Obama on Homophobia in the Black Community (two months ago)

[obamian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iJS2fX3PaQ

[LeftCoast]

1. Ah, so he says one thing and does another

Thanks for the info!

[obamian]

3. How does Donnie Mcclurkin singing a few songs contradict

Obama's message?

His singing will not sway anyone against or for LGBT rights.

[LeftCoast]

6. If I were running for President I would not want any bigots associated with my campaign

Not in any way. Even if they're self-hating bigots.

[obamian]

7. I understand McClurkin's singing for Obama upsets some LGBT rights supporters.

but I find it hard to believe that it will have any effect (good or bad) on LGBT issues in the black community.

Which presidential candidate has spoke out more than Obama on homophobia in the black community?

[cboy4]

11. Well Obamian....do you really think a white presidential

candidate would feel comfortable discussing black culture homophobia. (And please God let me preface that I'm not talking about all African Americans, because I have many black friends and acquaintances who are not homophobic.)

But having said that, it's kinda hypocritical to speak out against homophobia in the black community, and then have a homophobic fundie help raise campaign funds.

It's ridiculous.

[obamian]

14. No. That's the point. Obama has an advantage over the other candidates

because he would be able to comfortably speak out against homophobia in black community from the White House.

These concerts weren't fundraisers. The profit from the tickets pays for the cost of the venue.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. The Obama site disagrees. They say the proceeds benefit Obama's campaign.

[obamian]

20. Someone said it on an earlier DU post. Not sure where they got it from.

I'm looking for more info. I would guess the campaign is required to collect the money and than pays it to the venue.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. I'm sure $10 barely pays for the venue. It's not a lot of money. Just being precise.

[pnwmom]

27. The problem is that Obama's action appears two-faced.

With one side of his mouth he speaks out against homophobia, with the other, he welcomes a homophobe to a prominent role in his campaign.

[obamian]

31. I agree.

[Ethelk2044]

45. Question

Question because you are a friend of someone and they do not believe what you believe. Does that make you them. That is what everyone has been posting here on DU. If your friend Killed someone does that make you the murderer because you associate with him?

[pnwmom]

48. It's not a question of being a friend of this guy. Obama has made him

a visible part of his campaign, as I understand it.

[Nedsdag]

52. A "prominent role?"

He's only singing songs, he's not advising him for goodness sake.

Why is this a major story? There are more foreclosures than ever. People don't have health care. Others are being killed in Iraq. It's sad that the gay community can only hover on this one issue. If McClurkin actually hurt someone in public, not just saying "stupid, idiotic words," then I would agree with you.

Another mitigating factor in the bad relationship in the African American and gay community is that many AAs were insulted by the gay community co-opting the civil rights struggles of the 1960s as their own.

Yes, I know I will be flamed but I'm willing to take it. Bring it on.

[niceypoo]

53. Guilt by osmosis?

[Ethelk2044]

44. Nope. He still means what he said. People are trying to smear him because of Donnie

Question because you are a friend of someone and they do not believe what you believe. Does that make you them. That is what everyone has been posting here on DU. If your friend Killed someone does that make you the murderer because you associate with him?

[sniffa]

46. indeed. just Like hiLLary

[DemFemme]

2. It's obvious Obama supports the LBGT community as much as any other Democratic candidate. n/t

[pnwmom]

28. It's not obvious to me. Putting a homophobe in a prominent position

in his campaign is not a good way to show how Obama feels about gay rights.

But welcome to DU, DemFemme.

[DemFemme]

37. I think describing McClurkin's campaign role as "prominent" is pushing it

But I understand your viewpoint. Between Hillary's endorsement by anti-gay Rev. Mayberry, Richardson's belief that homosexuality is a "choice"
(before he backpedalled in the face of widespread Democratic base derision), Edwards' self-described moral stance on gay marriage, and now
this, it's obvious this is an issue for many Democratic candidates despite their relatively similar views on gay rights.

Thanks for the welcome. :hi:

[Mass]

42. "as much" was the operative word, I guess.

[Adelante]

49. The homophobe is not in a prominent position in his campaign

The homophobe has no position in his campaign.

[cboy4]

4. During the video, he mentioned, "I pointed out if there's

any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me because I haven't seen any evidence of it."

He said some other very positive things during the HRC forum.

But the problem is, he's not backing up his comments with his actions.

[obamian]

5. Mcclurkin's singing will not sway anyone against or for LGBT rights.

[cboy4]

9. I wonder how black people would feel if Michael

Richards performed as well?

You know, actions speak louder than words, and Obama has really turned off many in the gay community.

Surely you see that and he should be more sensitive as a minority.

It's mind boggling how he thinks a few fund raising bucks are more valuable than potential votes when he's trailing in the polls and needs every one he can get.

[obamian]

12. The concerts aren't fundraising events.

The profit from tickets goes to the cost of the venue.

I think the Michael Richards comparison is fair if Obama is trying to attract Seinfeld supporters.

This may be a bad political decision, but in terms of LGBT issues this won't change anything. There is no other candidate who has spoken out more on homophobia in the black community.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. "Tickets are just $10 and support Barack's historic, grassroots campaign for the Presidency"

"Tickets are just $10 and support Barack's historic, grassroots campaign for the Presidency"

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/scembrace

[alteredstate]

58. $10 a person wil barely cover the cost of renting the convention halls

[cboy4]

21. Obamian, you should know that black people are not

the problem with the gay community.

While it's very appreciated that people like Obama address the issue of cultural homophobia with black people, the main problem is with the right wing Christian Fundamentalists and many Republicans.

Black people aren't blocking civil rights legislation, and promoting discriminative legislation. It's mostly white Republicans and some white Democrats.

Obama had an opportunity to lead the pack in terms of supporting equal marriage, etc. But instead, he pulls this. It's a mistake.

[obamian]

26. Homophobic black people are a problem in terms of the advance for stronger LGBT rights

but I agree they aren't the biggest problem. He was quoted awhile back saying he would support gay marriage if he thought it was politically viable.

[cboy4]

34. Yes, but he had a chance to move away from the

pack as a maverick.

I dunno. What's done is done, and he can campaign the way he wants obviously.

At any rate, you seem like a really good guy Obamian, and you're a good supporter for trying your best to "repair the damage." :)

[obamian]

36. Thanks. I try to be as fair as possible, but I can sometimes get overwhelmed during the busy periods

of DU and end up spouting positive messages in favor of Obama without really explaining all the details.
I wish the campaign would make it easier for me by not making mistakes, but so it goes...

[denem]

8. Don't you understand, the damage is done.

McClurkin is a club to swing at Obama for the rest of the primaries. Whether justified or not, it's a serious misstep, and precisely the sort of thing we can't afford in the general election.

[obamian]

10. I genuinely believe that this may be poor political decision by the Obama

campaign, but that in terms of LGBT issues, McClurkin singing means nothing.

If Obama makes it to the general, McClurkin singing for him won't hurt Obama's support. In addition, he would have the full Democratic party behind him and he would be less likely to misstep.

I'm trying my best to repair the damage.

[denem]

13. I wish Obama's campaign well

And particularly the men and women experiencing the joy of remembering that there are things worth fighting for and that despair is a unforgiving enemy.

He will not however have my support in the primaries. Peace.

[obamian]

16. I think you have a legitimate reason to question the Obama campaigns political

decision making, not Obama's support for LGBT issues. Peace.

[pnwmom]

41. "Actions speak louder than words"

seems to apply in this case.

[Mass]

43. For all candidates or only for Obama...

[pnwmom]

47. Hypocrisy is a strike against any candidate. n/t

[Bluebear]

19. Are you gay? Seriously? Because if not, you can't say it means nothing.

[obamian]

23. Not gay. I'm a strong supporter of LGBT issues. And kind of Obama obsessed.

I don't think was as clear as I should have been. Sorry. I was arguing that there wouldn't be a change in support for LGBT issues(good or bad) in the black community after McClurkin sang.

The decision by the Obama campaign to pick McClurkin does have meaning.

[pnwmom]

30. Why doesn't he just drop McClurkin and find a non-homophobic

gospel singer to associate himself with?

[obamian]

33. Black talk radio in South Carolina is supporting Obama's decision to

have McClurkin. If he backs off, then there will be a backlash from black community. There are Obama supporters in South Carolina who have criticized Obama's decision to say he disagrees with McClurkin. I don't agree with those supporters, but they make up 50% of the voting bloc in the democratic primary in South Carolina.

From a poll of African Americans in South Carolina:

Even though almost 75 percent of those polled felt that sex between two adults of the same sex was strongly unacceptable, or somewhat unacceptable, 47 percent also said they have a family member who is openly gay or lesbian, and almost 50 percent said they have a close friend in one of those categories.

http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/12747974.txt

Obama cannot afford to lose their support. I think that is the campaigns calculation at this time.

[Bluebear]

38. Well, he is certainly selling out gays for his black votes.

He could have had both by not even inviting McClurkin, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. And I *am* in New Hampshire, sorry :(

[obamian]

39. I hope Obama is focused on more important issues than looking at the public

statements his campaign's Gospel tour singers have made, though next tour he'll probably check it out.

I suspect the decision was made by a South Carolina staffer focused on attracting South Carolina voters, not how the decision would play with the national electorate. In that sense, Donnie McClurkin wasn't politically that bad of an idea, given the views of the South Carolina electorate. The national campaign probably wasn't too focused on the choice of the gospel singers. It's hard to imagine this much controversy would come from a gospel singer selection.

Once the decision was made, Obama was placed in a catch-22. Even if he retracted his offer to McClurkin at this point, the LGBT rights supporters mad at him would probably still be mad at him. He tried to minimize further political damage with his statement, but the damage for the most part is already done. So he might as well not alienate the black voters too. His campaign might have overestimated the potential damage of uninviting McClurkin or underestimated the backlash from the LGBT community. The campaign was put in a difficult position. There is a lot of uncertainty.

This is all just speculation. Probably all wrong...

Despite all of these campaign difficulties, I still think Obama is the best supporter of LGBT rights of the viable candidates.

[pnwmom]

40. I can see the difficulty he's in , but I can't imagine how he can now

be considered "the best supporter of LGBT rights" of the candidates, viable or otherwise.

[obamian]

50. His record on LGBT Issues and his current positions

Obama noted his opposition to DOMA when he ran for the Senate in 2004. There's no asterisk to that opposition, as there is for Clinton, Edwards and most of the others. He opposes all of DOMA, including the half that blocks federal recognition of gays married by states and (unlike the others) the half that allows one state to refuse recognition of gay marriages from other states. That's a major policy difference, even if he didn't highlight it specifically last night.

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/08/grade-the-dems-.html

Citizen Chris covers why Obama is the best LGBT rights candidate in more detail if you click on the link and read his other blog postings.

[BronxBoy]

51. Political Calculations Aside.....

I think the deeper issue here is the not that McClurkin in on the program but that there are an awful lot of our folks who tacitly agree with his viewpoint.

Trust me, this will go away. And it's too bad because I think he passed up an opportunity to further a dialouge that needs to happen for the sake of political expediency.

On another note, in addition to the quote you provided above, I noticed this little gem:

Fifty-three percent of respondents felt that the Republican Party was working to attract African-American voters. And of those, some 61 percent feel that the party is either very effective, or somewhat effective, in their efforts. At the same time, 56.2 percent of respondents felt that the national Democratic Party, and 57.1 percent of the respondents felt that the SC Democratic Party were taking their votes for granted.


Yeah right, on what Planet? Didn't all of their candidates just blow off the Gay, Black and Latino debates? Seems like THEY think we are all the same: Unworthy of their efforts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Wow

There is a problem there...

That being said I would have phrased it differently...

Do you think gays should have the same rights as other American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution?

[obamian]

55. Yes

[Ninja Jordan]

61. General election? This is a nothing story in the general election.

Hell it probably helps him in a general election. It probably helps him NOW in the SC primary.

[LeftCoast]

18. I'd still vote for Obama in the General but...

this moves him down in my ranking for the nominee. I'm still undecided as to who gets my vote in the primary, but looks like it won't be Obama.

I'm sure he's terribly broken up about my decision (LOL), but that's the way I feel about it.

[obamian]

24. I'm broken up (especially if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire.)

No... Not really. That's fine. I shouldn't tell you what you should value, only what I value and why. Support whoever.

[LeftCoast]

25. It's ok. I live in CA. I won't get a chance to help choose our party nominee

:shrug:

[obamian]

29. No, it's a Feb 5th state. I think it will have an enormous effect on this election.

The Clinton campaign has really been emphasizing California. It's listed with the early states on their website. Obama has also been building a strong operation in California as well. Look at the Camp Obama blog to see how they are training supporters: http://campobama.blogspot.com If you get involved with a campaign, I think you will have the potential to help determine the nominee. That is unless Hillary dominates the early states, then she will just keep winning.

Outside of California, you can travel to Nevada and help out your candidate win the caucus.

[LeftCoast]

32. We're getting a bit off topic but...

I thought the new primary date would let Californians actually have a voice this time, but with the mad leapfrogging going on for primary dates, I think it'll be pretty much over before we vote. It would be nice to be wrong on this though. :)

[obamian]

35. If Obama or Edwards wins most of the early states,

then Clinton will not disappear. She is running a national campaign and has the financial support to remain in the race, even after a few losses. If Obama or Edwards win all of the early states, then I think the boost in support will be sufficient to win the Feb 5th without too much additional effort.

My concern with Edwards even if he wins the early states is that he won't have enough money to compete on Feb 5 with Clinton, especially since he opted for public financing. The cost of advertising for Feb 5 will be more than in a General election. This is because normally in a general election campaigns don't advertise in New York or California as they are Democratic strongholds. And the election is usually decided by the time it reaches these states in the primary. In addition, he hasn't built that much of a national campaign.

The primaries being moved may give a candidate a longer time to recover for Feb 5th or the next early state, depending on how the scheduling and winning works out. The candidate who loses will have more time to change the impression of the voters from just the candidate who lost in Iowa or wherever to a more positive impression.

I might be completely wrong. Who knows?

[LWolf]

56. He has trouble with that "walking the talk" thing. n/t

[obamian]

57. No other viable candidate has spoken out more than Obama on homophobia in

in the black community. In addition, he opposed the DOMA from the start, and has called for its full repeal, unlike the partial repeal called for by some of the other candidates. He has also left wiggle room in his position gay marriage, allowing for him to support gay marriage in the future. What other viable candidate has walked the walk more than Obama?

[LWolf]

59. I'm not going to be derailed

into a circular argument about which candidate does more, or less, since that's not my point. How many other candidates have invited outspoken homophobic bigots to campaign with them?

Being outspoken about homophobia while inviting a homophobic bigot to campaign with you is not walking the talk. It's hypocrisy.

I understand that if you are a supporter of Obama, you feel the need to defend him and somehow spin this issue away. Don't bother with me; it's wasted breath, wasted energy.

[obamian]

60. Here's some wasted typing

I view the McClurkin invitation as a political mistake by a South Carolina Obama staffer. I hope Obama is not involved in picking his campaign's gospel singers. He has much more important issues to be focusing on as a presidential candidate.

I believe Obama's record on LGBT rights is the best out of the viable candidates. I believe that an Obama administration would be able to get more done on LGBT rights than any other candidate's administration.

I wasn't trying to get in a circular argument. I was trying to refocus the debate on stuff that will actually have a palpable effect on the LGBT rights community. I think what Obama has done in the past on LGBT issues is a significant measure of how he will do in the future on LGBT issues. I think a campaign staffer mistake isn't, though it is much better story.

I'm arguing because I believe in my argument. Why else would I respond to someone who says they won't listen to my response?