Obama Strongly Denounces Antigay Gospel Singer

Comments (92)

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 7:46 PM:

Are we to assume he's still on the tour? Any follow-ups from the Obama camp?

Josh Medeiros wrote on October 22, 2007 8:07 PM:

strongly worded? Your title, is that snark?

all he says is "I strongly disagree with his views" and fudges over the issue of him being at the event (at the campaign's request).

He's trying to make the issue go away, but this will just make it worse because he's trying to have it both ways.

RonK, Seattle wrote on October 22, 2007 8:09 PM:

Obama denounced McLurkin's views -- not McLurkin.

Josh Medeiros wrote on October 22, 2007 8:10 PM:

and looks like he's still on the lineup:

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/breaking-obama-says-wont-pull-anti-gay.html

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 8:11 PM:

He's just singing! this is taking guilt by association to new levels of absurdity.

John Crandell wrote on October 22, 2007 8:13 PM:

What is it that Obama and Edwards can't 'get'. The sort of getting that
Gore and Kerry got, after the fact, seeing in retrospect that they ought to have thrown off the handlers and consultants and started swinging for the outfield fence. Here it's nearly time for Hail Marys, Obama shoots himself in the foot, Pelosi is a train wreck waiting to happen and Dick and Dub must be howling comparing notes in the oval office.
Hillary isn't the opponent, guys. Mendacity and corruption has run rampant the past six plus years and we're heading for the big time with Iran. Wake up.

MarkL wrote on October 22, 2007 8:26 PM:

So, is Obama acting as his own man here, showing his acceptance of virulent homophobia? Or is he just a made creature of the consultants, doing their bidding to gain votes? Either way, it's appalling.
My chances of voting for Obama have never been lower.

texasdem wrote on October 22, 2007 8:47 PM:

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.

jasp wrote on October 22, 2007 8:49 PM:

No... that's a very, very weak denunciation; a bunch of hair-splitting from Obama. He knows what he's called to do. Instead he's afraid it could generate worse P.R. to fire him and provide the news cycle with a bullshit item for the next 2 months. So he chose to sidestep it. A real leader would have chosen correctly, or canned McClurkin, but now it's too late. Congratulations Barack, you're now part of the G.O.p..

Abe wrote on October 22, 2007 8:50 PM:

Put words in his mouth, why don't you?

I went to that link and I have no clue where any of you are getting that he's keeping McClurkin on the tour. That post was completely biased in that it gave no reasoning for the assumption that McClurkin would remain before flying off the handle in the assumption that he would.

As of yet: Obama HAS NOT said he's keeping McClurkin, at least I've seen no quote from his campaign as such. Sorry, I'm waiting for an actual statement to that effect before I make any judgements.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 8:50 PM:

I heard Mr. McClurking also believes Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent.

Guilt by association, good enough for thee, but not for me.

DonnaG wrote on October 22, 2007 8:51 PM:

Greg, I believe you are egging on a false showdown here. You use the words, 'strongly denounces' to add something more dramatic to Obama's words, which say 'strongly disagree'.

disagree: 1] to fail to agree; to differ; to be at variance; 2] to differ in opinion, also, to quarrel.

denounce: 1] to proclaim [esp. an evil] of things, to portend. 2] to threaten by some outward sign or expression, 3] to inform against; accuse 4] to invoke censure upon; stigmatize 5] to give notice of the termination of [a treaty, armistice, or the like]

Seems to me that your word 'denounce' unfairly places Obama into the very either/or, black/white patterning that creates intolerance and hard headedness in the first place. So, the singer, for personal reasons, comes to think that homosexuality is 'curable'. The gay/lesbian community is up in arms, feeling upset and insulted by such a notion, rather than feeling simply accepted and supported in their alternative lifestyles and views of their world. Obama strongly disagrees with the singer's premise, which doesn't nor shouldn't mean that Obama must therefore 'denounce' and cancel the event. That would be treating the singer exactly in the harsh manner that gays and lesbians wish to NOT be treated, wouldn't it?

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

I think John Crandell's right, actually.

I'm pro-Obama, but I think it's prescient to say he'd be better off swatting away Hillary's 'attacks' as attempts to trivialize the campaign, and returning quickly to framing the larger national and foreign policy questions in that professorial, natural-seeming way he's so good at.

If he treated Hillary like the adolescent her 'attacks' paint her as, and like she's unimportant, the press would pick-up on his stance, and soon start to treat her that way too.

Oh, and sorry for the topic hijack.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 8:57 PM:

Texasdem -- how is this a free speech issue? No one is legislating against McClurkin's freedom to sing or to voice his hateful views. The question is, why is Obama providing him with a platform?

Also, to say this is "an opportunity to see Obama's ability to bring people together" completely misses the point. By his decision to keep McClurkin part of his official campaign tour, Obama is causing many in the LGBT community to feel excluded. Go to americablog to see how many gays and lesbians feel "included" by Obama's actions.

Geez.

I think it bears repeating. Can anyone imagine our response if another candidate (Dem or Rep) toured with a prominent advocate of white supremacy? Who'd accept the "I don't agree with their ideas, but I'm keeping them on"- line then? This is a man who's called for a "war" on gays. Bigotry is still bigotry, even if those on the receiving end are "merely" gay rather than a different race or gender.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 8:58 PM:

Jasp:

That's right. Senator Obama should demand that any and all supporters' views comport fully and completely with his own. Any views that are contrary to his are not be considered or entertained, lest he make those views valid. Who cares if he's only performing a gospel song? I want to know what his position is on the flat tax? Does he think we should talk to Iran with or without preconditions? Is he for or against universal healthcare?

The funny thing is that everyone is outraged right now, would be equally pissed if they were deemed a racists, sexist or a homophob because their father, mother or brother is--no matter how much they disagree with those positions.

Leslie H wrote on October 22, 2007 8:58 PM:

Please forgive my lack of patience but my opinion ...

Obama doesn't disinvite this guy McClurkin because Obama is afraid. He's afraid of losing the black religious voter.

Face it, Obama is not a fighter, he's a pleaser. He's a hand shaker, a "come now let us reason" guy. He's smart as hell and I like the guy and admire his community action and non-profit work, but he is NOT a fighter. We need a fighter. I need a fighter.

We, the middle/median/working class income people need a fighter in the WH. We've got three decades of Republican/DLC economic regression to undo. If we're going win any economic battles (against the rich, powerful and mighty who don't give a crap who is in the WH as long as they keep letting the rich direct economic policy) we need a stronger spine than this.

Obama disagrees with the guy enough to say so, but not enough to stand up and put the bigot down? pssh. Whole lotta good that does us, right? I'm getting enough of that kind of jelly-spined action from Reid and Pelosi lately. God knows I don't want jelly-spine in my Democratic Chief Executive, too.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 9:05 PM:

Abe -- Here is the relevant section from the Chi Trib story:

Update: About 6:40 pm today, the Obama campaign issued a written statement from the candidate saying that he "strongly disagree(s)" with McClurkin's views. **Still, a spokesman said McClurkin would remain part of the concert line-up.**

texasdem wrote on October 22, 2007 9:12 PM:

wes2,

Yep. I'm naive. I don't believe it has to be a zero sum game, without any opportunity for putting it out there and maybe even changing some minds. Attack away. Can't even imagine why this country is so polarized.

I'll say it again: Obama stated his position very clearly. McClurkin accepts that and sings anyway, or backs out. It's in his court. If he stays, he's supporting Obama's position.

Secondarily, I don't see where Obama is giving him a platform if he's just singing. But as I said before, I'm naive.

corinne wrote on October 22, 2007 9:20 PM:

That's right. Senator Obama should demand that any and all supporters' views comport fully and completely with his own.

What bull. This isn't about purity, people.

McClurkin believes one can pray away the gay, that being gay is a choice. How is sticking with McClurkin on the tour going to help Obama? How does sharing the stage with a homophobe overcome homophobia?

He risks offending evangelicals in South Carolina if he cancels McClurkin's appearance. OTOH he could alienate gay supporters if the performance proceeds as planned.

The reality of it is he's already chosen to go for the African American vote and do without the GLBT vote because nobody in the AA community will call Obama on this.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 9:24 PM:

Never mind, texasdem, you're right. I'm calling up Ann Coulter, David Irving and Bill Reilly for my next Dem event. Maybe I'll change some minds in the process. If they choose to attend, I'll have converted them. Balls in their court. Forget about my own allies who might be made uncomfortable or feel unwelcome. Because the worse thing we could possibly be is ... polarizing.

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 9:42 PM:

Corinne:

It isn't about purity, it's about PANDERING. It's about people holding politicians to a standard they reject in their own personal lifes. Not one of you would tolerate being branded a racist because an associate (however tenouous the connection) held a view that you disagree with. Not one.

Have all of you disavowed your grandparents, parents, uncles and aunts, siblings, cousins, significant others, friends, work colleagues who hold discriminatory/bigoted views? If you haven't, then you too are a bigot. It doesn't matter that you disagree with their views. If you haven't disavowed them, you share their beliefs.

texasdem wrote on October 22, 2007 9:42 PM:

wes2,

Sigh. Touche. I did tell you I'm naive.

By the way and totally off-topic, would you feel any differently if it were your candidate? Just curious. I don't believe I've ever read an objective observation from you about Obama, so I get that you couldn't conceive of another perspective on this.

But if you're, say, a Clinton supporter, what's your take on her silence about retroactive immunity for the telecoms; or on the Chinatown article in the LA Times? And no, I'm not being cynical; I honestly want to know what a Clinton supporter's take is. I myself can't really "conceive of another perspective" on these things except a negative impression. And I naively would like to know the other side of the arguments.

If you're not a Clinton supporter, sorry for the off-topic question. Have a good evening, either way.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 9:52 PM:

Wes2:

And why wouldn't you invite them to the next debate? By simply inviting them, you are not endorsing their views. They are, after all, THEIR VIEWS. Conversely, by you not inviting them, it does not change the fact that their views are still THEIR VIEWS. If you agree with their views and espouse them, but don't invite them, you are ENDORSING THEIR VIEWS. If you agree with their views and invite them, you are ENDORSING THEIR VIEWS.

The point is that their views will always be their views, no matter how erroneous they may be. Merely inviting them any place, does not graft their views on you. And they only become relevant to you, when and if you endorse or espouse them.

Raymond A wrote on October 22, 2007 9:54 PM:

RANK HYPOCRISY

Quick headcount. How many people on this thread who are outraged at Obama for merely allowing someone with bigoted views to sing expressed even a dollop of dissatisfaction at Edwards several months back for hiring two bloggers -- not so sing but actually to offer substantive input into Edwards' comminications -- because those two bloggers had made virulently anti-religious remarks? More to the point, how many of you applauded Edwards for firing those two bloggers? The answer of course is few to none. In fact there was outrage at Edwards for firing those bloggers.

So I think what it comes down to is that the level of political correctness has officially gotten out of hand. If you are an anti-gay bigot, you can't even sing. You must be fired IMMEDIATELY. If you are an anti-religious person hired to do much more than sing, you should not be fired, since that is just caving in to the establishment.

Look at yourselves folks. As for me, I am no longer reading Election Central. The absence of even a link to the Hillary Chinatown story combined with the obsessive attention paid to this bullsh&t is proof of extreme bias.

horizonr wrote on October 22, 2007 9:58 PM:

Unless TPM plans to launch a progressive purity campaign to verify the beliefs and actions of every surrogate, validator, and platform platform participant of every Democratic candidate, I suggest that this and every other site that has spent the last couple of days feeding on Donnie McClurkin let this "issue" die the quick and natural death it deserves.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the various America Blog posts that started this absurdity that you're helping to perpetuate -- including virtually every comment on these posts -- are examples of identity politics at its self-absorbed, censorious, politically correct worst.

mud wrote on October 22, 2007 10:03 PM:

I've come to expect this sort of pseudo-outrage from Republicans. It's disheartening to hear it from my fellow Democrats. Wake me up when there's a scandal more substantial than "candidate is insufficiently impolite to a guy he disagrees with."

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 10:13 PM:

Keith,

I didn't say debate, I said event. Similarly, a concert tour is an event, not a debate in which the expectation is that views will differ.

But more to the point, I disagree with your argument that the "only" way someone's views become relevant to the candidate they work for is that candidate actually endorses the view. We expect Giuliani, Romney etc to ditch their campaign leaders who have a history of using the N-word or showing KKK symbols or whatever. Nor do I think that this is guilt by association, as some other posters have suggested. I don't think Obama is homophobic, or that we can label him homophobic if doesn't disavow McClurkin. Moreover, I don't believe that McClurkin's views are irrelevant because he's just a singer. The basic point for me is that by keeping McClurkin on, Obama is telling a group of voters that, in effect, he doesn't feel their pain. It's blowing off a segment of the population, saying that their interest in not being publicly demonized is outweighed by another segment's musical preferences. If Obama said, whoops, made a mistake, didn't vet the guy enough, I'd think his staff were sloppy, but it wouldn't be a lasting issue for me. Saying he disagrees, but doing nothing to demonstrate that belief, on the other hand, makes me wonder about both his judgment and his leadership.

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

Raymond A--

Prove they were fired. AS far as I remember, Edwards denounced what they said (wrongly IMO) but kept them on.

They later resigned after getting loads of hateful press from the Dobson crowd.

I don't remember Amanda Marcotte ever saying she was fired. Educate me with a link. Or is heresay all you have?

goethe wrote on October 22, 2007 10:24 PM:

What if McClurkin said being Jewish was a sinful state and all Jews should convert to Christianity, and Obama said he strongly disagreed but allowed McClurkin to stay on the program? What would you all say to that?

Steve wrote on October 22, 2007 10:26 PM:

Edwards did NOT fire those two bloggers. They both quit. In fact, Edwards refused to fire them. And, furthermore, they were not anti-religious, they were against people using religion to oppress GLBT people. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 22, 2007 10:31 PM:

Ivy League elitists know how to triangulate.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 10:32 PM:

Wes2:

First of all, you are suggesting a different situation. McClurkin isn't being invited in to be part of the campaign and provide advice on LGBT issue. He's singing at a gospel concert. As a gospel singer, I'd say that was pretty good use of his time. Whereas a Guiliani or Romney advisor who is racist is providing advice on a whole host of issues where his or her racist views may influence that advice.

That being said, these knee-jerk calls for people to be dismissed don't go to the heart of the issue. It just encourages people to hide their true, but ignorant beliefs. Does it stop them from believing those things? Probably not. In fact, I suspect that those that are dismissed for these views become racist, sexist, etc. (because they blame the special interest group or whatever that is upset).

The reality is most Americans harbor some discriminatory beliefs. It's reality. The only way to really deal with these ignorant beliefs, is to confront them head on, out in the open. But what do we do, we would rather silence them and pretend that they don't exist. To me, it is a waste of time and just encourages the perpetuation of those erroneous beliefs.

Sorry, I don't believe Senator Obama shares his beliefs or endorses them. I don't think inviting a gospel singer to perform at gospel concert constitutes endorsement of that person's views on sexuality or the appropriate tax policy.

I apologize if I'm rambling--this issue is just unmitigated bullshit. And we wonder why we never solve our problems in America--we are too busy pretending that we don't have them.

Steve wrote on October 22, 2007 10:35 PM:

So if Hillary invited David Duke to read poetry at an event, you'd have no problem with that? He does write poetry, you know.

KJ wrote on October 22, 2007 10:36 PM:

Goethe:

I say the same thing. McClurkin's views are based on his ignorance. To the extent Senator Obama hadn't tapped him as an adviser and in light of Senator Obama's position vis-a-vis Jews and Israel, I would not say his performance was an endorsement of his views.

loki wrote on October 22, 2007 10:38 PM:

Keith,

For all our disagreements within these forums, I really am surprised at your apparent defense for not tossing McClurkin out on his ass. I say "apparent" cause I'm not 100% sure. Maybe you can clarify.

Of course, to be fair, I haven't seen Obama say he's definitely keeping McClurkin for the event. So maybe all this is for nothing.

By the way, and maybe this will help answer it, do you think homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle choice?

loki wrote on October 22, 2007 10:42 PM:

Sorry Keith, I spoke too soon. Just saw your latest post. I am now 100% sure. You are as bad as I thought. Ridiculous.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 10:43 PM:

Are you telling me you would condone not inviting him because he's a racist? You realize that you are condoning racism, don't you? Shouldn't the decision of whether to invite him be predicated on the quality of his poetry? And by merely inviting him, you are not ENDORSING his racist beliefs.

I firmly belief, the only way to eradict ignorance, is to expose ignorance.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 10:48 PM:

Keith et al,

I don't think that we'd be comfortable with Giuliani having a KKK grandmaster as his finance chair simply because the grandmaster was just dealing with finances. The question is not so much the racist's impact on policy, but the larger public message he sends about Giuliani's priorities. Ditto McClurkin.

I really doubt that campaign events are the appropriate place to lure lurking bigots out of their hiding and make them comfortable in expressing their views so that the healing process can begin. However, if one of you can provide me with a list of public and notorious racists that the Obama campaign is currently employing in order to bring them into the dialogue, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 10:52 PM:

Loki:

I belief homosexuality is natural; not a lifestyle. I don't believe it is something to be cured by prayer or cleared up with a shot. I also don't believe that if I like a gospel singer, that means I endorse his views.

My beliefs, are mine. If you invite me to speak on Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions, that does not mean that you endorse my views on Corporate M&A or that homosexuality is natural. You simply invited me to speak on Corporate M&A.

Whether or not you think that is ridiculous is immaterial to me.

Keith wrote on October 22, 2007 10:57 PM:

Wes2:

Again, I think you are conflating issues to try and make a point. Permanent part of the campaign vs. performer at an event.

Let me ask you question: if he were alive, would you invite Abraham Lincoln to give a speech?

Aaron M wrote on October 22, 2007 11:06 PM:

So this morning TPM EC reveals that one of the singers performing in one of the Obama campaign's Gospel concerts has a history of making homophobic or anti-gay statements.

OK. That is concerning; however it was important to get a comment from the Obama campaign as it was very possible (and perhaps even likely) that the decision to include McClurkin on the bill was made by a lower level staffer who may not have even been aware of the singer's history of hateful comments.

However, before Obama (or his campaign) responds TPM puts out a post headline stating that the Obama campaign REFUSES to respond, when in reality they just had not YET responded or (I guess) responded as quickly as TPM (or David Kurt) wanted.

Then, several hours later Obama comes out with a statement saying VERY CLEARLY that he STRONGLY disagrees with McClurkin's views; and yet AFTER TPM EC acknowledges (and posts) this statement as an update, they place- as the SECOND HEADLINE on the TPM main page that "Antigay Singer Still In With Obama Campaign." ("In With" the Obama campaign? What does that even mean?)

This despite the fact that Obama had already come out strongly opposing this man's previous remarks.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama made the decision to include this man in this tour; and in fact reason dictates that this decision (who to invite or allow to sing on the tour) was made at a much lower level within the campaign.

Also, this man (McClurkin) is not giving a speech, he's simply singing; and he's only one of many who plan to do so during this tour. In addition, if McClurkin decides to sing now after Obama has come out with his statement, he is subsequently choosing to support a candidate who has publicly refuted his previous comments and expressed clear support for the gay and lesbian community.

Also, a diarist on Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/22/20713/627)
said the following:

"It's also important to note that Donnie is only performing at ONE concert and Barack Obama is not attending that one. Again, information provided to me via e-mail"

Is this true? If so, it should certainly be noted by TPM EC within their already misleading coverage of this issue.

As a regular reader of TPM and all of her sister sites, I'm extremely disappointed in sloppy and misleading reporting/headlines that have been posted on this issue by TPM EC throughout the day.

Coonsey wrote on October 22, 2007 11:07 PM:

The event if for more than just the gay rights movement.

It's for AMERICANS.

Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum

(Looking for amateur writers for our blog - if interested, visit site and Send Post or Subscribe).

Raymond A wrote on October 22, 2007 11:08 PM:

Edwards strongly rebuked the comments of the two anti-religious bloggers and let the public know it. Lo and behold, the two bloggers quit shortly thereafter. Their resignations were precisely what Edwards (naturally) expected, since they would be completely obtuse to stay on after being publicly dressed down. Give McClurkin some time and he might resign too. But even he doesn't, my larger point about RANK HYPOCRISY remains.

If it's insufficient for a candidate to distance himself from a mere singer by making clear the candidate's own -- oft-stated -- views against homophobia, and only an immediate firing will do, how does Edwards' behavior rate on this scale? Did he do the right thing by rebuking them but not firing them? If so, my point is stronger than I initially thought?

Indeed, the commenter above who says the two Edwards bloggers were only criticizing religious leaders who are anti-gay is really drinking the PC Kool-Aid. Those two bloggers used totally unnecessary extreme anti-religious language in their blog posts, not civil critiques of anti-gay religious leaders.

Finally, where is the outrage about Hillary's active courting of anti-gay minister Mayberry and then proud announcement when she nabbed his endorsement?

This whole non-scandal bullshit story seems so drummed up, it's nauseating.

Again, if TPM Election Central made a pseudo-scandal of every departure from perfect and proper progressive orthodoxy, that would be one thing. But there is such inconsistency on this part of the site. I love Josh Marshall, but the oversight of the EC people, Greg and Eric, is lacking.

There seems to be no standard for which substanceless stories are worth following and which do not merit attention.

I know I violated my pledge not to read EC anymore, but I thought I'd see this thread through before departing. Au Revoir.

aces wrote on October 22, 2007 11:18 PM:

Maybe Obama will invite Anita Bryant to sing at next month's rallies...

sj wrote on October 22, 2007 11:23 PM:

furthermore, they were not anti-religious, they were against people using religion to oppress GLBT people. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

The facts are that the writings that got Marcotte and McEwan into trouble had little to do with GLBT issues. Mostly it was birth control and random ranting. And yes, Edwards was taking plenty of heat at the very thought that the two might be disciplined for expressing those thoughts.

wes2 wrote on October 22, 2007 11:25 PM:

Another round, Keith? Really?

Permanent vs. temporary. I'd say this is as irrelevant as policy-making vs. non-policy-making. The question is not what position they hold, but their symbolic value. For that reason, I'd say that temporary affiliates -- surrogates, headline acts -- are more relevant than low-level permanent staffers who are not in the public eye.

Abe Lincoln. Presumably the argument is that he's considered a hero but was a racist. Leaving aside the practical difficulties involved with inviting corpses, my response would be that our expectations evolve over time -- what once were acceptable beliefs about gender, sexuality, race, poverty etc. have changed a great deal. For that reason, we continue to find praiseworthy historical figures who accomplished a great deal, but had beliefs that we would now criticize. For all I know, MLK, jr was a homophobe in the 1960s. That doesn't mean that I excuse gay-bashing by Donnie McClurkin in 2007.

pacc wrote on October 22, 2007 11:44 PM:

O-Bomb-A pulls yet another rookie campaign boner. Dumb ass. Thanks goodness there's no chance of his getting the nomination.

Keith wrote on October 23, 2007 12:04 AM:

Wes2:

You win. I'm wrong. Senator Obama believes that homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be cured with prayer. And since I support Senator Obama, I apparently believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be cured with prayer. And since my wife married me, she apparently believes that homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be cured by prayer. And her best firend apparently believes that homosexuality is a lifesytle that be can be cured by prayer.

Aaron M wrote on October 23, 2007 12:29 AM:

I'm having trouble letting the 'Abe Lincoln.....was a racist' comment stand.

I understand what wes2 is trying to say, and he actually makes a very valid (overall) point.

However, while Lincoln, for much of his life (and perhaps up until the early part of his Presidency), MAY not have believed that black Americans were the equals of white Americans (even though he consistently abhorred slavery throughout his life), it is very possible (if not probable) that his views on this changed during the course of his Presidency.

Prior to becoming President, Lincoln hadn't had any close associations (or friendships) with black Americans; nor did he understand or appreciate the close connection that Black Americans felt to their country. This helps to explain his his initial support for re-colonization of black Amerians in Africa; a position he later admitted was a mistake).

What (likely) influenced Lincoln's thinking on this issue was the friendship he formed and the great admiration he developed for Frederick Douglass, of whom Lincoln remarked: "There is no man's opinion that I value more than yours." (Lincoln made this comment when asking Douglass for his thoughts on Lincoln's Second Inaugural address).

This does not sound like the words of a racist, even by today's standards.

Lincoln was not a man who held to strict ideologies, but instead always kept his mind open to new ideas, knowledge, and experiences. In fact, it was this consistent effort on his part to try to see (or understand) issues from the viewpoints of others (i.e. black Americans, opposing politicians) that helped him to become such an effective leader.

Anyhow, sorry for getting off subject; I just felt that old Abe deserved a few words in his defense.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 12:43 AM:

Sorry chief, he was, by any definition, a white supremacist. Doesn't take away, for the most part, his actions in defense of the nation or his steps to free the African slaves. But let's be clear, he was for sending them back to Africa because he felt they could never be true equal to White Americans. I'll get you the necessary quotes if you like.

wes2 wrote on October 23, 2007 12:49 AM:

Thanks Aaron M for the info on Lincoln. I happily defer to anyone who knows the period: I was merely guessing what Keith's argument would be & extrapolating from my experience that digging around in abolitionists' closets usually turns up sentiments that make us uncomfortable in the early 21st century.

Juanito wrote on October 23, 2007 12:52 AM:

Hey, let's all take a breather, enough time to check out McClurken's background if we haven't already.

Honestly, he makes Larry Craig look like an altar boy (as repressed as the latter case clearly is). Throw in a boatload of sanctimonious self delusion and you've got the gospel singer, front and center.

wazup wrote on October 23, 2007 1:05 AM:

Hey! I got it!! Two words...ANN COULTER! Right, she's exactly what Barry needs, got that homohating god fearing Rev singing and dancing , now get the real thing,the hater baiter.She could do the musical intro and maybe a small grind when Barry's wife ain't looking. And who said the Democrats weren't smart? The way those geniuses are thinking this thing out ,you Yanks are actually going to wind up with a butch crossdressing queen with a lisp that gets rode rough by his wife-mistress.All I can say is it couldn't happen to a more deserving country of boobs.You idiots elected Bush twice, not once, twice. with any luck China will buy the lot of you.

Aaron M wrote on October 23, 2007 1:06 AM:

Actually, after re-reading Wes2's comment, I now realize that he did not make the valid point that I thought he had made.

Nobody is asking him to excuse the gay-bashing of McClurkin in 2007. Obama certainly does not seem to be asking him to do this. So I'm not really sure what his point was.

It seems somewhat obvious (to me) that Obama's staff invited a number gospel singers to take part in these concerts. McClurkin volunteered to participate or was asked- though it seems likely that the staffer who asked him (or accepted his offer) was unaware of his past statements.

Obama finds out that McClurkin has been asked (or has been permitted) to perform at one of the concerts.

Obama makes a statement that he STRONGLY disagrees with McClurkin's views and supports (and has always supported) the rights, dignity, and respect of gays and lesbians.

McClurkin now has the option of not performing for someone who has come out in opposition of his views, or he can choose to continue to perform/support Obama despite Obama's public support for the gay and lesbian community.

This seems rather straight-forward to me, and not worthy of all the highly critical responses that it has generated (though perhaps they are not surprising considering the oddly sensational and inaccurate headlines posted by TPM EC throughout the day).

Aaron M wrote on October 23, 2007 1:27 AM:

Wes2, if you think I am still not understanding or misinterpreting what you were trying to say, please let me know.....I feel like we're all going in circles a little bit.....and it's late (and my reading comprehension is fading quickly).

Anonymous, part of the problem here is that the words "white supremacist" carry with them connotations in the current day (of intolerance, hate, violence etc.) that hold absolutely no relation to the man Lincoln was during his time, even if he did believe for some time that black Americans were not the equals of white Americans.

In any case, I admitted in my post that Lincoln probably did not see black Americans as the equals of white Americans for much of his life. I also noted that Lincoln did indeed INITIALLY favor re-colonization, in large part because he felt that white Americans would never accept black Americans, and/or the two races could never live together in peace.

However, it is a fact that he withdrew his support for this policy after speaking with prominent black abolitionists who explained to Lincoln that blacks had as much connection with and rights to live in their country as did white Americans.

Why would he reverse himself after listening to and heeding the words and opinions of black leaders of the time if he was the white supremacist you make him out to be (or if it was his white supremacist views that moved him to initially support the re-colonization policy, rather than simple ignorance on his part as to the feelings and opinions of black Americans at that time)?

You also do not address my point (or opinion) that Lincoln likely underwent a change in his attitudes towards blacks as his Presidency progressed.

I can also provide to you quotes and testimonies from people (including Frederick Douglass and other black leaders) of Lincoln's day to support this viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 1:45 AM:

Aaron M:

I should have read your intitial post a little closer. Absolutely agree that his position evolved over time. Thanks for keeping things above the fray.

raj wrote on October 23, 2007 6:51 AM:

This is really quite simple.

One is known by the company one keeps. And, when one lies down with dogs, one oftentimes gets up with fleast. Trite, maybe, but true.

Obama elected to associate himself with a virulent homophobe. That suggests one (or more) of two things. That Obama is a homophobe. Or that Obama is too ignorant to know the views of people who he chooses to associate with. In my view, either would suggest that he is not ready for prime time.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 7:02 AM:

Keith,

Again...ridiculous. Blind faith, man. Blind faith.

Michael Powe wrote on October 23, 2007 7:15 AM:

McClurkin is willing to campaign for a guy whose views on homosexuality are 180 degrees away from his own. Perhaps, some of the political geniuses in this group ought to be willing to extend him the courtesy of allowing him to do it.

This constant refrain, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," is a stupid political position. You clowns would have us believe that you would vote for Bush on the grounds that he hated Saddam Hussein.

thanks.

mp

Carrington Ward wrote on October 23, 2007 7:21 AM:

Shouldn't people be asking why McClurkin is willing to compromise his beliefs to endorse Obama?

Fredric Markus wrote on October 23, 2007 7:40 AM:

This is no small stumble. Think of the fury in the conservatives about the anti-discrimination bill coming to the House floor. Think of the horrific torture and murder of Matthew Shepard out in Wyoming. Obama is utterly out of step with the changing mood in this country.

So long as he tries to finesse what has to be considered at best an amateurish stumble somewhere in his campaign management team,just so long his support among gay Americans will erode. Rapidly.

Also among progressive Americans of whatever sexual stripe who know bigotry and hate when they see it. There's no reputable science behind the gospel singer's "conversion" and Obama's gesture is cynical and demeaning. For shame!

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 7:41 AM:

I think this particular story is a nonevent, but I do think it raises a larger issue which we touched on in the prior thread.

The basic setup is that Karl Rove and others realized that there is a pretty strong current of anti-gay sentiment in certain otherwise Democratic-leaning communities, including the African-American community. So they very deliberately tried to use gay rights issues as a "wedge" to break apart the Democratic coalition.

A lot of people here seem to be suggesting that for purely symbolic reasons, anyone who has expressed anti-gay sentiments should be completely shunned by any Democratic candidate. To emphasize this point, it is apparently not enough to strongly and in public disagree with this person's anti-gay views. Rather, apparently they have to be completely banned from any sort of participation in the political process (for example, they cannot even sing).

I won't argue here with those who think this is the right approach to furthering the cause of gay rights, although I do in fact disagree with that notion. I will, however, note that those who support this approach are of course doing exactly what Karl and Co hoped you would do: insisting that the Democratic coalition only include those who agree with you (and, as it happens, agree with me) about gay rights, since at the present time that would be a losing coalition.

ns wrote on October 23, 2007 7:42 AM:

This is one of the things people don't understand about Obama. He doesn't just talk to believers, he tries to change the minds of people who disagree. Whether he's talking to the Hamilton Project, Evangelicals, or Detroit automakers, he gets criticized for pandering, but he's doing exactly the opposite. He's trying to convince them to be more progressive. He's trying to use one of his greatest gifts--persuasion--to build the progressive movement. There's a place for denunciation, but if we're going to get equality for the LGBT community, we're going to have to change some people's minds. Good for Obama.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 7:47 AM:

Carrington and M. Powe,

McClurkin apparently thinks homosexuality can be "cured." It seems clear he thinks it should be "cured." If this is true then then it is likely that he thinks campaigning for someone who doesn't share his own ignorance can also be "cured." Jesus freaks like that are on a mission. He's not compromising any belief. He's on a mission. It's a lifelong mission. He can "save" Obama and all who think as him. No compromises here.

I do not believe Obama shares this mans views. But in a national campiagn for the highest office in the land appearences matter. Being able to make a statement by saying we will not tolerate intolerance on our campaign would be the right thing to do.

Obama may still do this, but hasn't yet. If he does, will you think he is a coward? Will you no longer vote for him because he caved to the critics of homophobia? Or deep down, won't you feel better that he told a person such as McClurkin to buzz off? I know I will.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 7:56 AM:

loki,

I think it is important for people to be more precise about what they want. You say Obama should "not tolerate intolerance on [his] campaign," but of course McClurkin is not on his campaign.

So apparently what you really want is for all the Democratic candidates to deny people who have expressed anti-gay sentiments any role in the political process whatsoever. Again, I note this because it has certain implications for the viability of the Democratic coalition (implications that have not been lost on the likes of Karl Rove).

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 8:07 AM:

By the way, the fact that Clinton accepted the endorsement of Rev. Harold Mayberry and put it on her website should be raising all the same issues. That is also a case of a Democratic candidate accepting the support of someone who is publicly anti-gay, and if the notion is that for symbolic reasons those people should be shunned, then Clinton should also be shunning Mayberry.

Which is not to offer an "it is OK for Obama to accept support from anti-gay people if Clinton does it too" defense. It is just pointing out that if people here are going to take a strict line on shunning such people, then they should apply the same standard to all of the candidates.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 8:16 AM:

DTM,

I see. So, according to you, what's really missing for Democratic candidates is the courting of "anti-gay" voters. Interesting.

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 8:33 AM:

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 8:07 AM:

By the way, the fact that Clinton accepted the endorsement of Rev. Harold Mayberry and put it on her website should be raising all the same issues. That is also a case of a Democratic candidate accepting the support of someone who is publicly anti-gay, and if the notion is that for symbolic reasons those people should be shunned, then Clinton should also be shunning Mayberry.

Which is not to offer an "it is OK for Obama to accept support from anti-gay people if Clinton does it too" defense. It is just pointing out that if people here are going to take a strict line on shunning such people, then they should apply the same standard to all of the candidates.

I agree with all of that comment. I have no idea who this Mayberry guy is or what his relationship is with the Clinton campaign. However, if he is or has been an "agent of intolerance" as has been suggested, then the Clinton campaign must to get rid of him immediately, and then state without equivocation that bigotry in any form shall not find its way to her campaign. Obama has done the right thing by denouncing McClurkin's bigotry, but now he needs to go farther and complete the "cleansing" of his campaign by physically dissociating from this intolerant "gospel singer."

Uniform application of standards to all the candidates is required if we are to be able to determine who among them would best represent the values of the Dem party. Obama, I believe, has a lot more to lose here as he has staked his whole campaign on being perceived as a "new kind of politician." Therefore, to simply say that "Clinton also did it" would make Obama look worse than if he just denounced McClurkin and summarily got rid of him, without regard to what any other candidate might have done. The Me-Too-ism of "Clinton did it too" would hurt rather than serve Obama. This should be obvious...

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 8:40 AM:

dcshungu,

Agree.

dennisS wrote on October 23, 2007 8:41 AM:

Obama did more than denounce McClurkin's opinion on homosexuality, he addressed a sensitive issue head-on; the too-large fraction of African Americans who are homophobic. I think he did it in a thoughtful yet forceful way.

I never heard of McClurkin before this article. If his views are really as odious as David Duke's once were, and maybe still are, and if the man McClurkin has come to symbolize those views then maybe he should be asked to withdraw. But, from this TPM article all I can gather is he seems to be very confused about his sexuality, and he wants to use his singing voice to help attract voters in S. Carolina to Obama.

I think this thing needs more time to develop and without the vitriol I've read here. In the meantime I'm impressed that Barack has called to task the AA community over this issue. This matter requires the kind of diplomacy Obama exhibited with his statement, not a flamethrowing chest-thumping my-way-or-the-highway line in the sand.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 8:44 AM:

loki,

No, of course not. To "court anti-gay voters" would imply appealing to their anti-gay sentiments, and I wouldn't suggest that. The real question is whether Democratic candidates who themselves support gay rights should nonetheless accept the support of "anti-gay" voters (who presumably would be supporting those Democratic candidates for other reasons).

And I recognize this is a tough question for some people. Indeed, if it wasn't tough, Karl Rove and Co would not have identified it as a promising wedge issue.

Note, by the way, that all wedge issues inevitably lead to this sort of question. So, for example, we could also be asking whether Democratic candidates who are themselves pro-choice should nonetheless accept the support of pro-life voters (again who would presumably be supporting those Democratic candidates for other reasons).

To close the circle, an equivalent to your crude attempt to mischaracterize my point would be to suggest I was proposing that Democratic candidates should be courting pro-life voters. Again, that is not in fact what I would be proposing if I suggested that Democrats should accept the support of pro-life voters.

Anyway, apparently you are not interested in an honest discussion of this issue. But hopefully this was helpful for those who are.

lambert strether wrote on October 23, 2007 8:48 AM:

Wow, a "strongly worded statement." File under The Department of How Stupid Do They Think We Are? After all the "sternly worded letters" from Congress, I have total confidence that this is just a... Well, you know the drill.

How about a Sister Souljah moment in reverse, for once in our lives? From our own party?

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

Again, I think people need to be very clear here about what they want. McClurkin is not part of Obama's campaign, but apparently was scheduled to sing at an event supporting Obama.

So to be consistent, the rule must be that the Democratic candidates should not accept the support of people who have expressed anti-gay sentiments, apparently no matter what form that support takes.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 8:54 AM:

Political candidates "accept" the support of those who think differently from them all the time. Unfortunately, it is not always as simple, as cut and dry as you naively suggest.

There are times when one must take a stand and times when you let it go.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 8:55 AM:

Sorry...the above was addressed to DTM.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 9:19 AM:

loki,

Of course, I am not the one suggesting that the candidates reject any support from people who have expressed anti-gay views. I am just pointing out what such a stance would imply.

And again, I think I have already made it clear that I understand this is a tough issue for many Democrats. Once again, I will just note that is precisely why Karl Rove and Co identified it as a wedge issue they could use against Democrats.

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 9:35 AM:

I never heard of McClurkin before this article. If his views are really as odious as David Duke's once were, and maybe still are, and if the man McClurkin has come to symbolize those views then maybe he should be asked to withdraw.

This reminds me of something utterly comical that happened to me a couple of weeks ago in Manhattan. A lady approached me around E. 59th and 2nd Ave, and pointed to a picture of Dick Cheney that had been hung on an easel next to a small table that had lots of reading material, and asked me: "What do you suppose Abraham Lincoln would think of that man?" I replied that she was too kind to even refer to Cheney as a "man." Pleased with my sentiment toward Cheney, she motioned me to the table and said, pointing to the books on the table: "That is why I am urging you to contribute to David Duke's campaign by purchasing one of his books to help him restore America to greatness after the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney." The spectacle of David Duke using Cheney as the "boogey" to scare people into supporting his bigoted campaign was just too comical, so I began laughing uncontrollably. While walking away, I told the lady: "I am not sure who is the scarier of the two men, ma'am, but it is a tough competition."

True story..

elrapierwit wrote on October 23, 2007 9:38 AM:

Wow.
Is this thread ever a hot mess.

I wonder how many folks on this thread have political positions which are different from their employer. I wonder how many people are actively involved in activities that support their beliefs that are the opposite of their employers political views. I wonder how many folks here believe their employer should fire them for holding political views opposite of the top management team. How many Democrats would loose their jobs if we accepted such intolerance of free speech OUTSIDE their place of employment?

When did America turn into a country intolerant of people's views who are not organizing 'hate' and encouraging people to endanger others lives? Why are we even being vehemently INTOLERANT of another man's opinions? Particularly, one who is not advocating nor exhorting others to hold those views? This is Amercia and McClurkin has the right to express his political views in a manner which does not incite or cause harm to others. That is acceptable in America. He is not preaching some doctrine of hate.

Most importantly, since when is believing that homosexuality is a choice ANTI anything? There is nothing that says to be PRO or supportive of GLT political agenda a person HAS to BELIEVE that it is genetic in origin. In fact, all the data that supports some genetic basis for homosexuality has been refuted by the very scientists who first hypothesized such.

No one in our society ever has to DENOUNCE another views to NOT endorse them. Simply voicing your own beliefs and stating how you disagree is more than sufficient. That is called being inclusive and tolerant of the DIVERSE views and backgrounds that people have in this country.

It is well known that McClurkin is gay himself and he has as much right to beleive that it is a choice as all those other homosexuals who want to cling to the factless claim that they were born gay.

I for one am tired of the intolerance that the gay agenda heaps on individuals who simply do not agree with their political agenda. Their intolerance of others while demanding tolerance is simply unacceptable and the gay agenda should NOT be tolerated when they advocate such INTOLERANCE.

Obama does not need to be a fighter what he needs to do is stand up and assert what his views and beliefs are as well as be consistent with those views so we all know where he stands. The very idea that people beleive we need a 'fighter' for a President is what is wrong with this country. The GOP model of fighting and bickering is NOT an effective model for leadership nor does it build a strong nation what it does it breed intolerance of other's, hate and hostility. That type of philosophy will not move this country forward.

Our country is fortunate to have such a charismatic and extremely intelligent politician at this time who knows how to BUILD BRIDGES and create solutions that focus on how we AGREE rather than fanning the flames of divisiveness for political expediency.

How about you folks demanding intolerance on this thread learn how to be tolerant and accepting of every American's right to believe what they choose?

It is unAmerican to demand anything else.

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 9:39 AM:

I messed the HTML on that last post. Here it is again...

I never heard of McClurkin before this article. If his views are really as odious as David Duke's once were, and maybe still are, and if the man McClurkin has come to symbolize those views then maybe he should be asked to withdraw.

This reminds me of something utterly comical that happened to me a couple of weeks ago in Manhattan. A lady approached me around E. 59th and 2nd Ave, and pointed to a picture of Dick Cheney that had been hung on an easel next to a small table that had lots of reading material, and asked me: "What do you suppose Abraham Lincoln would think of that man?" I replied that she was too kind to even refer to Cheney as a "man." Pleased with my sentiment toward Cheney, she motioned me to the table and said, pointing to the books on the table: "That is why I am urging you to contribute to David Duke's campaign by purchasing one of his books to help him restore America to greatness after the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney." The spectacle of David Duke using Cheney as the "boogey" to scare people into supporting his bigoted campaign was just too comical, so I began laughing uncontrollably. While walking away, I told the lady: "I am not sure who is the scarier of the two men, ma'am, but it is a tough competition."

True story..

elrapierwit wrote on October 23, 2007 9:56 AM:

Carrington Ward

Why should McClurkin supporting Obama's campaign even be an issue?

McClurkin is gay. Being gay does not mean that your political views have to match your sexual choices. Their are many people who do not allow their sexual choices to determine their political views and agenda. They in fact beleive it is stupid to do such. After all what one does sexually is and should be a private matter. Only people who individuals have sex with should ever know about another individuals' sexual choices.

Larry Craig opposes the entire gay agenda even though people have said he is gay despite his denouncing such.

Ken Mehlman, Foley, Rove. Lindsay Graham and a host of other republicans are gay. They have felt no need to denounce the republican platform as it pertains to the political issues of homosexuality.

It is their choice as Americans to do so and no one should ever believe it is OK to challenge them on how they choose to live their lives INDEPENDENT of their sexual choices.

The republican party in fact has an entire group made of homosexuals who are republican and support the republican platform, their official group name is LoG Cabin republicans.

Many Americans who are white females also oppose affirmative action despite white females being the largest beneficiary group of affirmative action laws.

Many women are anti-choice as well. So, again gender and what a person does sexually is not some predeterminant of anyone's political views.

Clarence Thomas also opposes affirmative action despite having been a beneficiary of the access and opportunity it afforded him right up to his appointment on the Supreme Court.

Let's not attempt to impose certain political views on people simply on the basis of gender, race or their sexual proclivities. To do such is to not understand and appreciate the diversity of America and Americans.

rmb wrote on October 23, 2007 10:00 AM:

Does anyone else out there find all of this a little frustrating. I mean, good gravy, it's a GOSPEL CHOIR! There are probably a lot of them that also think that abortionists are "baby killers". Does that mean a campaign shouldn't invite them because they are pro-choice? We live in a pluralistic society where people who agree on some issues are entitled to to strongly disagree on others. For those of you that think it is polarizing, do you think it would be better if we just completely segregated by political or social values?

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 10:14 AM:

Does anyone else out there find all of this a little frustrating. I mean, good gravy, it's a GOSPEL CHOIR! There are probably a lot of them that also think that abortionists are "baby killers". Does that mean a campaign shouldn't invite them because they are pro-choice? We live in a pluralistic society where people who agree on some issues are entitled to to strongly disagree on others. For those of you that think it is polarizing, do you think it would be better if we just completely segregated by political or social values?

This is actually a very good point, which is probably why we have the great divide that characterizes the current two-party system. A GOP candidate who is caught doing an event with the head of an abortion clinic would probably be in a situation similar to the one that Obma finds himself in with respect to this anti-gay singer, McClurkin, who, BTW, would probably be celebrated by the GOP. Our "good guys" are their "bad guys" and vice versa. Is that what you call moral relativism?

The answer is that a campaign ought to stand by what it has put out there as representing its core belief...

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 10:20 AM:

DTM,

Above, you said this:
"Of course, I am not the one suggesting that the candidates reject any support from people who have expressed anti-gay views. I am just pointing out what such a stance would imply."

Well, you implied that was my stance in your first post to me, when I was talking about a particular politician about a particular "supporter."

But you felt it necessary to say:
"So apparently what you really want is for all the Democratic candidates to deny people who have expressed anti-gay sentiments any role in the political process whatsoever."

And you have the gall to say I was trying to mischaracterize your point! Heh.

sagacious wrote on October 23, 2007 10:30 AM:

RMB

The truth is that everyone on that gospel tour more than likely believes the exact same thing as McClurkin. The ministers in the black community say the same thing as McClurkin during their Sunday services.

What people need to look at here is that the black communinty does not support gay marriage BUT they do support civil rights for gays when it comes to housing and employment. These positions are extremely prevalent in the black community. Sixty percent believe homosexuals should not be discriminated against when it comes to employment and housing and sixty percent are opposed to gay marriage.

Black people also vote heavily democratic in the South. The noise surrounding this is a big sham. No one who is black that would attend this gospel tour thinks any differently from McClurkin and the rest of the gospel singers.

Black people are very religious and they vote Democrat. Sixty percent of Southern Blacks go to church at LEAST twice a month.

So gay people are not doing anything but shooting themselves in the foot by making McClurkin an issue. After all, it is not as though the GOP will support their agenda. So what gay folks are doing is actually bashing the very demographic group that supports them. They are throwing out the baby with the bath water in some misguided attempt to advocate for 'tolerance' of their own political agenda.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Honestly, this may turn out to work in Obama's benefit, blacks will rally around him after the gay community finishes pilloring him. The strident, vehemence and intolerance they are screeching and having a hissy fit all over the news and blogs will actually turn blacks into a solid voting block FOR Obama.

What that means is that if he is not the nominee, the Democrats will lose as blacks will stay home and not vote for the Democratic ticket.

So, all these GLT folks can look forward to another GOP white house and republicans in control for the next 8 years.

The Democratic party will be able to look back and recall how the intolerant gay agenda cost us the white house.

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 10:50 AM:

Look, the fact is that Obama's advance people let him down, now he's stuck with a no-win scenario but he's not blaming the staffer. Debating this as if there is a "right" answer is ridiculous because there isn't one. There are only answers that please one group as opposed to another. (Wouldn't you have to be the advance person whos didnt' catch this right now, btw?)

Here's what I find really frustrating about this. This is the second time in a week that TPM and other bloggers, and their commenters, have worked themselves into a torches and pitchforks foot stamping frenzy over Obama's perceived "refusal" to provide an instantaneous, and instantaneously perfect,response to some submarine issue that surfaces out of nowhere to become a cause celebre in the blogosphere.

I feel like I'm watching some MSM caricature of the blogosphere at work.

For Christ's sake people, the man and his campaign are working in real time, not Internet time. These are real people in a real organization, not some individual no-life like all of us firing off blog posts. When a problem like this happens, it has has to be percieved, communicated up the chain of command, triaged based on what else is going on at the time, deliberated, and then acted upon.

Same thing happened with Telecom immmunity last week. The damn thing is going to be locked up in the Senate Judidicary Committee indefinitely and what comes out may be worse or may be better than what came out of the Intelligence Committee, yet folks were on here and on other liberal blogs saying he was "refusing" to respond and then, when he did, getting themselves into a heated cybersnit because he failed to take a public position on what he would do if a) telecom immunity survived the judiciary committee's markup, b) Chris Dodd did, in fact, put a hold on it, c) Harry Reid did, in fact, ignore Chris Dodd's hold and try to bring it to the floor. Never mind that doing so might undermine whatever bargaining power he has to keep a telco immunity bill from coming to the floor in the first place. Making empty statements about intended actions if as-yet remote contingencies occurred was declared a moral imperative for the vital blog commenter vote, with many declaring that they would never vote for him if he failed to take this position.

And, yet, oddly enough, all this urgent Viewing with Alarm has been directed solely to Obama. Hillary has yet to take any position on telco immunity, yet I see no "Hillary Refuses to Comment on Telco Immunity" headlines on TPM. Similarly, Hillary has supporters whose views on gay rights differ from her own and yet I see no urgent demands in the blogosphere for a Stalinistic purge of those who are not politically pure enough to be allowed to give her money.

Forgive me for being conspiratorial, but I do think there may be a bit of subtle bias at work here. I don't think its overt pro-Hillary bias. Instead, rightly or wrongly, I suspect that TPMEC has obtained a somewhat favored status with Hillary's oppo team and that it's judgment about which items to run with is colored a bit by a desire maintain that status.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread is already so toxic I doubt it will lower the tone.

P.S.: there is at least one critical difference between McClurkin and David Duke. McClurkin is clearly a gay black man driven to act out by religious and cultural forces that are tragically pervasive in the blac community. As such, he's an object of pity, even if you can't personally bring yourself to muster up any actual compassion for him. David Duke is just an opportunistic white-supremicist asshole.

DonnaG wrote on October 23, 2007 10:59 AM:

Election Central, playing with the Rove manual, invites and flames up the politics of divisiveness.....selectively.

Good job, too. Sets up a hot thread for Obama-bashing, while avoiding, of course, any similar exposure/development of issues with Clinton's Chinatown fundraising questionable behavior or her gay-bashing endorser Mayberry, or her military endorser who let the cat out of the bag that Hillary was never really against the war, or heaven forbid, any coverage of a recent poll showing Hillary loses 50% of voters who again affirm that they would never vote for her.

But, hey, at least this selectivey initiated thread is educational. Reading this thread, one can see that many democrats are just as hate leaning and judgmentally punitive toward diverse views, and prone to being hooked into inane line-in-the-sand symbolic psuedo-solutions by the hot wedge issues are are the republicans.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 11:03 AM:

loki,

As an aside, I am indeed assuming you are operating on consistent principles that would apply to all the candidates. But in general, I am not interested in participating in a flamewar, and I think we have reached that point.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 11:18 AM:

DTM,

I honestly don't think we were even close to approaching a "flame war." It certainly was not my want.

Be that as it may, I appreciate your comment just above. And I would say the same for you.

Cheers.

loki wrote on October 23, 2007 11:30 AM:

NCSteve,

You seem to be suggesting that Obama has been unfairly and repeatedly attacked in these pages as well as other parts of the blogosphere. That it is tough for a big name politician to respond perfectly and in a timely manner. That his critics "have worked themselves into a torches and pitchforks foot stamping frenzy." That the atmosphere around Obama's critics is "toxic."

Gee...I wonder if Hillary Rodam Clinton can relate?

Not saying you're wrong, just sayin'.

AJM wrote on October 23, 2007 11:54 AM:

Accepting support from someone who is known to disagree with you on some issues is proper.

Headlining a known bigot is not.

There is no free speech right to be given a platform.

You are known by the company you choose not the relatives you are born with.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 12:37 PM:

AJM,

Are you suggesting that by singing at an Obama event, McClurkin has actually been given a platform to express his anti-gay views?

Michael's Mom wrote on October 23, 2007 12:54 PM:

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.

Post a comment

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