay person, let me say I feel more engaged by the Obama administration on Gay issues than black issues. So if you feel Obama shakes more black hands than he does gay ones, fine. But don’t equate that to the level of activity on gay issues vs black issues.

    Gay issues are the MAIN social issues tied to a specific demographic being addressed today. There is DADT, DOMA, ENDA, etc. Name one piece of “Black” legislation he’s championing? African-American’s have specific issues that can be addressed as well, such as our disproportionate access to higher quality education, healthcare, jobs, etc. Except black people have numerous “Out” black senators and representatives and other politicians who work towards those ends. President Obama offers overt and vocal support even if through limited and political for gays because they don’t have the same representation and he should be appreciated for hit.

    His short comings in support of gay rights can and should be called out and vigorously protested. BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

  • Yet Another

    lol, I have to stop with this rapid fire responses. Grammar and spelling are horrendous today.

  • the crustybastard

    @Yet Another:

    I must be willfully ignorant because you feel super-duper warm and fuzzy about how Obama is engaging your black gay self?

    Wow. I didn’t realize that was the metric.

  • Rainfish

    @reason who wrote: “Rainfish: Why wouldn’t you tell the truth on the ballot? You can’t be identified on the ballot: granted I have never run federal office, I have never voted on a federal ballot with my name on it. Have you? Regardless that is inconsequential, highly unlikely that voting numbers had anything to do with this.”


    Well, duh, that’s because it’s an EXIT POLL we’re talking about which is NOT an anonymous ballot. Geeez louise, pay attention!

    …For your edification:

    “An election exit poll is a poll of voters taken immediately after they have exited the polling stations. Unlike an opinion poll, which asks whom the voter plans to vote for or some similar formulation, an exit poll asks whom the voter actually voted for. A similar poll conducted before actual voters have voted is called an entrance poll. Pollsters – usually private companies working for newspapers or broadcasters – conduct exit polls to gain an early indication as to how an election has turned out, as in many elections the actual result may take hours or even days to count.

    Warren Mitofsky, founder of Mitofsky International, is credited with having invented the exit poll.” [wikipedia]

    …Now (REASON), got it? As I stated previously, I sincerely doubt that most GLBT people would divulge their sexual orientation to an absolute stranger hanging around outside of a neighborhood poll station — especially in the South and outside of the larger metro areas. So, no, the asinine conclusion that the GLBT voting block is only 4% of the voting public is pure, unadulterated horse-shit.

  • Derek Washington

    The assumption of a hell of lot of you is that no one in that room was Black & GAY! Dumbasses.

    This post is what is known as race baiting. The underlying premise is that Gay people are more worthy because they are perceived to be wealthier.

    Does that include Black people in that belief?

    Or, are all Black Gays part of “the other” who are some monolith of poor Downlow Mandingos only to be brought out when Queerty needs some group that over privileged whiny little Bitches can feel superior to while expressing racist thoughts they dare not say in public?

    Maybe the President didn’t want to be around y’all because he has some anti-colonial Kenyan mentality?


    I’m going to tell you all the truth. This was discussed at our last Black Gays United In The Glorious Mau Mau Uprising To Come meeting.


    Thank you.

  • reason

    @the crustybastard: I think the presidents stance on legislative change v.s. judicial change was made clear before he even walked into the white house. He stated that it is a tragedy that the Civil Rights movement was so court focused becuase it couldn’t bring about redistributive change in the manner that legislation and politics could. If he was in charge at that time he would have pursued a different avenue.

Comments are closed.