- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Karl Rove
- |
- GOP
- |
Why Barack Won't Dump McClurkin: It's Cynical Politics Baby Pure and Simple
Read More:
Barack Obama, Black Evangelicals, Democrats, Donnie McClurkin, Gay Marriage, Gays, Giuliani, Obama Donnie McClurkin, Politicians, Politics, Romney, South Carolina Democratic Primary, Thompson,
Politics News
Politicians do two things better than anything else. The first is they are masters at saying whatever it takes to get elected. The second is they obsessively crunch numbers; and the only number that counts is the number of votes they can get to put them over the top. These two crass and cynical talents of politicians aren't mutually exclusive. Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama is a fast study of a well-meaning politician that's cultivating those talents.
The Donnie McClurkin flap is a virtual textbook example of that. When this writer called Obama out on his scheduled October 28 South Carolina gospel tour appearance with the Grammy winning, anti-gay morals crusader, Obama snapped back with a public statement hotly insisting that he's a staunch opponent of homophobia and that he vehemently disagreed with McClurkin's views. He probably means it. He's been the paragon of political correctness on gay issues in press statements, and in his campaign stump speeches. But Obama is a politician. It would look awful strange for him as a liberal, and a self-professed change America, consensus guy to say and do anything else. That goes hand in hand with the second thing politician Obama has mastered, counting votes. When it comes to getting those crucial votes, flowery statements and speeches on tolerance mean little.
Obama has looked hard at the numbers in South Carolina and elsewhere, and knows that there are a lot of socially conservative blacks who loathe gay marriage and any talk of gay rights. Their numbers have not budged one inch downward in the past decade. In 1996, 65 percent of blacks were opposed to gay marriage. A decade later a Pew Forum poll found that 64 percent of blacks still vehemently opposed it. While the opposition to same-sex marriage among blacks is frozen in time, white and Latino opposition to it has dropped. The only other group whose disdain for gay marriage hasn't budged an inch downward is the hard line evangelicals.
Put the words black, evangelical, and voter together and it translates out to thousands of potential voters ripe for an overt or subtle tap of anti-gay sentiment. South Carolina is the first big state primary, and blacks make up nearly fifty percent of Democratic voters in the state. A good chunk of them are evangelical leaning. Their votes can make or break Obama's national efforts. McClurkin can help, and help him in a big way. He's black, popular, and an outspoken evangelical. Obama can have it both ways with him. He can publicly denounce his views, which he has, while latching onto to his crowd-pulling coat tails.
The South Carolina saga is no aberration when it comes to a politician reading the evangelical political tea leafs. The first big warning sign that the issue of gay rights could inflame, polarize and even energize blacks within and without the black pulpit came in October, 2003. At a tightly packed press conference, five of Michigan's top black prelates publicly called on the state legislature to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The subsequent ballot measure passed and more than fifty percent of blacks backed it.
That touched off bells and whistles among GOP strategists. They knew that they had hit the political jackpot. Gay bashing could gain a few more black votes for the GOP, soften black support for the Democrats, and all without the risk of alienating core white conservative Republicans. The Massachusetts court ruling in November 2003 upholding gay marriage was even more cause for euphoria by GOP strategists who were working overtime to hammer down the blooming alliance with black evangelicals. A Pew Research Poll taken right after the court decision found that far more blacks than whites sharply disagreed with the court's decision.
Bush capitalized on that sentiment and of course the rest is bitter history. But the gay bash card has lain tantalizingly on the political table since the 2004 election and it can be played by any politician seeking votes among conservatives. Democrats do not dare play the card the same crude, naked bigoted way that some Republicans played it. That would ignite howls of hypocrisy and alienate party liberals. In fact, it's almost laughable to hear the tortured gyrations that blind faith Obama backers go through to justify his flirt with McClurkin. If Republican presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney had publicly hyped an appearance with a very public gay basher, they'd scream bloody murder. But Obama did just that and he gets a free pass. Amazing!
While Obama will publicly say and do the right thing in condemning homophobia through the front door, the temptation to cash in on it through the back door is evidently just too irresistible. It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is
The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press). hutchinsonreport@aol.com
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
wKjIZAmGrVTG%2BXffhAEc1wfBZ%2FgJ02DA8nuwuCxph2b%2F0nsKdIRgHLI%2FHKG7OPoHVVPFacqb9supJaCTm%2BGngw%3D%3D
%2FI0yCuWYSbkuIiB8EY9rU42zBAP43EK3VGKsE4nISnJ5e1MQIDML3VAQK9R1XwlEsrYS6Gq7ibqypVYhm211RA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
QGXig0mUl7amU4ZA2HAhYkDY1vi%2BuWcM
TgQFGKvxs7dZt6bubLGoUSQAwCqw54FT
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Hutchinson, this has largely become a national flap because *you* have chosen to make it one. I don't fault you for bringing it to light, but Obama's inclusion of an openly gay pastor now completely invalidates your original point: that this was all a giant tactic to "win one over" on the ignorant black voters who somehow missed all of Obama's pro-gay messages before hearin' some good gospel singin' this weekend.
You are quite simply wrong on this.
NO ONE would argue that the inclusion of McClurkin was a *dumb* move on Obama's part, but you have now officially been proven wrong. If Obama were truly trying to tell black Christian voters that he thinks it's wrong to be gay, he wouldn't have invited a black gay Christian minister to join this tour.
- GMB
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a transparent attack dog for the Hillary camp.
Expect to see a lot more of them come out of the woodwork in the coming days. For some reason they think that Hillary represents liberalism, progressive policies, or a scaledown in Iraq.
How fitting that the powerless debate so fiercely amongst themselves while those with power look on and glean the means to continue their reign. Any Democratic candidate must be inclusive to ever be elected. Period. Ours is truly the party for minorities of all kinds, for that is the base that, if held together, makes us the majority. Do any of the advocates of throwing Barack overboard honestly believe by doing so a better candidate will emerge? Let a hundred flowers---and weeds that might really be flowers---bloom. Leave the condemnation to the Republicans.
Whether a better candidate is going to emerge isn't the issue. On gay rights Hilary and Barack are both about equal. But we don't have to sit passively back while they trash us.
Two points:
1. Could this be Mr. Hutchinson trying to make a name for himself by attacking Obama over an obvious screwup on the part of his staff? Is Mr. Hutchinson trying to be the new Drudge? Don't you think that they could have left this guy off the program and easily have gotten plenty of people to turn out for other gospel singers? Obviously they didn't know.
2.I heard some discussion of this on Signorile's show on Sirius Tuesday night. One of his callers said, "I'm a black gay man and I've been listening to his music for years. I really like it. But I had no idea he was so homophobic
If a gay guy who has been a fan for years didn't know about this side of him, it suggests it wasn't that well known to a lot of people. It makes it more likely that the Obama people didn't know. Also, it tells you that the anti-gay sentiment must not be expressed in the music itself.
So if a gospel singer who has personal anti-gay feelings, but doesn't put that message out in his music, wants to sing about Jesus, should he still be dropped from the tour?
It occurs to me that a similar situation happened with Clay Aiken. Wasn't there a church that invited him to sing at their Chrismas show? And then when the rumours about him became widespread, they uninvited him. We all thought that was so terrible. After all, he was only going to sing nice christmas songs, not about the joys of gay love.
If this guy is only coming there to sing about Jesus, is cancelling him any different than that church which cancelled Clay Aiken?
Great post.
I think it's telling that Earl Hutchison has written 3 attack columns on this issue in 4 days. They are all sprinkled with words designed to present Obama in the worst possible light. "Desperate
He appears to have an agenda here.
I'm a white gay guy that has listened to him for years and I didn't know he was homophobic.
People have accused Obama of pandering for votes. Imagine that! A politician pandering! If you're waiting to vote for a politician that doesn't pander, then you will never vote again.
The media, and the voters, are finally coming to realize that the true alternative to Hillary is not Obama but John Edwards, who has led the dialogue in this campaign from Day One, and has forced both Hillary and Obama to follow his lead. While Hillary triangulates and is busy doing her best to say nothing, and Obama speaks ever so beautifully of hope, Edwards has shown that he understands our problems and has had the courage to give us real, concrete, smart solutions. Leadership and courage is what it is all about. And in recent days, Obama has shown his lack of leadership and courage by trying to morph himself into Edwards -- to the extent that he copies not just words but entire phrases from speeches Edwards has been giving for months. Name recognition and money may be capable of buying the nomination, but it won't give us the President we need: John Edwards!
"In fact, it's almost laughable to hear the tortured gyrations that blind faith Obama backers go through to justify his flirt with McClurkin. If Republican presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney had publicly hyped an appearance with a very public gay basher, they'd scream bloody murder. But Obama did just that and he gets a free pass. Amazing!"
This "blind faith Obama backer" finds it amazing the lengths you'll go to to bash Obama at any turn. Yes, I realize that Hillary's your girl, but Obama is hardly the opportunistic, unethical politician you constantly make him out to be. And no, I doubt I would scream bloody murder if Mitt, Rudy, or Fred made a public appearance with a gay basher--It'd just be another day of GOP politics. The reason I'm okay with Obama forming these relationships, is that I believe that he is capable of encouraging productive and frank dialogue between folks of different views. Obama is a strong supporter of gay rights, actually a strong supporter of human rights. Just because we don't agree with people, doesn't mean we don't talk to them. Perhaps before you rush to judgement, Mr. Hutcheson, you should wait and see what this joining together of folks accomplishes. Barack spoke about the importance of fuel efficiency to car makers in Detroit, the possibility of merit pay for teachers at the NEA conference, who knows what he has up his sleeve for this group of Evangelicals. The lady (or gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks..
McClurkin on Tuesday:
"I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I. Most of the things that were said were totally out of context and then other things weren't true."
"My only concern is to be in place with Sen. Obama in unity and bring all the factors together for the sake of change," he said. "That's my only thing. Of course some agents have twisted it as though he [Obama] were embracing a racist or a Nazi, and that is anything but true."
"I believe in his stance. I believe in his platform and his agenda. So when they asked me if I would be a part of it, there was no problem."
McClurkin has talked from the pulpit about how he was raped by a male family member as a child. It was that act, he has said, that sent him into living as a gay man for the better part of 20 years. He now says he is straight and that his ministry is open to those who say they no longer want to live as a gay person. What he doesn't do, he says, is crusade against homosexuality.
"There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."
http://www
Hutchinson apparently hopes that readers will see "black," "evangelical" and "voter" and think "homophobe
Interesting that he wants to ignore the possibility borne out by McClurkin's own words: that whatever the hidden or prior feelings of the crowd, they will have to support this candidate knowing that he wants government to be more open to gays, not less.
I do not encourage passing for white, but if someone comes to me hoping to do so, I will help him.
Hmmmm...
Wipe the dew out of your eyes ElroyJSonn.
Here are the statements that crackpot bigot McClurkin actually made:
* “Homosexuality has really ravished our children. It started in my generation. I was touched by it and I struggled with it and all that for years and there was nobody to deal with it. I started dealing with it in my sermons and even when we do our concerts.” (An interview with www.Family
* “Everybody is going to the same hell. The religious hypocrite will go to the same hell as the murderer and homosexual. My job is to say that sin is wrong and kill the sin, not the sinner.” (The Voice, 16 July 2001)
* Commenting on New York City’s Harvey Milk School, which caters to gay students, he said, “The gloves are off. And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose.” (CBN, 700 Club Sept. 23, 2003)
McClurkin is a lying bigot and there's no place for him on the stage of a Presidential campaign.
So you know McClurkin personally?
Is that how you know that he's a "lying bigot"?
How is it that you know he isn't just conflicted, confused, and self-hating?
Just wondering.
But beyond that wondering, the point remains that even if he did say the things he now claims he didn't say, or were taken out of context, he now says that he believes in Obama's platform, that he doesn't discriminate against gays, and that he does not advocate "curing" homosexuality.
He has agreed to sing at an Obama fundraising concert because he has signed onto Obama's stance, not because Obama has signed onto his. Do presidential campaigns have no room for converts, in your eyes?
Did the Republicans repudiate W because ex-Democrat Zell Miller embraced him?
Did they repudiate Reagan because trickle-down denier George H.W. Bush changed his tune to join the team?
No and no.
There's no fair reason to treat Obama differently, and no fair reason to try to saddle him with what McClurkin said previously, when both the principles both signed onto today are exactly the opposite.
Well, well, well!! If it isn'r JUNO912.
One of the commenters on here to you to task on September 24th for hateful, gutterific comments you made against Barack and his lovely wife Michelle. Take a look at a brief history of comments of JUNO912:
"You mean trash talking Michelle Obama, her snout firmly stuck in the corporate gutter!?!?! She's no Jackie, that one!"
"Maybe you should change your screen name to Blow Jobs for Obama."
"You crackpot O-Bomb-A cheerleaders are so full of bullshit."
"He (Obama) is a political lightweight with a virtually non-existent record."
"Ugh! The Obama's are such opportunistic phonies."
"It's encouraging to read others voicing concern over Obama's vacuous, nothing campaign."
"The problem with somebody like Obama is that he is a psychologically un-integrated person, thus the psychological inflation, or hubris, that takes over. We've already got one such person in the office of President, and that's George W. Bush. We don't need another."
"The country made a huge mistake with doofus Bush, and is not going to make it again with little Barry Obambi."
So JUNO912, you have no credibility! You spread lies, innuendo, and you're truly mean spirited. So if McClurkin doesn't belong on stage, you don't belon on THE HUFFINTON POST.
Go Barack!
Wow, Mr. Hutchinson, you are really trying to push this issue. It's no secret you favor Clinton over Obama (as it is no secret I am an Obama supporter). Your Blog nary says a positive word for Obama, and while I don't claim to know why that is, you are really making too big an issue out of this.
McClurkin is certainly not the poster boy for gay rights. I patently disagree with his views (as Senator Obama does and has made a statement to that effect) and I lament the statements he has made in the past.
However, what you are suggesting would be like my gay friends and family members telling me I'm not allowed to associate with my other, homophobic friends and family members. It is ludicrous!
I certainly don't see you, Mr. Hutchinson analyzing the performers on the other Democratic candidates. You are attempting a smear campaign on this, and I would call on you to disassociate yourself with any homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and any other discriminating individual.
It is really sad when folks are so fickle that they would ignore all Senator Obama has done in his lifetime for civil rights, and how he absolutely does not, as you say "saying whatever it takes to get elected" because he will frequently discuss things that may not necessarily be popular with the crowd he is speaking to. Talking about fuel efficiency to the autoworkers, and merit pay to teachers, is hardly telling them what they want to hear, yet he remains true to his statements - unlike so many politicians.
So, baby, not everything is politics as usual, except for your blogs, of course. But it seems to be working for these fickle readers who are so swayed by idiotic issues instead of what really matters.
For me, Obama gets the Odumpa. This proves that although he's good at talking the talk, he can't or won't walk the walk. You think he'd bring along a neo-nazi rapper to an appearance at a Jewish American Defense league conference and then try to justify his choice with claims his campaign is just being inclusive? Fat chance.
Comparing Donnie McClurkin to a neo nazi is ludicrous.
absolutely!
Republicans laugh all the way out of the polling booths when Democrats concentrate on gay rights. Clinton's first administration barely survived their foolish decision to force the military to accept gays. The fact that gay people can serve is long established, but to force the isssue on people who see gay sex as an abomination is a great example of focusing on a very tangential issue at the cost of losing political power.
The war in Iraq, the war on the environment, and the war on our civil liberties should trump the tangential issue of recognizing the humanity of gay people. Most main line Protestant religions have taken on this issue and found it to divide their congregations, but have nonetheless taken brave stands. They, however, do not control the federal purse strings, the supreme court, the military etc. I think that the gay community would agree that to win against the forces of reaction now in power is better than to take a principled stand in favor of full marriage rights, full military rights, or whatever other full rights gay activists are demanding.
Let's give Obama a break and realize that he is simply trying to gather anti-gay voters to further a larger agenda that will benefit all of us.
Very well said alkamm.
The Democrats always work themselves into a nuanced corner trying to be everything to everyone, and in the end still come off as wimpy and ineffective to the lizard brain of the voter. Thier very own base can't seem to find common ground between the camps of civil rights, environmentalists, anti-war activists, and national health care. It has become far too shrill and disorganized, when all the voters can handle are simple, iconic and mythical messages.
The Republicans have it so much easier because they need only to support guns and oppose abortions, and their base will forgive them for all else they do that is hypocritical and mean. This doesn't make them right, but the message is simple and simplicity is what makes them so effective in the voter brain.
Though I support the humanity of gay rights, the country is not yet ready for it. It saddened me to watch the Episcopal church splinter over this issue with good intententions, but now the gays have lost yet another base they once depended on. This example should be one observed by all the fringe elements that make the Democratic base and it would do all of the minority communities more good to support centrist views to regain the power needed to address the fringe from there.
Until then, all of the noise they make only plays into the fears that makes the Republican base so effective and consistant.
We found the enemy and he is us.
Will benefit all of us-except gay people. Like Roosevelt, Truman, etc. should have ignored civil rights for blacks because it upset the bigots. Bigots need to be upset. Screw em. Right is right. Equal is equal.
So appointing more liberal members to the Supreme Court will NOT benefit gay people?
Here's a report from your own Website. http://www
Obama just included a gay minister on the gospel music tour. This is why he's a good politician. he's not about shaming people when they're wrong, he's about including people in a community where a good discussion can take place.
Anti-gay people aren't going to change their minds if we just exclude them from our party. Building a community promotes dialogue, and dialogue is the only way to open people's minds.
Obama is building a community by including people, even if they don't agree. That's the only way to build a real community.
Please stop being so divisive. The way to change people's minds is not to kick them out of your club until they shape up. This gospel music tour is a great example of exactly why you *should* build a community with people you don't agree with. Obama now has an anti-gay pastor working together with a gay pastor, while himself never changing his position, and in fact re-stating his position in case the anti-gay pastor got the notion that Obama was anti-gay too.
He's a brilliant politician who is making real change right now.
Obama a brilliant politician??? Obama invites a bigot on tour with him, and you're calling Hutchinson divisive??? The irony. Obama has invited the gay minister now as yet ANOTHER 'tactical' decision, to back-pedal and to get out of his disasterously stupid decision to include McClurkin in his event. MANY of his supporters are disillusioned, he's literally taken their money, and then turned his back on them. He's not brilliant. By refusing to disinvite McClurkin, he's gone beyond "playing politics", he's chosen to throw his own supporters under the bus, for what he considers a "politically important" segment of America.
Well guess what, there's another politically important segment of America that he underestimated: the people who are SICK AND TIRED of bigotry; in ANY way shape or form. Gay or heterosexual, people who are sick and tired of intolerance, will be disgusted at this move of his. He thought this would upset just the smaller LGBT community, he was WRONG. We'll see where the tactics of sharing a stage with intolerance-mongers gets him.
Nobody is being thrown under the bus. Obama has restated his commitment to fighting for gay rights, and that's what he's going to do, either in the Senate or the presidency, no matter how outraged you get.
Wow, so he included a gay minister on his tour... kudos (he said sarcastically). That's the equivalent of "How can I be a racist if I have a black friend". Sorry, the only way for Obama to fix this is to uninvite McClurkin. End of subject. If he wants to continue with him as part of the tour, that's fine; it's his perogative. But don't expect gays to vote for someone so blatantly two-faced.
Call the Obama campaign. Keep the pressure on if gay people aren't to be forever thrown under the bus. God, politics is sickening.
Be sure to talk to the thousands of gay supporters while you're at it. Obama isn't throwing anyone under the bus - that would require an endorsement of McClurkin's views, which Obama has not done.
So you'd be ok with Obama campaigning with an anti-semite, as long as he says that anti-semitism is wrong?
To me that is sending mixed messages, as the action & the words just don't jibe.
I will support a candidate has the balls to stand up for what is right, over their own political ambitions.
To talk to Obama's thousands of gay supporters you'd need a time machine to last week.
Helps narrow down the choice for Dem nominee a bit for me at least. I had high hopes, but this doesn't sit well at all.
Enjoy.
Try paying attention to the real issues instead of blown-up ones like this and the flag pin farce.
You're equating Obama inviting a bigot to one of his political events to the FLAG PIN incident? WOW. That is unbelievable, we are talking about PEOPLE here, not pins. Ask someone who is gay if this is on par with the "flag pin farce".... intolerance hurts, intolerance of any kind, and when you see a politician who you THOUGHT held hope, throw you off the bus for a more 'politically important' segment of the population- 'farce' isnt the word that comes to mind. Although, the word does also begin with an "f". Obama 'farced' up on this. Period.
Oh no. It's a politician playing politics. Next you'll accuse farmers of farming.
Look, Obama's record is very clear on gay rights. He has what is probably the best record on gay rights out of of all the candidates. He has restated his position on gay rights just the other day so that there is no confusion generated by this current gospel music tour.
It's a shame that you're using your voice to go after the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
There is NO shame for calling Mr. Obama to do the right thing and not share a stage with a known hate monger.
It would defy and blemish Mr. Hutchinsons good character to do otherwise.
I agree with D'Arby. Why not analyze all politicians choice in musicians? Perhaps Hillary's endorsement by Jena Jameson means Hillary endorses pornography?
Grow up and think people!
Surely you jest...
No, he doesn't have the best record on gay rights, that would be Kucinich or Gravel. Obama is for separate but equal, not equal, as are Hillary and Edwards, etc.
I think he was referring to the candidates who have any chance in a General Election.
They both only support civil unions and not gay marriage - I don't get how you are coming up with this...
It just shows that Obama will talk, talk, talk, but when it comes to his actions, and when push comes to shove, he'll betray any minority whenever it helps his political status. He was supposed to be better than the other candidates. Now he just looks the same, or even worse.
Not sure if you know his record on gay rights, but in case you don't:
http://les
Basically, separate but equal, like the "liberal" white folks wanted for blacks in the south. Not actual equality. Not quite human, but almost.
Great analysis, great post- you called it like it is. Sadly, it has only added to my disillusionment with democratic politicians. I can now add Obama to the same club as Reid and Pelosi. Democrats continue to let republicans paint progressive values as being "radical far left".
I truly believe our country is at it's most dire time since it's founding. We need leaders who stand for their convictions, not politicians that blow with the changing winds. I had great hope that Obama stood for genuine change, not "business as usual".
So sad you would believe only one person's views. The same can be said about all politicians. As I said before, why no assume Hillary Clinton is for pornography based on the endorsement of Jena Jameson.
Another excellent post from good Mr. Hutchinson. Characteristically blunt, and once again he essays factually.
Calculating politicians can and DO take the high road on gay issues without the need to pander to small minded evangelicals.
The slender road which Mr. Obama has determined to traverse here has ruined his credibility permanently as just another opportunistic politician much in the style of Mr. Tom DeLay.
Colour it how you will, but play it as it lays.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
