Obama/McClurkin issue: What part of this don't you get?

[Bake]

This is not that tough a call. The Obama supporters keep defending their man with things like:

1. Obama doesn't agree with McClurkin, so move along, nothing to see ...

2. McClurkin didn't say all that much at the event anyway, so move along, nothing to see ...

That seems to be pretty much the gist of it. But I have to ask two things in response to these "defenses." First, if Obama didn't agree with McClurkin, and maybe it's true that he doesn't, then why in the living hell did he INVITE McClurkin to speak at HIS campaign event? And why did he persist with the invitation in the face of the many, many voices raised in protest to it? Second, even if McClurkin didn't say all that much at the event (which is debatable), is he not on the record many times over with his hateful bullsh*t? Reasonable candidates don't invite David Duke to speak at their events, even if he doesn't say anything offensive AT THE EVENT because of things he has said in the past, that the candidates do not want to be associated with.

Now, if Obama does disagree with McClurkin, and invited him any (in the face of much protest) and gave him HIS stage, there can be only one conclusion: Obama is guilty of pandering to the homophobic elements of the party, the "good evangelical folks" who just can't force themsselves not to hate some loyal Democrats. And frankly, it's the pandering that I have a problem with. Pandering is not leadership. Pandering is not "a new kind of politics." It's just the same old bullshit with a better speechwriter. We should never, ever throw any of our loyal Democrats, our brothers and sisters, under the bus. We're better than that. Or at least I thought we were.

So to my original question: What part of this don't the Obama supporters get?

Bake

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. We get it.

We also get that Clinton's exactly the same way.

[blm]

2. We do get it - we also have seen it WORSE from TeamClinton over the years.

It's a matter of proportion.

Clintons throw ANY Dem under the bus when they see benefit to it - as Bill displayed many times during his term and in 2004 when he advised Dems to SUPPORT antigay measures on the ballots in southern states.

And any Dem throwing other good Dems under the bus.......please.....let's review Tonya Harding's performance on that:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[AtomicKitten]

10. Thanks for providing the perspective some here conveniently overlook.

[HeraldSquare212]

15. And Hillary appeared at an anti-gay minister's fundraiser

but no one seems to care about that.

[Radical Activist]

3. Haven't people already responded to those points

in one of the other million or so threads about this? Is there any reason to think this one will be any different?

And I'm sure you'll respond with something like, "but I don't like those responses because it was such an evil thing to do and Obama must hate gay people and..." Well, I'm not going to respond to that either. The conversation has played itself out a million times on DU already. There's nothing more to add.

[Cant trust em]

25. There is nothing original in GD:P these days

I feel like in the last month I've seen and heard it all. I'm just hanging out in the lounge now.

[Kittycat]

4. Did this deserve it's own thread?

Could it not be posted under one of the MANY threads of this same topic? And I agree with the PP on TeamClinton throwing anyone and everyone under the bus, including the LGBT community. People have shared and posted links to Obama's stance on this subject, but that isn't good enough. If you'd rather live under the rule of DOMA & DADT - then so be it. That's your choice.

[Bluebear]

28. dbaker is straight, actually, so DOMA doesn't affect him. He is standing WITH us

rather than telling us to "get over it" as 99% of Obama Nation has told us.

[Bake]

36. Please! Call me Bake!

All my friends do!

:hi:

Bake

[dchill]

5. If homophobia is an issue for Obama...

then it is an issue for most of the other Democratic candidates, including Clinton, as well.

[Enrique]

6. I can't speak for the Obama supporters, but here's a Clinton supporter's view

Obama invited McClurkin to the event because it was a gospel concert and McClurkin is a leading gospel figure who supports Obama.

He persisted with the invitation in the face of protests because the protests did not convince him the invitation was wrong.

[mondo joe]

7. What Obama supporters don't get is that this was grievously offensive to many GLBT people,

and it remains so despite their arguments that we should get over it or should consider other things as offensive (even though we don't).

[billyoc]

8. The part that describes who the fuck McClurkin is.

Did you forget to post a link or something? :shrug:

[Bake]

46. Come back after you've done your homework.

If you don't know who McClurkin is, you should probably keep your thoughts to yourself in this thread, since that's what this is all about. Do your own homework.

Thanks,

Bake

[billyoc]

48. Thanks, Baker, the other 43 threads on the subject today got me fixed right up. nt

[soleft]

9. I have to weigh McClurkin vs. the IWR

I may end up with huge buyer's remorse for voting for Obama. But right now I'm willing to vote for him anyway, because Clinton's IWR is a more aggregious affront to me, as a gay woman, as a woman, as a human being. And having another republican in office who would not only keep us in Iraq, but do more harm than good for gay rights, is not an option.

I'm not defending Obama for having McClurkin at the event. However, I voted for him and support him for the nomination.

[msongs]

12. false argument: obama votes to support and fund the Iraq occupation and death over there nt

[mondo joe]

20. I appreciate your position, though I disagree with it.

I don't really mind people considering all sides and coming down on one.

I have, however, minded non GLBT people telling me what I ought to care about.

[soleft]

23. Absolutely, point taken

I think perhaps people who are supporting Obama, gay and straight, are anxious that this fuck up, or any potential slip or exposed flaw is going to hurt his chances, and that anxiety is blocking their empathy and sensitivity.

In the end, it's compassion and identification that enables us to overcome our prejudices, not intellectualizing the issue. So the hurt needs to be expressed even if it falls on a lot of deaf ears. Every once in while someone comes along and finally says, yes, I get it now. And for that, this discussion is worth continuing.

[calmblueocean]

11. You asked why he invited McClurkin. The answer is to initiate dialogue.

I know you won't agree with that. You will say that dialogue is bullshit, and call it pandering.

But if Obama was only interested in pandering to the homophobic elements of the party, as you say, why would he stand up in front of Ebenezer Baptist Church and chastise not just the congregation, but the whole evangelical movement, for "scorning our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them"?

That's dialogue. That's how you move past the labels and into change.

Again, I know you won't agree with it. And there are plenty of churchgoers out there who will say that Obama was pandering to the gay vote, and want no part of him for it. But I get what he's trying to do.

[mondo joe]

13. That's bull. It was to give a nod to religious bigotry.

You don't tell racists they're wrong by using a KKK member as your spokesperson.

[Beausoir]

18. That is ridiculous. Hiring a gay basher is initiating dialogue?

Fucking ridiculous.

[LostinVA]

33. Would you be okay with a Dem presidential candidate "initiating dialogue" with David Duke?

No difference. The Ex-Gay movement KILLS.

[cooolandrew]

14. Let's be realistic here not that I'm anti-gay but if candidates disinvited homophobes there events..

would be near empty. We are taling america here arent we no sweitzerland.....

[mondo joe]

16. This is not a matter of having homophobes at events but of giving them a platform to spew lies.

I expect every candidates gets some support from homophobes, from racists, from assholes. But I don't expect every candidate to give them a platform.

[Beausoir]

17. Obama backers do get it. But they want to win at any cost, so they pretend it doesn't matter.

They know perfectly well what Obama did was indecent and indefensible. Throwing the GLBT community under the bus to garner the homphobe vote is the reason I will never cast my vote for Obama. It was one of the most despicable acts of hate-filled pandering I have ever witnessed.

But, they choose not to examine their own morals regarding civil rights for EVERYONE. Instead, they just want to win. Any way they can.

[zulchzulu]

19. Any comments on the homophobes on Hillary's payroll and web site?

Free pass for her?

As for the McClurkin event, yes, he wasn't fully vetted for the one concert one night in a small town in South Carolina with three other bands. Get that?

So Obama's 25 years as a solid supporter and worker and legislator for civil rights for ALL can be McCarthyistically character assassinated for one performer at an event he WASN'T AT who played ONE NIGHT at ONE CONCERT in ONE SMALL TOWN in South Carolina?

Are you nuts? Never mind. Give Hillary a free pass. That's fair.

:crazy:

[Barack_America]

21. I don't get this part.

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/11/hillarys-donnie.html

[Creideiki]

22. I guess you're right

Then I'll stay home this November. That means for the first time in 20 years I won't vote for either candidate. I've got a slightly weaker aversion to Clinton because she and Bill put their heads on the chopping block at least once for us. Obama hasn't at all. That might earn Hillary one free pass or it might not. It might require an open debate this summer on support for citizens damaged by the country that they've lived in for decades, supported in the military (in the closet, of course--serve honorably, but lie about it), and performed as labor in the public and private sector for.

So let me know now. Should I stay home this November? Tell me what faith in Obama I should have--the fight that he led to repeal Illinois' DOMA, the charge he spearheaded for equal rights for all citizens, the political capital that he spent. This is what I'm waiting to hear.

[Beregond2]

24. Obama, gay, etc...

As I keep explaining, there is a certain type of gay man who will take any slight, real or imagined, as an excuse to hate someone for life. Their whole identity is bound-up with their self-righteous condemnations of anyone they can construe as having said or done anything they can take as anti-gay. And no amount of factual evidence to the contrary will ever sway them. So it is useless to keep responding to these posts.

There are feminists who are just the same way with regard to their issue, and Christians and blacks and hispanics and whites, and, and, and...

[Bake]

37. Real or imagined????

Yeah, it's those "uppity gays" again, huh.

:sarcasm:

Bake

[LostinVA]

43. OMFG

[Duncan Grant]

49. When someone has no capacity for empathy they may consider others "self-righteous".

I can't imagine what it must be like to speak with such certainty about the life experiences of others. You should write a book -- you've obviously got it all figured out.

edit: subject line

[Barack_America]

26. All that I can tell you...

Is that Obama thinks about these issues deeply and that he votes according to his true beliefs and not what is politically expedient at the moment.

There's a great quote from him (in the Audacity of Hope, I think), where he discusses his belief, based on his religion, that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that he felt it important to keep his mind open and to keep thinking about the issue, in case were to realize that his beliefs were shaped more by the social prejudices of our times, than the truth of his religion. (FWIW his pastor is a noted supporter of GLBT acceptance).

Even though I disagree with his position on this as it now stands, I was deeply impressed with how deeply he ponders these issues (in fact, that's what ultimately swayed me). He's really guided by what he feels is right vs. wrong and not what is beneficial vs. what isn't. That he's noted for studying all sides of an issue before determining his opinion (and that his opinions have some flexbility), means a lot to me.

It gives me confidence that I have a good sense of what he will fight for.

[Bake]

38. My religion, which in the larger sense is the same as his, tell me this

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow black and white,
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Ergo, nobody - NOBODY - is a second-class citizen, nor should anybody be treated like such.

Bake

[Barack_America]

47. Which is probably why Obama is for...

equal rights for GLBT persons. He's for repeal of DADT, full repeal of DOMA (which is further than Hillary is prepared to go) and for civil unions. His mind is, as I pointed out, not entirely made up on gay marriage (which was the issue being specifically discussed, btw).

So your point is?

[Prism]

35. That's the trick

And that's why I started thinking that all of the outrage over McClurkin was largely manufactured.

It seems to me sincere and genuine concern about the anti-gay components of various campaigns would at least bring Clinton's campaign for no minor amount of slapping for her repeated and unapologetic associations with homophobic religious leaders. At least a little outrage. At least a couple posts outlining the anti-gay elements in her campaign.

Instead, radio silence. And McClurkin, McClurkin, McClurkin.

Can't imagine why people aren't taking the issue as seriously as these posters would wish. Maybe if they displayed a little honesty, a little integrity, and a little consistency on anti-gay issues, they'd be better received as concerned citizens instead of campaign supporters grinding the most wieldable axe at hand.

(BTW, you're quoting Chris Crain. Expect the article, no matter how factual and truthful, to be dismissed without a reply to a single point made in it).

[Bake]

27. Not surprisingly, damn few Obama supporters actually responded to the ISSUE

Honestly, can't some of you ever do anything other than a knee-jerk "but...but... what about Clinton????" We laugh our ASSES off at the Rethugs who for years haven't been able to anything but talk about The Clenis. And yet so many of Obama's supporters think exactly the same way.

Here's what I would like to have seen: "You know, you might be right; it was probably a rookie mistake (or some other term for "error") to invite McClurkin to speak at a campaign event." Or something else that at least gives some evidence of intellectual honesty.

For the record, I am a straight white male who stands for equal rights for ALL people, ALL the time.

Bake

[Barack_America]

30. Sorry, our fingers are sore...

...having responded to this no less than 300 times already.

We've replied to this many a time, we can't control whether or not people choose to listen.

[Prism]

32. I have said exactly that

I'm a gay Obama supporter who has said over and over that I thought the McClurkin issue is a mistake - and a hurtful one at that. I think it probably the biggest, dumbest error of the entire campaign.

However, it is not so important a mistake that I will dismiss the man's entire career as a good friend to the gay community.

You know where that kind of admission has gotten me with the people who have posted hundreds of times on the McClurkin issue?

Nowhere.

[Bake]

40. Then you, Prism, and a tiny handful of others are the only ones saying that

Because if you look up-thread, you'll see a lot of happy horse shit about (1) what about Clinton, (2) Obama is initiating a dialogue (that's the biggest crock of it I've seen yet), or (3) "uppity gays" (paraphrasing).

I respect your post and your position. I wish more of Obama's supporters did.

Thanks,

Bake

edited to correct typos

[mondo joe]

42. Prism, you are one of a VERY small handful who I've seen say such a thing.

Thanks.

[noonwitch]

29. Donnie McClurken has a great voice, maybe that's all Obama was thinking.

It's not fair to compare McClurken with David Duke-the Klan calls for violence against those it hates. I have not heard McClurken do that.

Is he making anti-gay statements at Obama events? Or is he speaking of his own experience? I have mixed feelings, because I do think that he has the right to speak about his own experience and feelings as long as he doesn't condemn those whose experience is different. I specifically am referring to his claim that he was involved in homosexual activities because he was sexually abused as a kid, and that with therapy and prayer, he is now straight. That's his experience, and he has the right to say it.

If he's trying to say that all gays need to go to therapy geared toward making them straight, well that would then cross a line.

[mondo joe]

31. Wrong. Obama was warned, and chose to give McClurkin a platform to speak. Furthermore

there is every reason to compare him to the KKK. Their bigotry results in pain and even death.

[LostinVA]

34. The ex-gay movement kills kids

You claim to be in social work, I'm surprised you aren't aware of the rates of gay teen suicide. How you can attempt justifying it is beyond me.

C U later.

[Bake]

44. McClurkin has the right to say anything he wants to say

But Obama doesn't have to put him on stage at HIS campaign event. There's a huge difference.

Bake

[QC]

39. They get it: they just don't care. n/t

[cbayer]

41. I'm not sure who is trying to convince who of what here?

This person, who i had not heard of prior to this week, deeply and profoundly insulted and hurt some people. They have chosen not to vote for a candidate because of this person. I don't see what's wrong with that. They have a right to determine what their issues are and act accordingly.

Others were not offended and, again for their own reasons, choose to ignore it.

I can't see that either party is getting anywhere with the other.

I came here with some strong bias against John Edwards. My reasons were personal but firmly held. I discovered early that I was never going to convince anyone of anything and that they would not sway me either.

And before you slam me, I absolutely agree with two repeated premises:

No one should be told that they should or must vote a certain way because they happen to be part of a group (women, african american, LGBT, etc.).
No one either within or outside any of those group should tell members of that group what or how they should think.

[Recursion]

45. The part I don't get is where that is important enough to change my mind

I'm not happy about McClurkin. Come to think of it I disagree with Obama about many things. None of that is important enough to outweigh the reasons I'm voting for Obama.

[TheWraith]

50. If you're actually looking for answers rather than just trying another smear...

"First, if Obama didn't agree with McClurkin, and maybe it's true that he doesn't, then why in the living hell did he INVITE McClurkin to speak at HIS campaign event?"

He was invited to PERFORM, not to SPEAK. It was a community outreach concert, and McClurkin is apparently a big name in gospel music.

"And why did he persist with the invitation in the face of the many, many voices raised in protest to it?"

I hate to break it to you, but those "many, many voices" aren't so many as you seem to think. Plus, there's another set of problems to be had by folding to pressure from interest groups, particularly when you simultaneously insult the black churchgoing Democrats who listen to gospel music.

"Reasonable candidates don't invite David Duke to speak at their events, even if he doesn't say anything offensive AT THE EVENT because of things he has said in the past, that the candidates do not want to be associated with."

Reasonable PEOPLE don't compare a high-ranking member of the Klan to a self-described ex-gay whose statements are no more "out there" than a lot of religious folk.

"there can be only one conclusion: Obama is guilty of pandering to the homophobic elements of the party, the "good evangelical folks" who just can't force themsselves not to hate some loyal Democrats."

Right. And the statement he issued publicly disagreeing with and scolding McClurkin was part of the "pandering," I take it?

Frankly, I'm rather tired of people flogging this dead horse when they're clearly doing little other than trying to hurt Obama. The Clinton campaign has hired people with much worse statements and records as advisers, with salaries running into the range of $10,000 a month, yet there hasn't been a single peep of "outrage." I'm forced to conclude that the only reason people bring it up is for the purpose of political hatchet work.