(Photo: Americablog’s Joe Sudbay took this impressionist photo of me in the White House Press Briefing Room, 7/1/2010.)
What the heck was I doing at the White House?
This week I received an invitation to the White House earlier this week from the Office of Media Affairs to cover a LGBT policy briefing. What was different from the various background and off-the-record events that happen all the time was that this would be an on-the-record, face-to-face meeting with an administration official. I felt this was important to attend, for the sake of you, the readers, to represent the grassroots perspective that progress is just not where it should be.
Today’s meeting was with Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes. To back up a bit, LGBT reporters have been on the equivalent of a resource blackout with the administration to date, with no high-level policy official focused on ensuring that the wider LGBT community is informed on administration plans or strategy. And this President has not participated in a sit-down interview with LGBT media at all since occupying the White House. And it shows – we’ve seen mixed messages, dodges on questions (see Robert Gibbs), and onerous surprises like the language of the DOMA brief that came as a slap in the face to the community.
I can’t speak for anyone else who attended, but my expectations weren’t very high (though for me, forking over $650 out of the Blend’s budget for a one-day roundtrip ticket without a guarantee of anything worth reporting was a gamble). You can decide whether it was money well spent.
I do thank the White House for making Melody Barnes’s time available to LGBT media — if only the administration had reached out earlier (something I made clear in the meeting — it would have saved the WH a lot of grief if it spoke with parties other than Gay, Inc over the last year and a half). Now it can choose whether it’s worthwhile to build a broader communication bridge.
Who attended
Seventeen Sixteen people were invited; nine were able to make it: Lou Chibbaro, The Washington Blade; Jen Colletta, Philadelphia Gay News; Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate; Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly; Paul Schindler, Gay City News; Jillian Weiss, The Bilerico Project; Joe Sudbay; Americablog; Lisa Keen from Keen News Service and your blogmistress.
As you can see, there’s not a good representation from around the country (though we were told the net was cast wide), but problem here is two-fold — the invitation came with short notice (just a few days), and reporters had to have the time and resources to get there. As you see, I am the odd ball out there, far away, not from a major metro area, and not working for a media outlet. The only reason I was able to go was 1) I got clearance from my director, and 2) the Blend ad account had enough in it for the ticket. None of that is the fault of the White House, mind you, but you see how hard it is as a non-Beltway independent citizen journalist to cover our issues successfully. There’s no infrastructure for the WH to work with to ensure your voice is at the table.
But enough on that, I just wanted to put that out there.
Where it was held and who represented the administration in the briefing
Most of us arrived at the White House and assembled in the Press Briefing Room (where you can often see Kerry Eleveld, right, with Joe Sudbay, attempting to extract a straight answer out of Robert Gibbs).
The briefing we attended was to be held in the Roosevelt Room, but we were taken to the Old Executive Office Building’s Secretary of War Suite, a smallish dark room with ornate antique furniture. It was pretty warm in there, and as we waited for Melody Barnes, a gentleman by the name of Ian Bassin, deputy associate counsel in the Office of Counsel to the President, came in and introduced himself. He handles civil rights and telecom issues; it wasn’t clear why he was there. He sat down and chatted with some of the member of the press, but otherwise said nothing during the session.
Also on hand, sitting off on the side the room, was Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (a.k.a. the LGBT liaison). He did not say anything during the briefing, even though his name came up during the course of one of Barnes’s answers.
It should be made clear that Ms. Barnes is not a member of the political team, she is policy, and so any questions about strategy and the elections was off the table. It’s kind of unfortunate that, with the mid-terms coming up, that they were not able to scheduled a political meeting on the same day. Perhaps this will be in the offing down the line, since surely this administration has to be concerned about enthusiasm about opening the GayTM and LGBTs getting out to vote in key elections.
Summary of the meeting
Short version: Nothing new was learned, despite numerous attempts to get substantive answers about administration policy; move along to the next PHB post.
Long version: Keep reading if you want color commentary and a general review on the dodge and parry.
Assistant to the President Barnes started off, as expected, summarizing a list of administration accomplishments, noting of course, other than signing hate crimes legislation, all have been accomplished through executive action only (Cinderella Crumbs), such as hospital visitation, Family Medical Leave Act extension, HUD’s announcement on LGBT discrimination policy, changes in addressing transgender passport application measures, and the lifting of the HIV ban. She underscored that the President is trying to accomplish as much as possibly in this manner, which does not require Congressional approval.
This meeting was only an hour, so we all got to ask only one question, and after that, a few of us asked a second.
What was asked/answered
Rather than do a complete review, I’ll cover a few, and link up to Joe Sudbay’s post, since he did a lot of transcribing of verbatim quotes. Here’s a snippet:
Kerry Eleveld asked if the President was going to move beyond his support for “separate, but equal” fixes. So, again, The President has consistently called for repeal of DOMA. Okay. He’s called for it — consistently. And, he thinks it is “discriminatory.” (Unclear who he’s calling consistently, but whatever.) When Kerry asked if Obama still supported civil unions, which she pointed out was still a “separate, but equal” institution adding “I’m wondering if at any point he’s ever going to embrace full equality rather than these smaller steps.” Barnes responded, I understand what you’re saying, but that’s the course that he has set forth.” That course doesn’t include full equality.I asked if the White House would oppose any killer amendments that are offered on the DADT repeal legislation when it hits the Senate floor:
What I can tell you is that when we see the amendments that are filed that we will continue to do what we did through the process in the House, which is work to make sure that this moves forward. Obviously, if there is an effort to undermine repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the President wouldn’t be supportive of that. At the same time, I can’t sit here and walk through hypotheticals for amendments that I haven’t seen and haven’t been filed.Well, a “killer” amendment will be filed and we’ll need more than the President not being supportive. We need him to actively oppose it — and get on the phone to Senators about it.
I can say that most of the answers were perfunctory statements about the President’s current positions – he wants DADT repealed, he wants an inclusive ENDA, DOMA should go. He still clings to civil unions, and when asked whether the President believes that DOMA or DADT is unconstitutional Barnes deferred to legal counsel. I take that, since he’s a constitutional scholar that he has an opinion on the matter, but she wasn’t going there.
One memorable question was when Lou Chibbaro asked why the President’s strategy has been to work on one LGBT issue at a time, hate crimes, DADT, etc.
We were told by Barnes that the ball is in Congress’s court to get these done and that the White House doesn’t determine when matters are considered on the Hill or go to the floor for a vote. [Familiar passing the buck, lack of ability to multitask, impotence of the President. - ed.]
She went on to describe the President’s support of DADT repeal, and an inclusive ENDA, and that members of the administration had testified on the Hill on the bill’s behalf. As a follow up, Chibbaro asked whether the President would use his own influence and speak out strongly and publicly about moving ENDA.
Barnes’s answer here was curious — she said he has continued to speak out about his support on ENDA to all sorts of audiences. I don’t recall him mentioning ENDA in many speeches this year, and certainly not in front of non-LGBT audiences. I’ve got to go use TEH GOOGLE and check that out.
An answer that raised eyebrows at the table was why there wasn’t a single, high-level policy point person who has LGBT issues as a responsibility. Barnes said that she, Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina, Valerie Jarrett care deeply about our issues (!) and that Emanuel was the one who pushed for hospital visitation. Well, I can say that since Obama’s been in office, none of these people, or even Brian Bond, has had any roundtable discussions with LGBT media or citizen journalists to ensure your questions got in the queue.
It begs the question — who do they talk to outside of their bubble to get their finger on the pulse of the community? I asked whether she was aware of the gulf in understanding and communication and outright goals of HRC versus the grass roots. She didn’t seem to understand the question, then referred to Brian Bond and Tina Tchen (Brian’s boss, the Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement) as the tip of the spear in terms of communications with the community.
It’s unclear if there will be future meetings of this kind, or whether this was a dog and pony show to check off a box that LGBT media and the netroots have been engaged. As every move in a White House is political, not altruistic, we have to assume that both could be true.
Also read takes on the meeting by:
* Jillian Weiss
* Joe Sudbay
* Chris Geidner
* Kerry Eleveld
* Lisa Keen
* Lou Chibbaro
UPDATE: My parting gift – not my equal rights, of course, that will have to wait. For now it’s…presidential M&Ms:

I am taking it to work to show to curious colleagues. Now I have to figure out how to preserve the box once the candy is gone.




30 Comments


It sounds like this was nothing more than yet another crumbLet’s see: very short notice and immediately before a holiday weekend when airlines are booked solid and the few seats still available are exhorbitant… assuming that the trip could be fit in around holiday vacation plans. Absolutely no questions about policy or elections, which are exactly where LGBT anger is being focused. Policy only, as if we were ignorant of Obama’s all-talk, no-walk attitude towards our basic rights, an attitude that Barnes seems to have openly admitted. Barely one hour for nine people: do you think more time would have been allocated if all 17 invitees had shown up? An associate deputy council was there: why would Obama have wanted a lawyer present? The White House liason on LGBT issues — ie, the person who should have been liasoning with the LGBT press — was present but had absolutely nothing to add.
Good God, did they even bother to provide carrot sticks and ranch dressing? Crackers? A paper cup with warm apple juice?
I have no doubt that, within a week, President Obama will be crowing about how he “reached out” to his nay-sayers and proved himself to be a “fierce advocate.”
I hope I am completely wrong about how I am reading your post, Pam, but my inner curmudgeon says that I am being foolishly optimistic. I think I would feel less insulted if this event had never been called.
From your post,it sounds like all you got was the same old White House bomfog. Nothing concrete, no commitments, nothing but “that’s the way it is,and you’ll take it and like it.” Which is exactly what I would have expected. Whether it actually reflects their thinking or not (unlike the Obamabots, I don’t claim to know what Obama has “in his heart”), it does seem to be all they’re capable of delivering. Or all they’re willing to. It all seems to boil down to, “Just sit there and take what you’re given. And don’t forget to say thank you.” My cynicism about this administration is confirmed more strongly at every turn.
But thanks for going, Pam, and thanks for the report.
Did anyone ask………Why the f*ck LGBTQI Americans should pay a dime of taxes IN THIS CURRENT ECONOMY, when (for many) basic survival and just “getting by” is a daily question?
Things are difficult ENOUGH now – paying more for less is just pure insanity (but the bullies love it when we acquiesce, pay them, and don’t fight back).
Even GOOGLE has the sense to do the math and try to compensate for ONE inequity.
On average, employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage, according to a 2007 report by M. V. Lee Badgett, director of the Williams Institute, a research group that studies sexual orientation policy issues. – Google to Pay Gay Employees Extra to Make Up for Tax Inequalities
Maybe one day enough Queers will have inequality REALLY hit them in their wallets and inspire them to rethink paying a government that overtly, violently abuses their families WITHOUT a fear of “real” consequences.
First, thank you, Pam, for gambling such a hefty sum on the chance it might be worthwhile….
Few understand how much the best in our community contribute financially for our good while people like Joe S. probably don’t so much as break wind without submitting a promptly reimbursed expense voucher. Wonder if he claims those multi-thousand $ suits as a tax deduction? Other actors typically do.
Anyway, it was worth it if for nothing else to PROVE that they had no interest in being genuine, and you can avoid spending money in the future to attend their auditions for sychophants.
Sorry Eleveld wasted her question asking about Obama and same gender relationships when it’s obvious he’s more allergic to contributing to their recognition in ANY form [regardless of his tired boiler plate] than any other topic.
Sorry no one asked why his “support for repeal” required wiping Gates’ ass with the Military Readiness Enhancement Act [which would have GUARANTEED an end to discharges] and throwing it away.
And, again, Obama expressed a year ago this month, however indirectly, an opinion on the consitutionality of DADT in his non-answer to Anderson Cooper’s question last July about why he doesn’t freeze discharges if he thinks they’re so wrong.
As I’ve repeatedly written, one-time constitutional law prof Obama knows that only the Supremes can rule on the constitutionality of a law and they’ve never ruled on DADT.
Finally, Q’s comment about “you’ll take it and like it” reminded me of an account during the 2008 campaign by Eric Resnick, reporter for Ohio’s Gay People’s Chronicle:
So what did they say that was concrete?They’re talking to the HRC – but don’t realise how unrepresentative they are. So we’ve definitely diagnosed a problem there.
But apart from that, smoke and mirrors. Nebulous nothings.
Sorry, Zoe…
They KNOW that HRC is representative of the single largest group of easily-appeased LGBT donors to the DNC. They know and don’t care that they’re not representative of LGBTs generally.
And it’s not just independently thinking LGBTs they want nothing to do with. This, again, from a February article in the Financial Times:
And part of a January exchange from the late great Bill Moyers Journal
Why should LGBTs support the Democratic Party?Please don’t tell me because its better than supporting the other party because I don’t and if my ambivalence toward Democrats just empowers Republicans then the same is true about the Democrats ambivalence toward us.
So just don’t bother trying that.
I would have loved to have heard someone in the White House explain how support for them converts to good for us…or maybe even a hint of acknowledgment of the frustration we feel.
A f’cking hint of it. Take a moment and realize that some of us are middle aged and nothing about this stonewalling shell game horses’it is new…it’s old. Real old.
What can Democrats offer LGBT Americans that speaks to the respect we deserve as citizens of the greatest democracy in the world? Without irony, please…or condescension or gimmickry or word play? Why should we give you the time of day?
PS
Joe wrote at AMERICAblog that you “asked if we were sitting at this table next year at this time, would the discharges have stopped?”
MUCHO THANKS for that!
Dr Weiss asked my question for me. Thanks, Dr. Weiss.
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/0…
to answer your critical question…Good God, did they even bother to provide carrot sticks and ranch dressing? Crackers? A paper cup with warm apple juice?
Um, no, not even a glass of water. But we did receive a small box of Presidential M&Ms as a parting gift.
How positively generous of themI suppose you all should be grateful for even that much.
Its obvious that they are hearing the squeaking wheelPam,
First of all, as others have said, thanks for taking the time and money to attend this horse and pony show. I don’t know how you manage to fit in all that you do for our community and still hold down a full time job and a relationship. You rock!
Now, it seems to me that if the White House now deems it necessary to invite those same people that they not so long ago flippantly dismissed as “bloggers who need to take off the pajamas” and as the “Internet left fringe”, than you and we should take pride in the fact that someone very high up the political ladder is feeling the heat.
I think that the message to take away from this White House meeting is that we need to keep up the pressure. Keep calling the Dem’s and the White House on their B.S., keep embarrassing the President with great actions such as Lt. Choi and his fellow service members did chaining themselves to the WH fence, and the others did who raised their voices in protest when Obama tried to speak in public. We need to keep returning Democrat fund raising appeals with a note that they have to produce more than empty promises if they want our hard earned money.
We all must refuse to be sorta equal, or almost equal or separately equal and we must be LOUD AND FRIGGING CLEAR in our refusal!
What do we want? – EQUALITY!
When do we want it? - NOW!
ConcurOne thing Michael – now we have proof of this. Before, it was possible to give the WH and HRC the benefit of the doubt.
I better now get on to what’s happening in my own country, rather than sticking my beak into yours. Again. Thanks for not telling me, a durned furriner, to go mind my own beeswax.
Gotta love that Mars Candy touch…They’re the ones who had the ad on TV where the mechanics beat each other with wrenches, slammed a car hood on the ones head, etc, because they accidentally kissed while eating a Snicker’s bar. Mars never apologized for the ad, in fact they refused to. The whole message of the ad, gay behavior is to be answered with brutal physical violence likely to cause horrific injury or death.
Nice sensitivity touch there by the Straight House.
One’s auto response is, “You’ve got to be kidding!”
But, obviously, you’re not. July in DC and not even a pitcher of tap water? That’s even more pathetic than the lack of substance in the meeting.
Is there a drought in the Capital water rationing I missed hearing about?
OK, I can’t resist: I thought there were perpetual motion Kool Aid fountains every 20 feet in the White House.
But it was candy from a Democrat!It would have been much, much worse if it had been candy from a Republican.
what a waste....of time and money. i wish yall would stop going to these events. i’m sorry you had to go thru all that stress for nothing. obama needs no shows to his dog and pony shows and no money. i say howard dean for president. obama is not going to do any of it except cinderalla crumbs that can be tossed out when he loses to sarah palin and her sociopathic crowd. these tea baggers keep getting air time and are winning primaries. how do we start targeting the big gay money donors? they keep screwing us and pay no penalty. who are these money people? ggrrrr. why be american?
that was just it i wish yall would stop going to these events.
The WH hadn’t hosted ANY events for LGBT media – this was the first. It gave us an opportunity to see whether real information sharing would occur. We learned quite a few things about the administration that there was merely speculation about.
I guess that “Faggot Friday”came a day early.
Must be the holiday rush. Or somethin’
“We learned quite a few things about the administration that there was merely speculation about.”And none of it was favorable for the administration.
I’m curious, did you see the boxes given to the other attendees? Were there different characters, or did all of them have Red? Of all the M & Ms, he’s the one I most associate with Obama’s White House: articulate but snarky almost to the point of being misanthropic.
Those are for straights onlyThe queer kool-aid fountains are around the back so the neighbors don’t have to see.
excellent summaryExcellent summary of what we already knew and knew from the beginning. We have republicans masquerading as democrats in the white house and chair of the democratic party. Rahm believes we are all”..tards” anyway.
It is amazing that all of that “grass roots” crap from Obama all of the sudden ceased after the election? Do you actually think it ever existed?
“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”..Hillary Clinton Feb 2008
Use the box to send back to the White House With 10 million signatures petitioning them go get rid of DOMA or enact ENDA.
that box is way too tiny, lolOptical illusion. That is an extreme close up of the box. It’s about 2″ wide by 3.5″ tall.
rather disappointingto hear that this is all that the meeting came down to. Obama’s lucky he is not running for reelection this year, ’cause this just looks too ridiculous.
make the WH pay for your plane ticketif they have another event.
How could they not even understand the question about the difference between HRC and the Netroots? If they invited you they must at least have a cursory understanding of your views. I know the internet is open for anybody to read, but it seems like we are talking to ourselves…
This is why conventional politics is Beyond UselessI know you felt it important to go, Pam, but as you can see it would have been better to stay home and do real work.
Genuine politcs is local –
And gay politics is personal.
The Democratic party has never done anything for us and never will. They’re not just cowards — they don’t like us at all.
The Republican party hates us and wants us to die. Their hatred is what gives us strength.
We will defeat them both.
i don’t think yall are different than hrcto the administration. we’re the gay people that need to be pleased and it doesn’t matter whether you are from the media or from some other group. what would you have considered ‘real information’? i am not being flip. i genuinely am interested in what you hoped to hear. i really do think we should just give the democrats the silent treatment. this is an ethical issue and they are piecemealing it. i listened to nancy pelosi talking the other day and it seemed as if she thinks the democrats have a lock on elections. democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity and they have missed so many chances to make the bold moves they led us to believe they would make. i’ll be suprised if many of the young folks and the other hard workers for him will show up to vote. people will often do what is not in their best interest when they have been angered/disappointed. emotion trumps intellect 90% of the time. as i come up on my 28th ‘anniversary’ i am glad we never wanted to get married. i appreciate the efforts you make on our behalf. you deserve all the praise that comes your way.
you can’t be serious
Well, when I receive access to Jim Messina, maybe you can toss that our way, but the fact is I (or any other LGBT media) can’t bring you truthful information about the administration’s outlines or plans (I’m not even talking about revealing political strategy you’d want to keep close to the vest).
Real information would have been to actually answer the questions asked rather than respond with generalities that have been regurgitated from press releases. Honestly, a few of us expected some “news” to be delivered about another Cinderella Crumb of some kind that the WH believed would provide some salve to throw us off track from asking pointed questions, but they didn’t even attempt that.
At least for me, it was to see whether the invitation actually meant engagement as it does with other constituency media (belatedly 18 months without a peep), or as a face-saving maneuver of some kind. I didn’t expect transparency at this point, but at least the pretense of it. Melody Barnes was well prepped for the appropriate dodge. That speaks volumes, which is why I reported to you in the manner that I did.
I’m beginning to realise…how lucky we brits are to have the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems as our major parties. Based on both their current policies and the way their top pols have been dealing with gay issues, even the Tories – the party of Section 28 – are better for gays than the Democratic party. I have to wonder if the Dems realise the degree of shame they’re heaping upon themselves by this?