Obama and McClurkin: Don't Care

With all the ruckus about Barack Obama's cozying up to Donnie McClurkin, the gospel singer notoriously ignorant about the possibility of curing homosexuality, you'd think that none of the Democratic candidates have been pandering to the homophobic vote from the day they started running. More precisely, they have all been walking that tight-rope they hate so much between throwing a bone to the gays (and the LBTs) while not scaring off ostensibly straight voters.

In this game, all candidates have been associated with homophobes. For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry, of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland; her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery.

This campaigning compartmentalization has lead to the absurdity of Democrats rediscovering the value of states' rights, after the brief 1960s folly of empowering the federal government to have a say in the minor matter of local civil rights; segregationist Democratic party greats such as George Wallace would feel vindicated. The irony is thick: Democrats can't get enough of the federal government regulating every aspect of our lives, except on the one issue of same-sex marriage.

More bluntly, the leading Democratic candidates' stance on same-sex marriage is in itself homophobic, although I don't completely blame Clinton, Obama or John Edwards (actually, him I do blame for being a coward and trying to have it both ways by hiding behind both his faith and his wife). They are making a political calculation, and it is their right to do so; it is for the rest of us to show that calculation to be increasingly flawed.

His association with a fool like McClurkin notwithstanding, Obama easily remains the most convincing on the issue of gay rights. He is by far the most comfortably eloquent on the subject, and he is right when he says that he is the only candidate who has brought the fight to some of its toughest frontiers. Clinton, Ms. DOMA, is fine in front of a Human Rights Campaign audience, but, as with everything else, overly cautious elsewhere. As for Edwards, his stated "struggle" on the issue of gay marriage is not exactly inspiring, especially coming from Mr. Slick on every other topic. And, of course, we love Dennis Kucinich, but we are not going there.

Comments

[algibbs3]

Actually I'm waiting on the candidate that openly goes for the bigot vote. That would be the one I could trust to mean what he/she says. I'm fairly sure that a majority of the American public thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and somewhat disgusting,
They won't publicly admit that because it would tar them with the "bigot" label.Since voting is a private action they wouldn't be "outed" so the honest anti-homosexual candidate would get the bigot vote. It's really a majority position. think about it.

[barryearle]

Au contraire! I am going to Kucinich. It makes no sense to waste my vote on candidates who do not support me. And so in the primary, Kucinich--for any number of his positions--is My Man!

[jwod]

Requiring all to sign up for the orthodoxy of the month lest they be tarred with the brush of intolerance, is the shiboleth of both the right and left. These strait jackets, insisted on by the fringe, are the prescribed hair shirts of the small-minded, single issuers. Hey, marginals, get over it. Gay marriage, intelligent design, born again-ness, anti-environmentalism, and animal rights activism, the divine designation of the promised land to Jews, the war over the minutia of abortion are all issues of transient interest. War, famine, education, and personal and family health and security all trump the silliness of the mono-questioners. When will we have a populace and electorate intelligent enough to consider all issues before electing another Nixon, Carter or W.

[bwanab]

Because voters are individuals and individuals have issues of great importance to themselves that may or may not be important to you. For example, if you're gay and that causes problems for you in your everyday life, then you're not likely to support a candidate who is openly hostile to that issue even if he or she is most acceptable in all other issues.

[JettFuel]

Obama has shown that he is a follower. We need a leader.

Rev Donnie is a closet case, just like Larry Craig. He is the most evil of all homophobes as they create a hostile environment for young gay people that are already having a struggle.

jack jett

[expedito]

I'm not supporting any particular candidate, but I'm looking at these comments to get information and opinions. (I'm not a secret Hillary or Edwards supporter trying to masquerade as a former Obama supporter or vice versa. I'm still shopping.)

I realize that a lot of you are political partisans of one particular candidate or another, and it's a kind of game to tout your guy and trash the others. But please realize that to some extent, you are representing the candidate you're supporting. Nastiness and vituperation may be good mental health therapy for you, but those kind of attacks are more likely to turn someone against your candidate than gain support.

I recently visited the Obama website and was pretty much appalled by some of the blog comments. I had to keep reminding myself that the comments were those of his supporters (of all stripes) and not Obama's opinion. (I'm sure it would be pretty much the same if I visited any of the other candidates' websites.)

I'm not suggesting you abridge your free speech. But if your object is to convice people of your point of view, please consider your approach.

[itmaybetoolate]

Dodd receieved a 100% rating from HRC. I am not a big fan of HRC but there rating process is pretty good.

[talkstocoyotes]

I saw Obama at the HRC/Logo debate too. Yes, he did split hairs about same-sex marriage, but he also acknowledged that the opinions of churches had influenced his opinion that civil unions, the 21st century's version of "separate but equal", aren't "a lesser thing."

That made me skeptical about voting for him at the time; there isn't a snowball's chance in a California brush fire I'm going to vote for him now. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ditch all the Dem candidates -- the first priority for me is getting The Frat Boy's Handlers out and then we hold the President's feet to the civil rights fire.

The 800-pound gorilla in this room is Obama's having been accused of "not being black enough" and responding to that by pandering to the very people in the African-American community who represent a huge moral failure there: widespread homophobia and an unspoken attitude of "civil rights were fine for us, but surely you can't be suggesting that this applies to Those People". No matter how that's tarted up with appeals to cultural tolerance, it's coming from a significant percentage of the very group of Americans who should know better.

As for "tolerance", that's a very unstable commodity when you're applying it to people who aren't content with their personal prejudices -- they want it codified into law, so now we have the obscene spectacle of "Christian" groups mounting zealous campaigns to ensure that hate crime bills are vetoed. IMO, tolerating distasteful differences in belief does not obligate any group of Americans to just resign themselves to second-class citizenship in the interest of not hurting some bigot's feelings.

But vote for Obama, or for Ron Paul if you must. Hell's only half full.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

I feel Ron Paul has the best stand on Gay marriage...
What he says is that the Federal government has the duty to recognize all religions equally under law.
He claims the Federal government should have no tie regulating marriage in any way..
This issue of the sanctity of marriage developed well before any government especially ours, and should never be regulated by the Federal government...In fact he claims all religions should be promoted, equally.
What he has done is vote against the Marriage amendment forcing a constitutional ban on any other type of marriage except between a man and a woman
He voted against this calling it unconstitutional.
He claims what should be done is this issue of gay marriage should be ripped from Federal court and placed back into the state for a vote by the people.
That vote would enact law.
If the state votes against gay marriage then so be it. The Federal government would support this states law.
What he has said on a few occasions but seldom written was that if the state decides to approve gay marriage his administration would recognize this under freedom of religion, and his Administration will not only recognize gay marriage but support all tax advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy.
It sounds to me like Ron Pauls administration would be the only one to fully recognize gay marriage and this would be done by a vote of the people in that state...We should have no Federal encroachments either way, by the Federal government.
To do this would be unconstitutional.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

I am far left and I agree with his statements.

Go Ron Paul

Defender of our constitution.

Please support this bill that was introduced to restore us to our rightful place under the constitution. It is the only bill suggesting to do this.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/201007Freedom.htm

[neoconjob]

it's an uphill battle, but I'd really like to see more libertarian and Constitutionalist Democrats getting behind the Good Doctor. in my experience, the two groups most adamantly opposed to Paul are neo-conned empire apologists on the right and hive-mind collectivists on the left. all the right enemies, in my book.

[CheneysACoward]

The fact that ANY Dem would be involved with a fool like this, is bad news. What the hell is wrong with Obama? Am I missing something? This is like a trip to, "Bob Jones U"...sad!

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Obama's dilemma is that he is seeking the religious wacko vote and he is also seeking the gay vote.

He may end up alienating both segments of the electorate.

[WilliamL]

Obama continues to prove he lacks the sense to be president. His little "stances" over lapel pins, placing his hand over his heart for the national anthem, and this business of running around with a bigot is but another example and reason why he is unelectable.

He might have considered serving a full term as Senator befor attempting to tell the country how qualified he is simply because he did not support invading Iraq which really does not matter since he was not in the Senate at the time anyway.

Enough Ombama please.

[KenoshaMarge]

The "but they do it too" argument stops being relevant after you reach puberty. I want to like Obama and yet can't quite see where he is really all that different than any other politician. And for heavens sake don't jump in with another post about Kucinich. Old man, young wife, not gonna vote for him because that is a deal breaker for me. Obama needs to fix this fast.

[thinkbig]

If you bothered to watch the LBGT forum, you would have seen that Kucinich was by far the biggest advocate for gay rights. Lets take off those MSM blinders and actually evaluate the candidates we have...all of them.

[neoconjob]

yes, but apparently he's an old man with a young wife, a deal-breaker for some. why? you got me. probably a personal issue.

[zull2]

The thing is, you cannot convince the convinced! Preaching to the choir accomplishes nothing. So many people are so caught up in appearances that they forget the goal they're fighting for...which is to help enlighten as many people as possible. Because Obama has already clarified his position on gay rights, he sure as heck isn't going to go up on stage and pander to homophobes. The only thing he can do is to maybe make a small dent in that homophobia. If he can change just a few people's minds, that's a far cry better than a lot of us have done.

[LIR]

Jenkins, I don't want "comfortably eloquent"...mere words...I don't want to hear about other candidates' records against Obama. This is about him and only him, no one else.
There is no possible excuse for his appearing with this McClurkin, period, end of discussion. The Human Rights Campaign has taken the right approach in telling Obama that this is a no-go for LGBT voters...this guy appears with you, you don't get the community's support. He could have a record that is exemplary, but he has crossed a line here of political calculation that he swore he would never do, something so many here have whined endlessly about that Hillary does (BULLSHIT!). Face the facts, Obama has presented himself as a visionary, and he is nothing of the kind. The people who support him have become delusional and one-tracked, refusing to see when he is clearly not what he has promoted himself as...maybe that is why people are turning away from him in droves, and with this terrible move, LGBT people are joining those who are running away from him at lightning speed. The damage is done. He has chosen to throw the LGBT over the railing in hopes of securing the black evangelists, not something a "uniter" should be doing. How does the black LGBT community see this? Do you give Obama a pass? Why?

[NoDrama]

Even here at home refusal to talk to adversaries isn't a viable long-term approach.

It's always tempting to cast debates and issues as having only two possible sides, which means the typical rhetoric (and often the outcome) is polarizing, "you're either for us or you're against us." Keeping lines of communication open has been a touchstone of Obama's political vision, which he clearly puts in to practice, too.

The price of the politics of intolerance is unacceptably high. So this is an opportunity, and Obama's statement re-affirming that gays and lesbians are "our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens" is out there for all to see, and ponder.

We cannot remain locked in a system that equates the act of reaching out to evangelicals to an affront to non-evangelicals if we are to move forward. We cannot accept that reaching out to people of color is an affront to people who are pigment-challenged; we must not fear that reaching out to (*gasp*) conservatives is an affront to progressives. Nor should we tolerate the mindset that suggests that embracing a person who is gay or lesbian is an insult to those who endorse a more traditional sexuality.

Imagine all the people expecting to simply hear Donnie McClurkin and yet being exposed to this tolerant, reasonable, uniting campaign for inclusivity.

Understanding is the first step toward change. What is the first step toward understanding?

Tolerance begins at home.

[myname]

Paul Jenkins,
I have more important news for you :




OBAMA IN BOSTON ADDRESSES 9,500

THE HONORABLE GOVERNOR Deval Patrick said:

"For once, I want a campaign that"s not about the candidate, but about us.

Not about a resumé, but about character. Not about connections or convenience, but about conviction. Not about smearing the competition, but about lifting us all up. Not about the right and the left, but about right and wrong. Not about yesterday, but about tomorrow.

I don"t care whether the next president has experience in the White House. I care whether he understands life in your house.

I don"t care whether the next president has already met foreign heads of state. I care whether he knows something about how people live and think in distant cities and villages and can remember that our actions affect them, too.

I don"t care whether the next president is the first black president or the first woman president or the first whatever, to tell you the truth. I care that the next president has moral courage, a political backbone, the humility to admit what he doesn"t know, and the wisdom to learn from others".


GO OBAMA 08.

[V4Vigilance]

I'll applaud Obama's character, conviction, and moral courage when he uninvites McCulkin from this trip.

Until then I'll call it the way I see it, another politician who says one thing (to gays) but does another when it's politically expedient.

[xcrunner77]

Having just attended a 2 day Camp Obama training that was hosted at HRC's headquarters in DC, I find it hard to believe that the Obama camp would "use" homophobia for political ends. More likely this is poor vetting of an unknown entertainer. (Fess up.... how many of y'all had ever heard of Donnie McWhatsHisName before you read about him on HuffPo?) Obama will backpedal and pull him off the tour. This issue will be gone in a few days. Just like Hillary's $5,000 baby bond.