Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The First Results | Today The Stranger Suggests »

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Obama Snubbed SF Mayor Over Gay Marriage Stand

posted by on February 5 at 10:58 AM

SF’s mayor Gavin Newsom has endorsed Hillary Clinton—well, he’s appearing at her rallies, at any rate. Why isn’t young, liberal, progressive Newsom for young, liberal, progressive Obama? Maybe it’s this.

Gavin Newsom appeared at a “town hall” event on Monday night in San Francisco with Bill Clinton, and today primary eve comments on the Clinton-Newsom relationship (or rather the chill between Newsom and Barack Obama) by former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown have irked gay Obama supporters.

Brown reminded the SF Chronicle of a fundraiser he held for Obama at which Newsom was present, shortly after Newsom’s controversial decision to allow the city to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Said Brown to the Chronicle: “I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant. 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.”

The Chronicle adds: “‘I think he has harbored this resentment for years,’ Brown said of Newsom, adding that Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the gay-marriage mayor.”

More at Towleroad.

RSS icon Comments

1

Yep, well...Be careful what you wish for, man (and yeah, I'm referring to your Obama endorsement).

Posted by Matthew | February 5, 2008 11:09 AM
2

Again... who signed DOMA into law?

Posted by bma | February 5, 2008 11:13 AM
3

whatever. this is a last-ditch effort to slow turnout in the bay area which should go strongly for obama.

Posted by Kevin Erickson | February 5, 2008 11:14 AM
4

And this is the Saviour that's supposed to unite and bring about a less divisive politics? He will say and do whatever it takes to get elected just like everyone else. I'd love to know what his Iraq vote would have been had he actually been IN the Senate to vote at the time.

Posted by Darrell | February 5, 2008 11:15 AM
5

Whatever. I live in Iowa, and attended a rally Obama held for the LGBT community. Obama is extremely comfortable in talking about our issues and defending them.

Posted by Andrew | February 5, 2008 11:18 AM
6

Dear bma:

Please stop being an idiot. Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Hillary was not the president. Hillary and Bill are two different people (see, when two people get married, they don't really "become one" like your preacher would like you to believe. Back in the day, the wife would become the husband's property, but we've moved beyond that, at least on paper).

Posted by elm | February 5, 2008 11:20 AM
7

So, tell me again, is HRC in favor of gay marriage? I mean, how hard did she fight against her husband signing DOMA? How hard did she fight against DADT? When was the last time HRC spoke about gay rights in front of a non-gay audience?

Posted by Gitai | February 5, 2008 11:20 AM
8

@2 - BMA, It was NOT Hillary Clinton. If Hillary does not get to take credit for Bill's sucesses she should not have to pay for his mistakes. DOMA was by far the biggest policy grudge I hold against Bill Clinton (and Patty Murray)

Posted by Mrs. Y | February 5, 2008 11:21 AM
9

being pictured with the gay SF mayor doesnt win votes in middle america.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 5, 2008 11:22 AM
10

in contrast, i really appreciate HRC releasing a message to LGBT voters on Super Fat Tuesday Eve, it means she cares.

http://www.ourchart.com/node/299303

Posted by iatejesus | February 5, 2008 11:22 AM
11

Newsom doesn't have a future in politics unless he sucks up to Hillary, Bill, and the DLC.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 5, 2008 11:22 AM
12

@6 HRC is running in large part on her husband's economic record, and if she's not willing to separate herself on those issues, then she doesn't get to separate herself on civil rights issues either. If she were running on 27 years of public service instead of 35, I'd give her a pass.

Posted by Gitai | February 5, 2008 11:23 AM
13

When he's not fucking his best friend's (and campaign manager's) wife...

Newsom cost John Kerry the 2004 election by making gay marriage an election issue when it wasn't.

Posted by Will/HA | February 5, 2008 11:23 AM
14

Lookit folks, Gay-Americans are the untouchables, the sociatal plaque infested, the social lepers. Speak out for full equality for Gay-Americans, DOA on the campaign trail. Speak Out for full equality for Gay-Americans, DOA in fund raising. Speak out for equality for Gay-Americans, DOA on the nomination.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | February 5, 2008 11:23 AM
15

I'd be afraid to stand next to Gavin Newsom too, that is one pretty man.

Posted by um | February 5, 2008 11:24 AM
16

hillary, hillary, HILLARY!

Posted by adrian | February 5, 2008 11:25 AM
17

if that's an accurate characterization, then it's unfortunate.

but it's also a mere straw in the wind, since obama is the staunchest pro-gay candidate in the field (barring, perhaps, kucinich).

hillary is also pro-gay. but how many times has she mentioned gay people on the trail, unprompted and nonpandering?

Posted by BarackOutWithYourCaucusOut | February 5, 2008 11:25 AM
18

Whatever. Nobody's perfect. This pales next to DOMA and don't ask don't tell. Get your priorities straight.

Posted by carlita | February 5, 2008 11:25 AM
19

@8: But since she is running as having gained all that experience and know-how as part of his presidency, why is the actual signed legislation from all that "experience" not on the table for discussion?
Hillary supporters love to tout her White House experience without having to, you know, talk about the specifics or anything. She just learned "stuff," apparently.

Posted by torrentprime | February 5, 2008 11:26 AM
20

again, hillary supporters would rather spurn potential voters by being self righteous than being aware that newsome doesnt pull anyone who isnt a democrat towards the democrats.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 5, 2008 11:27 AM
21

Or maybe.

Just maybe.

It's because such a picture would be used in attack ads against him.

Which it would be - as everyone in politics knows.

PLEASE - can't we just be honest about reality sometimes?

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 5, 2008 11:28 AM
22

no will, we want to be self righteous.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 5, 2008 11:29 AM
23

Exactly, BA. Clinton seems hell-bent on driving people away from the Democrats. All of these posts here are hitting the same note: if you don't meet our stringent criteria, we don't want you.

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 11:30 AM
24

Nice cut & paste, Dan. However, you forgot to include this portion of the article: His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."

"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

Posted by Hmmm | February 5, 2008 11:31 AM
25

Also, the election-killing properties of my tribe aside (@14, lol), there were serious legal and process concerns with Newsom's "fuck it; I can do what I want" approach to gay marriage. Achieving marriage equality in the courts (as opposed to legislation) is hard enough to sell to people; having city mayors (in SF, no less!) arrogate marriage-defining power to themselves hurt us more than helped us, I believe.
Point being, there are lots of reasons to not want to say cheese with Newsom.

Posted by torrentprime | February 5, 2008 11:36 AM
26

Hmmmmmmm. I love the smell of unity and the new kind of politics.

There's only one solution, of course.

Clinton/Obama 2008.

Posted by Big Sven | February 5, 2008 11:40 AM
27

Newsom is not well-liked in SF, not because of the gay marriage thing, but for many other reasons. If anything, this should make Obama even more popular in the Bay. Most of my friends from that area are for Obama.

Posted by kebabs | February 5, 2008 11:41 AM
28

Newsom is a self-serving ego-maniacal twit. Non-story.

Posted by stunk | February 5, 2008 11:43 AM
29

I meant to say 'so is Willie Brown'.

Posted by stunk | February 5, 2008 11:44 AM
30

i live in SF. trust me, obama owns this turf. newsom is a joke. people here only care about who he's banging, not who he's endorsing.

Posted by brandon | February 5, 2008 11:46 AM
31

I agree that the Bay will most likely go for Obama, but your friends are on angel dust if they think newsom is not well liked in "the city", even if "he was banging cocktail waitresess two at a time."

Posted by SeMe | February 5, 2008 11:47 AM
32

I'm a 'mo. In fact, I'm a 'mo who's leaving Michigan b/c of how backward it is when it comes to progressive issues. I'm an Obama supporter, too. This sort of story doesn't bother me. I just don't care. At all. Obama has mentioned gays and lesbians in every speech I've heard over the past couple weeks. Nobody else is doing that unless they're trying to vilify us.

Posted by Michigan Matt | February 5, 2008 11:48 AM
33

@18

Priorities straight? Enacted legislation "pales in comparison" to a photo-op/endorsement?

HRC only likes to touch gay issues when the people lobbying for those issues offer her campaign money. HRC was one of the most active First Ladies in the White House in lobbying for policy and legislation on a myriad of issues. And like #12 said, she's including those 8 years as First Lady as part of her Experience™ package.

The Clintons (and yes, since he's campaigning for her too, he's included) have betrayed the LGBT population many times before, and there's nothing to say they won't do it again.

Posted by Josh Hemsath | February 5, 2008 12:05 PM
34

Disappointing if true, but you have to wonder about the timing of this. I smell Billary.

Posted by Seattle Mike | February 5, 2008 12:06 PM
35

Homos likely won't be welcome on Clinton's "march forward" and even if they are they'll be relegated to shutting the fuck up when it comes to move our rights questions forward because of the fear Clinton has about pissing off the "moderates". Elizabeth Edwards had the fortitude to disagree with her husband about gay rights. If Hillary had the same fortitude, she'd do so. She hasn't, nor has she said DOMA was a mistake (unlike DADT). Her credibility with me as it relates to homo issues is zippo. I'll vote for her in the general if I have to but it will be holding my nose and knowing that leadership on the federal level will wait again on homo issues.

Newsom did something no one else had done- took the bull by the horns and rode it. The only reason some are pissed off about it is that he didn't get the permission of those that choreograph everything in the homo legal world.

Posted by Dave Coffman | February 5, 2008 12:07 PM
36

@32 - I totally agree with you. This bit of the story doesn't tell why Obama wouldn't pose with Newsom - we're just supposed to assume it was because of the 'gay thing.' I'm a lesbian, and Obama has (or had, rather, as of 7:00 this morning) my vote without hesitation.

Posted by Joey the Girl | February 5, 2008 12:12 PM
37

Newsome isn't a progressive and isn't a friend to the LGBT community because he doesn't support Obama. Got it.

Posted by Big Sven | February 5, 2008 12:14 PM
38

@23 - so, you're saying that Sen Clinton is perpetuating the old Clinton-Bush tactics of turning off voters who aren't your core supporters?

Well, hmm, that explains it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 5, 2008 12:25 PM
39

Are we STILL talking about the merits of who is supporting the people who are supporting the candidates?

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 12:26 PM
40

What IS all the fuss about? Hillaryobama are BOTH going to suck up to the queer community and BOTH of them are going to do very little for us if either of them get elected...It's the same old shit from the Democratic candidates, every 4 years:

"We're here for ya!"

"Give us your money and your votes!"

"Oops, we can't piss off middle america so we're not going to give you much of anything, or if we do, it's going to be in a seriously watered down version!"

"Can we have some more money?"

Posted by michael strangeways | February 5, 2008 12:33 PM
41

This is one of many reasons Obama creeps me out. The man is just as calculating as any pol but acts so "I transcend the old politics; even my poop doesn't stink. Hope! Change!"(see Iraq double-talk). I just voted for Clinton. She knows what time it is. Go blue!

Posted by chicagogaydude | February 5, 2008 12:38 PM
42

I'm not sure Obama's going to miss this guy's endorsement much. From Wikipedia:

"According the San Francisco Chronicle, Newsom is particularly sensitive to how he is portrayed in the media.[4] Newsom has been sensitive to media coverage, yelling at reporters, refusing to answer questions from certain reporters, and threatening to blacklist news outlets.[4] Newsom has been criticized for a large number of press releases, made for TV news conferences, and catchy names to new initiatives that might be obscucuring what is actually accomplished.[4]"

And:

Relationships

In December 2001, Newsom married Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former San Francisco prosecutor and legal commentator for Court TV, CNN, and MSNBC, and who now hosts The Lineup on Fox News Channel. Newsom appeared in a fashion magazine spread with Guilfoyle at the Gety mansion in 2004.[4] On January 7, 2005, the couple jointly filed for divorce, citing "difficulties due to their careers on opposite coasts."[48] The couple had no children.

In 2006, Newsom dated Brittanie Mountz, a then 20 year old hostess he meet at San Francisco's Aqua restaurant. At the opening of the Westfield San Francisco Shopping Center, there where photos of Mountz with the Newsom where Mountz appeared to be holding a wine glass, promoting speculation which Newsom spokespeople later denied, that he had provided alcohol to Mountz.[49]

An article dated Mar 11, 2007 states that he is currently engagement actress Jennifer Siebel. [50] On December 31, 2007, he announced that the two are now engaged, and will wed on an undetermined date.[51] The had become engaged during Newsom's October trip to Hawaii.[51]

[edit] Rippey-Tourk affair

On January 31, 2007, Newsom's campaign manager and former deputy chief of staff, Alex Tourk, resigned[52] after confronting the mayor over a sexual affair Newsom had with Tourk's wife in late 2005. At the time of the affair, Newsom was undergoing a divorce with Guilfoyle and Rippey-Tourk worked in Newsom's office as the Mayor's aide for commission appointments.[53] The San Francisco City attorney investigated Tourk receiving $10,154 in catastrophic illness pay, which is usually reserved for those who are terminally ill, in August 2006. Newsom and all those involved were later cleared of legal wrong doing.[54]

Newsom apologized for the affair at a news conference on February 1, 2007, saying, "I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, his friends and family, and that is something that I have to live with and something that I am deeply sorry for." After being approached by concerned colleagues, he checked into an alcohol rehabilitation program.[55] Newsom later said that the difficult times during the exposing of the affair refocused him and allowed him to better appreciate being mayor.[4]


Posted by Matt Davis | February 5, 2008 12:38 PM
43

@41:

What politician isn't creepy?! In the end, you can only go off what is documented. Hillary has her lack of dissent documented in regards to DOMA.

I'm actually not sure if Obama has or hasn't done anything. Anyone look into his voting/policy record on this issue?

Posted by Josh Hemsath | February 5, 2008 12:49 PM
44

THIS is why Obama has a real shot at being elected president. It's called tactics.

Posted by Ole | February 5, 2008 1:02 PM
45

Gavin Newsom is young and liberal for an American mayor, but liberal isn't the dirty lefty word here. That designation is reserved for so-called "Progressives".

Newsom hasn't done the absolutely terrible job we all feared, but he's still old-guard, a "limousine liberal" (a stupid term I know, but it's a perfect fit here) Democratic party hold over. As OK a president I think Hillary would be, both her and symbolize an entrenched, borderline-corrupt (replete with affairs, ballot boxes washing up in the bay, back-alley deals, etc) status quo that doesn't really excite people all that much, to say the least.

If it were 5 years ago, Obama's perfect San Francisco endorsement would have come from former Sup. and mayoral contender Matt Gonzales if he hadn't dropped the Dem party, who's since returned to the private sector.

Newson's endorsement for Hilary is going to be a wash at best, a liability at the worst.

Posted by Dougsf | February 5, 2008 1:12 PM
46

doug that may be true but he still won his second term with 72% of the vote, thats a lot of support for a dude who is supposedly not liked in the city.

most of my family lives in the mission and what they tell me is that sf's lefties which are numerous, but disorganized as hell- in sf are still mad at him for beating the green candidate, but that he is still popular as hell, specially among latinos in the city. i tell you what after that cop Jordan newsom seems a hell of a lot better, and my sense is people dont really care who he is banging.

Posted by SeMe | February 5, 2008 2:05 PM
47

Politicians are sensitive about photos that could be recontextualized and used to propagandize.

In college my friends tried to get Ralph Nader to have his picture taken with a funny hat. He wouldn't even stand NEXT to the person in the funny hat.

Posted by Kevin Erickson | February 5, 2008 2:09 PM
48

72% isn't that great when nobody runs against you. Seriously, you'd be hard pressed to find a resident here that could name his most recent contender.

Posted by Dougsf | February 5, 2008 2:15 PM
49

well, i dont live there but our chubby mayor here ran against a dude thats nuttier than my turds after i eat an almond rocha and i dont think he got 50%. 72% means somebody likes u.

im only telling u what i hear from my fam, and they been there for a looooooooooong time. according to them, he is your next governor.

Posted by SeMe | February 5, 2008 2:21 PM
50

As an SF voter, yeah, that means nothing here. After all, Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly blamed Newson's decision to wed the gays for Kerry's loss in the 2004 Presidential Election, yet there's no bad blood between Newsom and Feinstein now (he endorsed her, she endorsed him, they fundraise for each other, etc). If anything, this is just the more conservative Chronicle's last minute attempt at dramatizing what otherwise is a pretty easy election in SF for Obama.

Robert Haaland of LeftinSF has more here: http://leftinsf.com/blog/index.php/archives/2463

Posted by hunter | February 5, 2008 2:32 PM
51

Perhaps if Mister Newsom had not jumped the gun on the Gay Marriage Issue and instead helped shepherd the marriage bill through legislature (yes, it passed, TWICE), rather than sending a panic through the conservative part of the state (and the country)... it might not have gotten vetoed by Arnold (yes, twice) and handed bullets to the Christofascist Right?

Maybe Obama is a more skillful politician than Newsom? Maybe Newsom was a baby about not getting his photo op?

Just a thought.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 5, 2008 3:30 PM
52

Obama is without a doubt more skillful than Newsom, in probably every arena.

Obama = Head of his Class, Harvard Law

Newsom = Even Getty money couldn't buy his way into a good HIGH SCHOOL in SF, went to private school in Marin.

I'm not making fun of the guy, hey, I'm dumb as a stump - but I ain't running for president. Newsom likes coverage, he likes BEING a politician - it USED to impress his catalog-model wife, and it ain't like a little coke addiction ever kept anyone out of office, but he's far outclassed by Obama (and Hilary, in most matters).

Sorry to get this so off course.

Posted by Dougsf | February 5, 2008 4:14 PM
53

DISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Posted by dissed by obama | February 5, 2008 4:18 PM
54

Everytime I hear Newsom described as "liberal and progressive" I feel momentarily disoriented... our local political compass (I'm in SF) is so different than the national one. People nationwide saw the gay marriage thing as this really daring, gutsy, radical move. The local context was that he had recently been just barely elected, with no clear mandate, losing the (substantial) youth and progressive votes to Matt Gonzales. He needed to do something to win over those constituencies, and, well, around these parts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples is about as controversial as free ice cream. It didn't alienate his original supporters, who tend to be older and/or wealthier San Franciscans- fiscally conservative (relatively) but socially liberal and proud of the city's "tolerant" history, and it made him a lot more palatable to young people because he now "stood for something" and obviously he gained points with less wealthy gays, who had mostly voted for Gonzales.

Nobody in SF would expect Newsom to endorse anyone other than HRC. In SF Newsom is essentially a conservative (as is Willie Brown, Fienstein, etc), in the sense that he is a big money machine Democrat. He is almost as far to the right as you can get in SF without being laughed out of the city.

Posted by erika | February 5, 2008 4:23 PM
55

@49,

Not in San Francisco. Willie Brown got percentages even higher than that and he was a complete incompetent.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 5, 2008 5:58 PM
56

What #54 said, I was having a hard time getting that out.

Posted by Dougsf | February 5, 2008 6:10 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).