Obama Campaign Has Yet To Distance Itself From Antigay Singer At Obama Event

Comments (44)

DTM wrote on October 22, 2007 6:32 PM:

Is he doing anything but singing?

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 6:38 PM:

Since when is "She's doing it too" a principled response?

Josh Medeiros wrote on October 22, 2007 6:42 PM:

Agreed with the comment above. It seems like a pretty stupid campaign move by Obama. Now he's stuck.

Judy Howard wrote on October 22, 2007 6:55 PM:

It is a slap in the face to all lesbians and gays.

js wrote on October 22, 2007 6:58 PM:

Has Obama been on stage with this guy yet? If not, he can say sorry, he f* up and move on.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 7:04 PM:

Greg:

Here's the title of this piece on the front page:

Obama campaign refuses to disavow association with an antigay crusader who has railed against "the curse of homosexuality (emphasis added)

Here's your comment in the article:

"As of this evening, the Obama campaign had yet to comment." (emphasis added)

Shouldn't you guys wait until the campaign refuses to comment before you say they've refused to comment? And since when do self-described Obama backers speak for the campaign?

This is already a sticky-enough issue without muddying the waters with these imprecise statements.

GiulianiSupporter wrote on October 22, 2007 7:10 PM:

You liberals make me sick. Don't you know anything? Marriage is a sacred institution between one man, his cousin, and then a couple of other chicks.

John wrote on October 22, 2007 7:13 PM:

I just ran across this comment from Obama on the matter.

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

hoppy wrote on October 22, 2007 7:14 PM:

Someone who wants to be president has to have the instincts and good judgment to immediately make decisions like this without weighing the political pros and cons. Obama should be able to make his decision with about 10 seconds of thought. In my opinion he needs to have this person removed from campaign appearances, but even if he doesn't do that, but decides to keep him, the decision shouldn't take more than 10 seconds. It has to be based on principles, not weighing the politics involved. Obama is supposed to be a different politician.

Fredric Markus wrote on October 22, 2007 7:18 PM:

This is a deal-breaker for me and probably many, many others. I had high hopes for Barack Obama. Under his leadership, we would leave behind the sick and twisted prejudices that have destroyed so many lives. Would that it were so.

Instead what I see is calculated indifference to the sharp and bitter disappointment that will soon emerge around the country.

I think Barack has sold his bowl of porridge and he, not I, will have to live with that knowledge.

David Ehrenstein wrote on October 22, 2007 7:23 PM:

Sticka fork in Obama -- HARD! then tiswt it.

The man is a menace, cynically splitting the African-American community for self-aggrandizement. Being a gay African-American I've seen a lot of this in my 60 years, but never so massive and cynical as trhis "Gospel Tour."

Oprah has a LOT to answer for if she's going to stick with this mendacious loser.

edgery wrote on October 22, 2007 7:34 PM:

John at 7:13 pm provides what appears to be a response directly from Obama. Can we get a source for that comment? Also, if Obama "strongly disagree[s] with Reverend McClurkin’s views" why have him included in the tour?

It seems to be a new form of triangulation - include as part of a political rally someone with whom you pointed disagree so you can look what, inclusive? If that's the principle, who's next on the stage, David Duke?

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 7:36 PM:

ISTM the applicable standard for a DOJ official can be different from those for a bible-thumping showman, and that we can call for the first one's resignation without denouncing the second one as an untouchable (while openly disagreeing with his position on the subject).

I think Obama (and Clinton) have set their boundaries in the right places. We should be careful setting the bar at levels that would consign many misguided individuals to categories that would require us to shun them as abominations.

Lambert Strether wrote on October 22, 2007 7:38 PM:

I notice, from the story, is doing the same thing, though of course she'd be expected to, unlike Obama.

However, I don't think either of them are pandering to the "God Hates Fags" Christianists, remarkable as that may seem.

Rather, I think they're pandering to the deeply, deeply closeted Village establishment, whose members, because they hate themselves, imagine that America does. In fact, America is steadily moving on, away from this issue (except for isolated pockets of resistance in various of the megachurches, where the Gospel is confused with hate).

party-of-one wrote on October 22, 2007 7:38 PM:

There are many good things about political bloggers. One of the worst, however, is a compeling need to play "gotcha" and try to take every candidate down based on single incident in hopes it canned be fanned into a devestating controversy. I wish Election Central would focus more on substantive differences and less on attack mode politics.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 7:39 PM:

Unfortunately, it does appear that this was originally a calculated move designed to appeal to the more homophobic of the African American church groups; it's hard to believe that McClurkin's background could've gotten through the Obama staff vetting by accident.

However, I commend Obama for a fairly unequivocal statement in response.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 7:42 PM:

If the statement from Obama is in fact his response on the matter and he is still touring with McClurkin, I have to say that makes it worse for me. Not fully researching your musical acts is one thing; knowing about McClurkin's views, disagreeing and still continuing with the tour is a whole 'nother level of cynicism.

corinne wrote on October 22, 2007 7:42 PM:

This was on DailyKos and predictably, the Obama supporters were making all sorts of excuses for him:

Do you really believe he had any say as to who will be on stage with him? The guy is too busy to personally do background checks on everyone in his periphery.

This is a gaffe. Probably one made by a staffer rather than the candidate himself. On the importance scale, it ranks somewhere between the lapel pin and what Obama ate for breakfast.

[Obama] has consistently and in high profile venues confronted the AA community on their homophobia.

I hope a response is forthcoming...

RonK, Seattle wrote on October 22, 2007 8:12 PM:

wes2 calls it cynicism, I calls it liberalism.

BTW, that's me upthread discussing Obama's boundaries. Didn't know I could be Anonymous here. Flame away.

NJ Lawyer wrote on October 22, 2007 8:29 PM:

As I've said before, Obama seems to have a tin ear in political matters.

destor23 wrote on October 22, 2007 8:32 PM:

This is why Obama's religious background bothers me. It's not that Obama's a homophobe, he isn't. But I'll bet he's tolerant of people who think that homosexuality is icky on religious grounds.

Ross wrote on October 22, 2007 8:40 PM:

I can't believe I ever gave this guy money. I'm having a hard time figuring out who's more calculating, Hillary or Obama. Obama talks about change and being different but acts like an old school political hack. Really disappointing.

texasdem wrote on October 22, 2007 8:52 PM:

Posting again what I posted on the response:

Obama has stated his position, and McClurkin has chosen to sing anyway. Perhaps it's just my bias toward Obama, but it seems like a free speech issue to me, as well as an opportunity to see Obama's ability to bring people together.

If McClurkin accepts Obama's contrary position and still supports him, doesn't that mean that there's a chance to reach this guy and others like him? As long as Obama is this clear about his views on homosexuality and what he will do as president, the ball is in McClurkin's (and other homophobics') court.

ThomasT wrote on October 22, 2007 9:08 PM:

Yeah, I agree with party of one above. This crap is par for the course for Aravosis, who's a self-important, contemptuous jerk for the most part. Finds all bigotry appalling except for when he feels like characterizing all the people of a given state as backwards hicks (a red state that went blue '06 no less). More than willing to call out Green voters for their useless ideological purity.

Obama has an artist who performed at the 04 Republican convention on his side. When you're thinking about, you know, winning an election that's a good thing.

No words from Obama or from the stage of his event that cast negative light on gays and lesbians or that suggest they need a cure or any such thing should be tolerated. He is definitely skating on thin ice. But this is not yet a big tent from which I feel excluded.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 9:10 PM:

destor23

Curiously, Obama's own church supports gay marriage. So, it's hard to blame this entirely on his personal religious beliefs. Sadly, it looks more calculating than that.

destor23 wrote on October 22, 2007 9:32 PM:

Anonymous, thanks for getting in the way of my mouthing off by presenting facts!

Raymond A wrote on October 22, 2007 9:42 PM:

Christ almighty, TPM. You did not even post a link to the LA Times story on Hillary's Chinatown issues, and you post a misleading headline on this? Is there an iota of evidence that Obama knew this guy had such a background? And you still haven't answered the question whether this reverend is doing anything more than singing!

Barry Halpern wrote on October 22, 2007 9:49 PM:

I agree with many of the comments so far. Obama has presented himself as a real leader that will be a change from Washington as usual. This is not the first issue that has shown his behavior in this campaign has proven otherwise (Dodd and FISA for example). I've gone from almost sure to vote for him to almost sure I won't. I'm strongly in the Kucinich camp now, even if he 'isn't electable'. Obama better turn this around quickly if he's interested in trying to win.

Josephine wrote on October 22, 2007 10:08 PM:

God made Adam & Eve. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. I don't see how in the hell two men can multiply or two women can multiply.

God says: to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Homosexuality is a sin.

winfernal wrote on October 22, 2007 10:14 PM:

Fanning the flames of this pseudo-controversy is none other than John Aravosis, a recovering Republican (he put in five years for that bastion of political incorruptability, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens) who left his first party of choice because they were just getting too mean to homosexuals. That he should have his panties in a twist over this matter should come as no surprise to any who've followed his not infrequent bigoted pronouncements on racial matters. Aravosis, a crypto-racist with a particular aversion to African-Americans, has demonstrated this unfortunate tendency on more than one occasion. Why the lefty blogs continue to reference this inarticulate Johnny Onenote
opportunist baffles me.

Rooktoven wrote on October 22, 2007 10:27 PM:

Can anyone find fault with Obama without being labelled a racist (or crypto-racist)? Just askin'.

Fred 723 wrote on October 22, 2007 10:51 PM:

Hillary has not merely courted the endorsement of an anti-gay black minister, Rev. Mayberry, from Oakland, she got that endorsement and then proudly trumpted this "get" on her website.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=285...

Will everyone take a deep breath and perform a quick hypocrisy check here? This McClurkin character is singing, not rolling out a policy position for Obama.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but has Hillary ever, in a speech addressed to a broad national audience, even uttered the word "gay"? Obama took a big risk in his first national speech -- the 2004 convention speech -- when he included the line that "we have gay friends in the Red states." Not "homosexual" but "gay." That was in a year that, we now forget, was the year the Repubs were running on the fuel of homophobia.

I'm sure that Hillary, in response to direct questions, has defended gay equality in the like, but has she ever brought up gays in a speech addressed to a broad national audience, as opposed to a civil rights group, where she could be sure of a positive reception?

Evadt wrote on October 22, 2007 11:37 PM:

Hmmm. Guilt by association: familiar noise from the Rush crowd. Read him: know him. If you're looking for his soul, try Audacity of Hope, or Dreams from My Father... might want to check his voting record, also. (Note to Josie: And just like Katrina was God's punishment to sin-city-NOL, in His wisdom, He has cursed Georgia with drought... that's the way the logic works, right?)

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 11:49 PM:

Wow. This is audacious, all right, but it sure as hell isn't very hopeful.

Meet the new politics, same as the old politics.

KT wrote on October 22, 2007 11:56 PM:

Sorry, folks, but Obama can't have it both ways. Either he is against the type of wedge politics that have divided us for so long as he constantly claims or he is not. To "strongly disagree" with McClurkin but still give him a very visible platform suggests he's not all that bothered by the divisiveness after all. Seems to me his actions speak louder than his words.

Jeff NYC wrote on October 23, 2007 12:22 AM:

Gay who continue to support Obama are no better than Log Cabin Republicans.

SFT, Elgin, IL wrote on October 23, 2007 1:20 AM:

Senator Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC) which is one of the most tolerant, open and affirming Christian Denominations in our country. UCC embraces all LGBT people into their congregations as well as people from all ethnic and cultrual groups, the homeless, disabled, and all others. Senator Obama has stated the following today:
"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.
I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

donna wrote on October 23, 2007 6:12 AM:

This is clearly very sensitive territory that Obama is trying to traverse. In reaching out to black southern voters -- which he should and must do, this controversy has revealed just how divided along racial lines this country really is.

I implore you all to open your minds about this. Obama is not against gays and he would never compromise gay rights. If anything, he is one of the best allies the gay community could have. He is able to persuade extremely socially conservative, religious blacks to support him even knowing that he is a progressive who is on the record as sympathetic to gay issues. In doing so he is effectively broadening his base which is a good thing for gays. Obama is a true progressive and he will help move this country towards progessivism --but you have to start where people are. You don't build a progressive majority by convincing just your natural allies to agree with you. You do this by opening a dialogue and convincing people who may hold different social, political and religious views that your policies will benefit them too.

To those who would condemn Obama for enlisting McClurkin's help to reach southern blacks -- you might find some helpful perspective by taking a look at this link and be sure to read sagereader's follow-up:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/before-yall-start-blasting-obama-for-having-donnie-mcclurkin-sing/

Michael's Mom wrote on October 23, 2007 6:31 AM:

At the risk of raising more ire here, let me just say that one of the reasons black people really disagree with labelling gay rights as civil rights equal to the struggle for racial equality is that revealing the fact that you are gay is a matter of choice (see Senator Larry Craig). Not being gay, but saying so. Whereas I cannot fail to reveal that I am black; my skin and afro precede me. That ability, to choose to reveal being gay, no doubt, is why many anti-gay Christians think that you can therefore choose to be gay. They are mistaken certainly, perhaps willfully mistaken, but I practice the principle of charity. That means I give other peoples' opinions every chance at being right before I shoot them down.

Put another way, there were gay white married slaveowners who took sexual liberties with their black male slaves in the dark of night. They still were allowed to vote, to come and go as they pleased, to marry and have children 'cuz they had that ever important white skin.

Donnie McClurkin is a bit of a special case because his music is deeply popular in the African-American community, so much so that non-gospel stations often play his music regularly. He is also a special case because of his claim to being ex-gay (as well as a victim of a pedophilic uncle). The principle of charity requires me to give him the best possible chance of being right about himself before I disagree. But I don't think he is ex-gay; I think he is self-loathing. What I don't understand about your crusade here is why Donnie McClurkin doesn't get the gay community silent treatment of other public figures that your community both knows as privately gay and knows publicly anti-gay? What's it about this gay anti-gay man that requires statements of denunciation from anyone associated with him when the gay community keeps quiet about all sorts of others? Is it the black community/gay community intersection that warrants it? Is it just a way to smack Obama? Please inform.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 7:17 AM:

KT,

I am completely confused by your comment.

The whole idea of a "wedge issue" is that it is an issue which can be used to break apart your opponent's political coalition. With respect to this issue in particular, Karl Rove and others observed that within the African-American community (and a few other otherwise Democratic-leaning communities) there was a significant amount of anti-gay sentiment. But among other core Democratic constituencies, there was a lot of support for gay rights.

So, they decided to use gay rights issues as "wedge issues" against the Democrats. Again, the whole idea would be to "drive a wedge" between those Democrats who supported strong gay rights and those who expressed anti-gay sentiments.

What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who believes in strong gay rights but does not shun people who express anti-gay sentiments is somehow going along with these "wedge politics". But of course that is exactly what these people want you to think, and you are actually fulfilling their strategy if you seek to break apart the Democratic coalition over these issues.

hells kitchen wrote on October 23, 2007 8:41 AM:

Unfortunately, Senator Obama is demonstrating that he has problems admitting mistakes. That's too bad because he's a man that also has a lot of promise. But to me it shows that he is not ready to be president, especially following the disaster we have now.

Mike wrote on October 23, 2007 8:50 AM:

This won't hurt Obama because he's not going to be the nominee. And even if he were the nominee who would the gay population vote for?

elrapierwit wrote on October 23, 2007 10:17 AM:

Where are the headlines about Hillary not denouncing Rev Mayberry?

Why is Hillary not being called to the carpet on this issue?

After all, Mayberry is on her website, clearly an endorsement.

This site has become like David Duke when it comes to Obama and the issues. Hillary is alright becomes she white but Obama best get back cause he's black.

Greg your conscious should be killing your blatant discrimination and biased headlines.

Unbelievable.

non-gullible wrote on October 23, 2007 10:43 AM:

Concern trolls, your deep disappointment is noted and touching.

Here, have an imaginary hankie to wipe away your imaginary tears.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)