What People Don't "Get" About The McClurkin Thing

[THUNDER HANDS]

Unfortunately, a lot of people here don't seem to understand who makes up our party. Our party is a lot like a traveling carnival of different tents of people, some with conflicting views.

There are some people whose main cause is the environment.
There are some people whose main cause is women's rights.
There are some people whose main cause is healthcare.
There are some people whose main cause is gay rights.
There are some people whose main cause is minority rights.
There are some people whose main cause is ending the war in Iraq.
There are some people whose main cause is jobs.
There are some people whose main cause is education.
There are some people whose main cause is immigration reform.

Sometimes, the people who belong to those groups hold conflicting views of those in the other groups. It is up to the leaders of the party, the elected leaders, to try to hold these groups together, even when the people within those groups find the inclusion of others to be less than desirable.

You're going to have someone who's big on healthcare to also be pro-life.
You're going to have someone who's big on education be anti-environment.
You're going to have someone who's main concern is ending the war in Iraq to be anti-immigration.

And in some instances, you're going to have people who support minority rights but oppose gay rights.

Yes, it's contradictory. Yes, we all wish it wouldn't happen. Yes, we would all prefer it if we could all be homogeneous on every issue.

But that's not the way the world works. That's not the way the Democratic Party works. Hell, it's not even the way the Republican party works - look at all the gay republicans who'd wish their party was more friendly towards them, but still vote with them because they want a small government and a hawkish foreign policy.

When McClurkin got up and spoke at an Obama event, he said some things that offended a lot of people. Afterwards, Obama said he rejected those words.

He is but one person, speaking solely for himself. One of many people who belong to our party who hold views contrary to what you or I or the elected leaders of our party have.

Nobody has to fill out a checklist of issues to belong to this party. Nobody has to be 100% in favor of the party platform to belong to our party. If they did, nobody would be in our party.

From my personal view, Obama recognizes this, but he also calls for tolerance and understanding. He goes in front of black churches and black organizations and preaches tolerance of homosexuality. He doesn't do this in front of gay rights groups. He does it in front of people most hostile to gay issues. He wants to start a dialog with them. Hell, he wants to start a dialog with America.

And you can't do that if you turn your back to everyone who holds a position contrary to your own.

Now, who McClurkin is as a person is less important than what he represents. He represents a segment of the party that is not comfortable, nor accepting, of gay rights. This is a larger segment than you might think - since it includes a rather large portion of the African American and Hispanic community (and frankly, probably a sizable portion of the rural white community too).

By going in front of these groups and telling them, flat out, your views must change, you must open your heart to everyone - he's doing more for gay rights than any politician who says they favor gay rights because they go in front of a gay rights group and pledge to support them.

It's easy to preach to the choir about how you'll work for them. It's another thing to preach to agnostics about how they have to change, (to use a metaphor that has nothing to do with religion).

I don't think I've ever seen another politician go before a group and tell them their views are wrong and they have to be more accepting of others. Certainly, I've never seen Clinton do it. I've seen her speak before gay rights groups and pledge support - which is fine. But it's taking the national dialog to a whole different level when you preach the same message to the unconverted.

McClurkin spoke at event Obama didn't attend, if I remember correctly, and he told the people there pretty much what they already felt. Obama came and told them the opposite, he told them what he felt, and what he felt they needed to hear.

Maybe it changed a few minds. Maybe it didn't. But he tried. Some things take time to sink in. Views don't change overnight.

I believe if Barack Obama is elected president, and he talks about gay rights in front of audiences not usually receptive to such messages, than he can bring about great change in the perceptions of minorities in this country. And if that happens, he'll do more for gay rights than any president before him.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[jackpan1260]

1. I am voting for Obama. I would never, ever vote for Clinton. eom

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Hoping "The Gays" can get cured by Obama's "ex-Gay" buddy McClurkin?

Is that covered in Obama's quasi-semi-partial-Universal Health Care Plan?

[Honeycombe8]

113. Come on, now. He never said or implied that. We get it, we get it.

You're angry with Obama for not kicking out that guy from a performance.

Thing is...all the candidates have the same views toward gay marriage. So I don't know where you think you're going to find a candidate to your liking.

The Dem. Party's position is that it is a state's right to decide whether to allow gays to be "married" or not. That is Obama's position, as well as Edwards' and HRC's position. They all support civil unions. None of them supports amending the Constitution regarding this issue.

They're pretty much all the same on this issue. I think some people are just angry at a candidate for not using his power to kick out from an ensemble performance someone that they don't like.

[readmoreoften]

109. As if your rainbow flag avatar fools anyone. /nt

[Honeycombe8]

112. Ditto. I still don't see what McClurkin has to do with any of what the initial post ...

is about.

Obama's views on gay marriage are IDENTICAL to John Kerry's, and his ideas are IDENTICAL to John Edwards, and as far as I know, IDENTICAL to Hillary Clinton's.

They all say that gay marriage is a state's right issue. Right? What their personal belief is I don't know, and I don't care. All that matters is that they support the Dem. platform on the various issues.

I'm pretty sure the Dem. Platform is that gay marriage is a state's right issue. The Dem. Platform is NOT that there should be gay marriage, OR that there should NOT be gay marriage. The Dem. Party does not take a position on that, at this time, as far as I know, saying it is a state's right to decide that for itself, and not for the federal govt to decide.

[dkf]

2. Yes. They key is to find the common human factor in people

rather than emphasize differences because hey, we are all different.

[alteredstate]

3. Great post

kicked and recommended.

[dsc]

4. You have the timing wrong

as do most of your side. He didn't disavow those words after, he did so before, and then had him speak anyway. Now he has a second pastor doing the same damn thing.

[KittyWampus]

9. So Democrats need to ignore a significant section of the black community. People who're progressive

generally but have terribly regressive attitudes about gay people?

That leaves these people ripe for voting GOP, even though they might agree with progressives on almost every other issue.

And how do you propose effecting change in these people?

Working together toward common goals so they can learn and broaden their view of civil rights?

Or insisting they be shunned and ignored?

[dsc]

16. there is a massive difference between John Doe

voter and Donnie McClurkin. Appeal to the voters on the basis of shared values. You don't see any candidate appealing to racist voters by letting Prussian Blue sing at concerts on their behalf. You don't see any candidate appealing to prolife voters by having Operation Rescue hold fundraising speeches at their venues. You don't see any candidate inviting Borderwatch to their events to cater to anti immigrant sentiment. McClurkin and this new pastor are agents of genocide. They are the Milokovich to the gays Bosnians.

[jlake]

5. Wow. Homophobia is okay because it is not everyone's main issue ...

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. it's not okay

it's just a reality, a reality he's trying to combat.

[jlake]

46. Don't claim racism - it is a fat that there are MANY who will never vote for a

black man. ... a reality we should combat by not nominating one.

[THUNDER HANDS]

61. define "many"

like, many in the South?

yeah, probably.

[jlake]

63. Many everywhere, the majority of those in the South.

Just because something is a reality, does not mean that I want a Democratic candidate SUPPORTING that point of view.

[THUNDER HANDS]

66. so you're implying

that Obama supports converting gay people?

[jlake]

75. Apparently he does, judging by his actions. He certainly promotes homophobia in order to get votes.

[William769]

Oh, I get it, you just can't sell it.

[William769]

6. self delete, double post.

[Selatius]

7. The Democratic Party doesn't function like a real party; it's really just a coalition as you say.

If we were to transition to a system built upon proportional representation or some mixed form of representation tomorrow, the Democratic Party would likely not exist after a few years due to fragmentation. What would exist, however, would likely be comprised of the Labor Party, the Green Party, the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Socialist Party (or Progressive Party like in the 1940s), and probably several other smaller parties on the left.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. Wow- Magic Rat- that

is a very excellent post.

I thank you for speaking out so clearly.

peace~

[IndianaJones]

11. Maybe being tolerated isn't good enough for many gays. nt.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. well, you have to start somewhere

remember, you're not just fighting people who believe in their minds that homosexuality is bad, you're fighting against the forces of organized religion that has a huge impact in people's lives and beliefs.

You can't jump from hatred to love without first stopping at tolerance.

[IndianaJones]

20. maybe gays don't care if hateful bigots love them or not. give them civil rights...

and send in the National Guard to enforce it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. i think he supports civil rights

I don't see your point.

[maddiejoan]

17. Hell's bells

I'll even take being tolerated.

What I won't take is the position that my queerness is a disease that can be cured.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. then don't vote for McClurkin

not that he's on the ballot anyway....

[maddiejoan]

33. But Obama is

and he doesn't get my vote --not even in the GE.

until he condemns the ex-gay movement, I'm sitting my queer ass at home if he's the nominee.

How do you feel about Caldwell, BTW?

[THUNDER HANDS]

36. who?

I'm not familiar with him.

[maddiejoan]

41. Rev Kirbyjon Caldwell

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/21/12830/0021/1023/440373

We call on Senator Barack Obama to reject cordially, but in the clearest language the recent endorsement that his campaign has received from Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Texas. Mr. Caldwell is a proponent of "Metanoia Ministries" – a dangerous program that claims to convert gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people to heterosexuality within a so-called Christian framework.

[THUNDER HANDS]

44. oh

I missed that.

Thanks.

Again, I'd imagine this is a black church, right?

IF it is, that just gets back to my main point about this party being a big ass collection of conflicting people and ideas. This guy could have supported any Republican if gay issues were his number one concern. But he saw something larger in Obama.

Maybe Obama, if he campaigns in Texas, could go speak to them and talk about accepting gay people for who they are and why it's wrong to try to convert them.

Obama has already stated publically he doesn't believe people choose to be gay.

I hope he can open a dialog with them and try to change their minds.

As far as rejecting the endorsement, that's up to him. I'd hope he would talk with/to them first.

Do you know anything else about this organization?

[maddiejoan]

48. It's not just a Black Church issue

<snip>

We call on Senator Barack Obama to reject cordially, but in the clearest language the recent endorsement that his campaign has received from Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Texas. Mr. Caldwell is a proponent of "Metanoia Ministries" – a dangerous program that claims to convert gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people to heterosexuality within a so-called Christian framework.

<snip>

Senator Obama NEEDS to address this.

He NEEDS to talk specifically about institutions like Metanoia.














http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/21/12830/0021/1023/440373

[THUNDER HANDS]

52. if he did

would that change your opinion of him? just curious.

[maddiejoan]

56. very much so

[divineorder]

117. McClurkin

Isn't going to be serving in an Obama Administration or setting policy. BTW, think about how the ancestors of the black parishioners who went to that rally felt about having to tolerate Dixiecrats so that at least they could get a living wage and some advances in Civil Rights. The Dixiecrats were far more powerful and far more stubborn. In contrast, McClurkin has no power or even a significant group of supporters to be placated. He's just an entertainer who has gotten religion.

He wont even get faith-based dollars in an Obama administration.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Obama's pandering to the Hate Wing of his church is OK, cuz it's just "the gays" anyways.

...

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. pandering?

do you have any idea what the word pandering means?

[TankLV]

65. Yes - we LIVE with it - it's YOU who doesn't...

get a fucking clue...

[THUNDER HANDS]

67. i think you need to get a clue

if you speak before bigoted people and tell them they're wrong, that's NOT pandering.

What part of that don't you understand.

And don't presume to know who I am. I'm not gay, but I have relatives and friends who are and I love them dearly.

[totodeinhere]

21. That is not what the OP said.

[gratuitous]

13. I'll be sure to tell my stepdaughter

"Don't worry, honey. Obama will let the haters into the White House, but he'll tell them somewhere along the line that they need to change their views. Isn't that nice? You don't mind another four years of second class citizenship, do you? Because after all, it makes some people all uncomfortable to think of you getting fair housing and a good job and living your life in security and dignity."

Yeah, no problem, Magic Rat. I can "get it" now. Thanks ever so much.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. i don't think you do get it

if you think Obama wants to treat gay people as second class citizens.

[gratuitous]

42. Well, I know what I do get

And that is, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And if my congregation not only "accepts" my stepdaughter and her entire family (spouse, kids, and ex), but encourages them to participate fully in the life of our congregation - based on biblical principles articulated by Jesus - then there's no reason except hate, ignorance and bigotry for anyone else to act otherwise.

If Donnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and their ilk are crowding around Obama, whispering in his ears, then I know that there's no room for me at Obama's table.

[THUNDER HANDS]

47. whispering in his ears?

I don't even think they've appeared together.

Do you want to do background checks on everyone who supports your candidate to see if you sit at the same table with bigots or homophobes? I'm sure you don't, because guess what - no matter who you support, there are bigots at that table.

[gratuitous]

55. Nice maneuver

You've gone, in two posts, from Obama's clear superiority to "everybody does it, so what's the big schmeal?" Well played. You have so thoroughly convinced me that there's just nothing left to say.

[THUNDER HANDS]

57. that's not what I was implying

you're saying that he has people who support him who are bigoted. I contend that so does everyone else.

You don't think the black churches that supported Hillary and Bill Clinton for so long weren't anti-gay too?

This party is so big, and so vast in it's support, that there are going to be people who hold terrible views who are going to be supporting the same candidate as you.

As for Obama being superior, I wouldn't say that. I just contend that he's at least trying to combat the hate within his own community and supporters. I guess that's better than ignoring it.

[LostinVA]

23. Good post

I, too, am tired of this garbage.

[Apollo11]

15. Agree and recommend!

But at the same time I also agree with the many DU members who have said that Obama was wrong to allow his campaign to provide a public platform for McClurkin, who used an official Obama campaign event as an opportunity for spreading a message of hate (disguised as religiously-inspired "love") which represents an attack against the fundamental human rights of our LGBT sisters and brothers.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. I don't think he knew he would say that

I honestly don't, because it goes against everything his campaign is trying to say.

[dsc]

27. then he is a total idiot

Anyone with half a brain could have seen that coming. Give any of these people a microphone and a receptive crowd and out will come the ex gay clap trap.

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. exactly, a receptive crowd

a crowd that already felt the way it did. A crowd whose minds and hearts Obama is trying to change.

And you can't change their minds if you ignore them or pretend they don't exist. You can't change them by speaing in front of a gay rights group in San Francisco.

You have to stand in front of them and tell them their views are wrong. Which he's doing, and has done.

It takes balls to do that.

[dsc]

32. He didn't tell that crowd squat

He wasn't even there except by tape where he told them "McClurkin is my favorite singer".

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. maybe not that crowd

but other crowds he has. Again, he wasn't at the McClurkin event, or I'd imagine he would have told the crowd (and McClurkin) and the same thing he's been telling other crowds.

[Apollo11]

40. Yeah - it was a "McClurkin event"

NOT an Obama campaign event. Right? :eyes:

[Apollo11]

38. Stop using facts to bash Obama!

The point is that if Obama had been there at this particular Obama campaign event, which apparently was full of Obama supporters who were receptive to an anti-gay message, then we expect that the candidate probably would have said something to balance out the hate coming from McClurkin.

I am a neutral here doing my best to help the Obama folks out! B-)

[Maven]

78. He didn't tell *them* ANYTHING.

He wasn't looking to change any minds on gay rights, he was looking to WIN VOTES. And he used homophobia to do it.

Get real.

[Apollo11]

34. Obama's campaign was apparently willing to take the risk

As far as I know, this McClurkin guy is pretty much known for one thing and one thing only. Spreading the false and dangerous idea that gay people can be "cured" by prayer and can convert themselves into straight folks. Which is of course based in the Biblical belief that there is something wrong with being gay in the first place.

If you put this guy on stage and give him a microphone, there's gotta be a risk he is gonna mention the ex-gay thing.

I have this 4 year-old niece who loves eating candy. I don't put candy in her hand and then act all surprised if she puts it in her mouth. I also don't ask my press people or whoever go out and say that there is no way I could have known in advance that she was gonna eat it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

37. did he sing at the event?

I mean, he is a singer too, right? Maybe Obama just wanted him there to sing. I don't know. Maybe Obama didn't even plan the event himself. Maybe his campaign did.

[Apollo11]

43. Obama has admitted he is not into details

He has papers piled up on his desk and he tells his staff never hand him a piece of paper until he needs it, in case he loses it.

So it seems Obama is more of a "big picture" type. Doesn't like to go into all the details. Like whether his favorite singer believes in respecting diversity.

[THUNDER HANDS]

45. what does that have to do with anything

do you think every candidate follows the details of every campaign event going on across the country? He has a huge staff and probably has something going on in every state.

[Bonobo]

28. Forget it. Their eyes are shut wide.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. I absolutely agree with you

We are a big tent for sure. We do need to help change some people's perspectives though, and Obama is definitely the person to do that.

However I am sick of people on here calling the Obama supporters homophobes though... can that stop please?

[dsc]

31. You aren't all homophobes

but I have been called several vile homophobic names by your supporters in regards to this issue. Another gay poster was told to "suck this" by an Obama supporter. I reserve the right to call those posters homophobes.

[THUNDER HANDS]

39. I hope you don't think that of me

because I assure you, I'm the farthest thing from homophobic. :hi:

[dsc]

54. I don't think that of you

nor most Obama supporters but most of you aren't being called homophobes, at least not by me.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

53. I'm terribly sorry that had to happen to you

I feel that it's such a tense time at the moment. I've got a gay cousin and gay friends and I'm supporting Obama and I feel a little hurt when I'm being called a homophobe.

I did think about not supporting him after what happened. But the more I thought about it, I felt that he couldn't have possibly known about McClurkin. The only time I've heard of him was after the event and on DU. I didn't know about his history and such until this outrage went through DU. He didn't ask for McClurkin's support either... if McClurkin instead supported Hillary, how would you feel? The same way?

It's like me turning my back on Harry Reid because he's pro-life, Dianne Fienstein because she's a conservative Democrat, etc etc. Obama is definitely not a homophobe but it's like what Howard Dean said about appealing to the Southerners with the stars and bars in the back of their pick-up trucks. We have so many Democrats of different ideals that it's impossible NOT to offend them. I remember when Israel bombed Lebanon, many DU-ers were calling other DU-ers anti-semites for opposing the Israeli campaign. It made me :wow: at times at how different we can be.

I'm a Minnesotan-born Irish American survivor of the Troubles (I was near Omagh when it happend, my mother survived the Bloody Friday bombings in 1972), deaf, Atheist and I'm a Democrat. Plenty of people may not agree with my politics in Ireland, my politics concerning deafness, or my politics concerning my Atheism. I'm willing to work with these people, because we're of one party. That's the wonders of the DFL/Democrats, we're such a big umbrella while the Republicans are willing to push people out.

[Marrah_G]

49. What if it was a member of the KKK? No seriously....

What if it was someone who was out-right preaching hate against Blacks at a campaign event? On stage. Spewing white power BS.

If that were the case no one here would ever defend that person. But for some reason it is different because it is a GBLT issue.

[THUNDER HANDS]

50. it's not different

because it's a gay issue.

A large and crucial segment of our party does not support gay rights. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Obama wants to try to change their minds. It's bold thinking. He's already rejected McClurkin's words, but he'll continue to speak out against those types of words even as he speaks to the very groups who agree with them.

that's how you ultimately make progress in this country.

Obama is not trying to get votes from people who would normally not vote for him. These are black church groups, if they're going to support anyone, it'll most likely be him. He's not pandering. He's doing the exact opposite of pandering. He's going before them and telling them they're wrong.

[Maven]

77. Yeah, he expressed "disagreement" with McClurkin's ideas

and then paid for McClurkin's time while he delivered a hateful tirade 5 days later.

Curiously, he delivered his statement of "disagreement" to The Advocate, almost assuring that the audience who just listened to McClurkin wouldn't see it.

Who are you kidding?

[Duncan Grant]

98. Would you offer the same platitudes to black church groups if the situation were reversed?

I'm sorry but I refuse to accept this defense.

It's no longer necessary for LGBT people to delay their political agenda for the "common good". We have every right to demand that the Democratic Party and its candidates for public office repudiate these tactics.

And it sounds to me like you're asking LGBT people to be complicit in their own oppression and I, for one, refuse to do it. Obama should categorically condemn Pastor Caldwell and ex-gay reparative therapies before he begins his altar call for LGBT acceptance.

edit: subject line

[Hello_Kitty]

107. A large and crucial segment of our party do not support racial equality either

When is Hillary Clinton or John Edwards going to appear before groups of working class whites to demand that they accept affirmative action? Not likely anytime soon.

You are right. It does take guts for Obama to take on the homophobia in the black churches.

[BigDDem]

51. The thing is, a lot of folks do "get" it

You can keep and defend the Obama/Reagan/McClurkin/Caldwell wing of the
Democratic Party.
Not interested.

[xchrom]

58. it infuriates me that supposed liberals want to make

people who trott out folk who are very real threats to the gay community sound reasonable.

it's not reasonable that obama uses these people -- it's not reasonable that obama has defended donnie by saying ''it's not all gays he wants to cure -- just those who want to be cured'' -- it's not reasonable to say that gays bring on discriminatin by their own behavior , which obama has done --

[THUNDER HANDS]

59. wait, wait, wait

you got a link for that Obama statement?

[xchrom]

72. they've all been discussed here before --

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force


others have more quotes saved -- this one is particularly hateful to me.

[Solon]

108. Here you go...

The concert was to be the highlight of this outreach and while the crowd left excited, it was clear the campaign still regarded the controversy as complicated. Aides gave reporters a three-page memo detailing McClurkin's and Obama's views on gay rights that noted in capital letters "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS," with quotes detailing those statements from the singer.

The next paragraph then stated "OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE WITH MCCLURKIN'S VIEWS ON GAYS."

The caps lock is in the original Washington Post Article, here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html

[Iceburg]

74. Did Obama really say that ???? :-( if true.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

79. It was issued by his campaign the night of the McClurkin concert n.t

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

82. FredScuttle, someone, link to the "McClurk doesn't want to convert happy gays" statement please

I would be bringing it up a lot more if I had a link to it. Of course Obama supporters should have the integrity to gather all the facts themselves, which were freely available in the McClurkin threads, before defending him.

[TankLV]

60. NO SALE! sorry - no amount of RATIONALIZING will clean this STAIN from him and his campaign...

Yes - it is just ONE of MANY cuts - but it's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to ME...

yeah - another "get over it" even if they still fuck you over...

N.O.

It's not just ONE TIME ANYMORE either - it's a PATTERN...

[THUNDER HANDS]

62. one of many cuts?

can you name more than two?

[TankLV]

64. So, will you make the same "concerns" for white RACISTS?!

Until you and your cult are willing to make exceptions for RACISTS - which will NEVER happen - then we can BEGIN to "have a dialogue"...

until then - stop fooling yourselves and stop trying to give us all your blow job...

[THUNDER HANDS]

70. would racists be willing to hear Obama speak?

It's kinda hard to have a dialog with them if they won't look past your skin color to even hear you. So, while I understand your argument, in practical terms, it would be hard to compare.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. It depends.

Are we talking full-blown KKK members, or otherwise good people who were raised with some bad ideas? I know an awful lot of racist white people, and so probably do you. But it doesn't mean that's what they base their entire identities on. We both also know plenty of people who are homophobic due to their upbringing but it doesn't make them Fred Phelps.

In the case of self-hating and self-deluded Donnie, I will say that because he's made public statements advancing bigotry toward gay people I'm not inclined to cut him as much slack as your average homophobe, but I don't view him quite as harshly as I do a blatant political opportunist like Pat Robertson either.

It's as much a matter of degrees as kind to me. So yeah, I would be willing to have a dialogue with racists. At least the ones where it might make a difference.

[mopinko]

68. thinking this morning about the feminists who

were treated pretty damn similarly in the 50's/70's, and for that matter are still, by their churches. not someone else's church- their own churches. like- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson
lot's of us thought the solution to that was for all of us to abandon religion, hell, burn down the fucking churches. i have no doubt that there were many, many suicides (and still are) of women racked by this conflict, to say nothing of those who had or needed abortions. i still think burning down the damn churches would be a good thing. but i don't really think it will help much in taking our government back from these lunatics.
i agree with magic rat here. barack is not just looking at who will help him win the white house. this is honestly who the guy is. he is accepting of people's flaws. but he not only speaks out for what he thinks is right, he votes that way. he voted to extend hate crimes legislation to sexual orientation. i defy the no-bamas to find me one vote against gay rights that barack ever cast. i defy them to find one piece of legislation against gay rights that he ever wrote or sponsored.
i know that homophobia is common in the black religious community. i know that misogyny is as well. it's not just that it would be strategically stupid to throw all those people under the bus. it would be a moral disgrace as well. barack is about another way. you don't need to make peace with your friends and allies. but we do need to make peace.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. I agree too.

The crap that is flying on these sites is absurd. The more Obama bashing I read here and on other leftwing sites the more I'm being pushed to vote for him. The outrage over the Reagan comments is just off the charts stupid. I expected Hillary to make hay out of it but was real disappointed in John Edwards for jumping on that bandwagon. Progressives are supposed to be smart and critical thinkers. We're supposed to look at the context, and the big picture, and not just cherrypick little statements to turn into talking points. That's what repugs do. We're also about creating movements and changing things ourselves. Instead of blaming Obama for homophobia in the black and religious communities these people should be going into those communities with him and changing hearts and minds. Finally, if Obama were a Reagan loving homophobe, he'd be a Republican and would vote accordingly.

[ClericJohnPreston]

69. And the OP

just spins, spins, spins, till he thinks the damage is spun away.

Sorry, it took you a 1/4 page to lengthily ignore the obvious.

Obama is revealing his true persona day by day. Bashing the Progressive end of the core Democratic Party and assailing the GLBT Community , while channeling Reagan , is going to send his candidacy to an impending "Howard Dean" moment.

[THUNDER HANDS]

71. the only spin

is what you're doing when you say he's bashing progressives and assailing the GLBT community and channeling Reagan. That's some nice bit of spinning there.

[ClericJohnPreston]

73. Great Argument.....NOT

Can you get any more defensive Mr. Burns? I counted at least 20 retorts from you, all of them missing the mark.

So, you are now reduced to saying something just didn't happen? When it did.

Refute the fact that Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell is a spiritual advisor to PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, had to call Georgie to get his permission to stump for Obama and that he is an ardent foe of Gay Rights!

Refute the fact of McClurkin being a Gay Basher and that he appeared at a concert for Obama, an appearance that he didn't disavow.

Refute the fact that Obama has denigrated Bill Clinton, and gone negative in his sloganeering, speechifying campaign.

Refute the fact that while raising Reagan, Obama denigrated ACTIVISM and all the excesses of the 60's and '70's, in other words, the contributions of an entire generation to Democratic principles.

Refute that Obama has bashed the Baby Boomers.

His advocacy of a bi-partisan , conciliatory approach to Conservatives, just because he is pandering for votes is as sickening as your feigned ignorance or willing ignorance!

[Maven]

76. What a condescending post.

We "get it" fine. We've been dealing with this longer than it's even been on your radar.

If you need to deal with the fact that you support a candidate who speaks about hope and then consorts with hate that's your cognitive dissonance, not ours.

[LostinVA]

80. You said it better than me

[THUNDER HANDS]

81. heaven forbid he tries to change people's minds

it'd be better if we just all acted like there's not an 800-lb gorilla in the room. I see.


carry on.

[Maven]

83. He's not changing anyone's mind.

He's looking to win votes, and putting prominent homophobes front-and-center to do it. Period. Stop parroting this BS excuse for pandering of the worst kind--no "dialogue" will be stimulated by showing tacit acceptance of what Kirbyjon Caldwell represents, other than dialogue among right-thinking Democrats about Barack Obama's principles when it comes to vulnerable and politically unpopular segments of the population. This is someone who preys on GLBT KIDS who have nowhere to turn and often either kill themselves or get thrown out on the street. I have no fucking room for anyone like that in my "tent" and there is NO EXCUSE for having him appear on behalf of a major Democratic candidate for president.

I find the tone of your posts to be incredibly paternalistic ("we know what's best for you") and typical of your own candidate's off-putting arrogance and self-aggrandizement.

[THUNDER HANDS]

84. he's looking for votes in a black church?

You'd think he'd have those votes already, wouldn't you?

He's trying to change people's minds and make them open their eyes a little.

If you don't want to talk with these people, fine, nobody is asking you to. But if he's trying to make some converts, by all means, I think that helps everyone in the end.

[Maven]

85. What converts did he win?

How will he win CONVERTS to GLBT rights when he has people like Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell appear on behalf of his campaign?

Do you even hear yourself?

[THUNDER HANDS]

86. he said he rejects those statements

and he goes in front of those same audiences and tells them the exact opposite, that they should be embraced and loved as any other member of their community should.

But he doesn't belong to every church, and he can't speak for every church. And he can't control what comes out of the mouths of every speaker he has at an event. He can only speak for himself. And when he does, he talks about tolerance and understanding and compassion and acceptance.

And he does it in front of audiences who need to hear that - not in front of gay rights groups where they already know that.

[Maven]

87. He said he "disagreed"

To the gay press.

Five days before he allowed McClurkin to give his homophobic speech anyway.

And I actually praised his MLK speech, but now I realize how hollow it was. I remarked at the time that the word "embrace" has a certain ambiguity to it that homophobes might actually agree with. They want to "embrace" us so they can "cure" us. It's part of their fucked-up rhetoric.

He doesn't belong to every church but he can sure as hell control who appears for his campaign. I mean, give me a break. Would you be OK with a candidate using a white supremacist leader to campaign for him, as long as the candidate expressed strong disagreement with his racial views?

[THUNDER HANDS]

88. are there large segments of the party that are white supremacists?

because that gets back to my original point.

[Maven]

89. LOL

Yeah, there are still a lot of racists in this country.

So answer the question.

[THUNDER HANDS]

92. it's impossible to answer

That would never happen.

And there are waaaaay more people in this country, and in this party, who harbor uncomfortable feelings towards gay people than there are those who harbor uncomfortable feelings towards minorities.

The sad fact is, an large segment of minorities aren't comfortable around gay people.

If you speak in front of ANY church in this country, there's a chance you're going to have a large portion of the audience harboring anti-gay sentiment.

Does that mean all candidates should shun churches?

Pretty much every organized religion is hostile towards gays - should those candidates disavow organized religion?

To what degree do you want someone to purge themselves from any anti-gay sentiment that floats around their life, no matter how disconnected it is?

Obama is trying to take this on by speaking out against it.

He regrets, as I'm sure every single one of his supporters do, what McClurkin said. But his statements don't mean that Obama is anti-gay, any more than Hillary having a Catholic priest or a pastor speak for her, who might be pro-life, means that she is pro-life too.

All it means is that her campaign has better control over the people who asked to volunteer for them. It doesn't mean she has no spporters who feel the same way McClurkin does.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

93. This is not about "attitudes"

Many white southerners have prejudiced views of black people. Unfortunate, but part of a big tent.

A few white southerners want to hang black people. Unacceptable.

Until you understand that distinction you are going to keep coming off as an apologist for one of the most pernicious aspects of modern American religious "expression," which is the systematic effort to purge the population of homosexuality, which is a primarily innate trait, akin to having a uterus or pigmented skin.

[Maven]

94. HAHAHAHA

Oh my gosh.

This conversation is over.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Apollo11]

95. Has a pro-life priest been invited to speak at a Clinton campaign event?

I thought Catholic Priests are generally expected to refrain from endorsing political candidates.

Except of course the current Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, sent around a memo telling priests that politicians who support keeping abortion legal should not be allowed to take part in mass, right around the time that John Kerry was the Democratic nominee for POTUS. You could almost say that Ratzinger was un-endorsing John Kerry.

[THUNDER HANDS]

97. no, but I'm sure Clinton has spoke in church's

and I don't know many church's who have a pro-choice position, or a pro-gay position.

[Apollo11]

102. Nobody here has a problem with Obama speaking anytime, anyplace, anywhere.

What some people do have a problem with is inviting someone to speak at an Obama campaign event, when this person is on the record as basically saying that gay people are a problem waiting to be solved. It kind of undermines Obama's image as someone who stands for diversity and defending the rights of ALL Americans.

I think it is difficult for politicians to operate in a country where 80% of the voters claim to believe in a religion based on a book which from my perspective is a work of pure fiction. From start to finish, the Bible is hogwash mixed with nonsense and fairy tales. But then I am not trawling for votes in South Carolina.

[VotesForWomen]

90. i don't suppose obama would associate with a klan member for votes, would he? nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

91. You simply do not grasp the seriousness of the issue

You said, "You're going to have someone who's big on healthcare to also be pro-life."

Would your argument hold if you had said "You're going to have someone who's big on healthcare to also favor bombing abortion clinics"?

You seem to think that the honest-to-God persecution of gay people is just an issue in the big tent mix of issues.

Gay people would LIKE to have same-sex marriage. But gay people DEMAND that our party not support the organized harassment, often unto death, of gay teens by religious psychos. And gay people DEMAND that the party distance itself from the idea that gay people can be utterly eliminated from society... the dream of de facto genocide by re-programming.

Surely you think some things are over the line... lynching, for example.

So you think the gay-cure movement is not over the line. That's your business. You can argue that point, but please understand you are making it. That distinction is the only real disagreement here.

Nobody is making a political correctness argument. Nobody is bitching because Senator Obama doesn't wear a rainbow flag cape.

Many people on DU have lost people they loved to the gay-cure movement. Many others are recovering from their own soul-destroying brushes with it, after surviving their own induced suicidal impulses.

This stuff is organized, cruel and lethal.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

99. I predict a cricket response to this.

Or one that ignores the points made.

[THUNDER HANDS]

100. but I don't see anyone supporting that

I haven't heard Obama say anything on that topic - in fact, I've heard him reject McClurkin's views.

But I said it before, and I'll say it again, there has to be some sort of dialog started with the people who hold views - not the people on the pulpet who preach this stuff, but the people in the audience who listen to it.

They're listening to Obama right now. And nobody else is even talking to them.

I understand what these people do is hideous, and I completely understand why it upsets you and others. I just believe there's a bigger picture here and what Obama is trying to do will make a bad situation a little bit better over time.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

101. His campaign issued a statement that McClurkin only wants to help gays who are unhappy

That was an endorsement of the ex-gay movement. It's perfectly ok, because they're only helping gays who want to change. No I don't have a link, it was linked in old McClurkin threads. I'm too lazy to hunt for it, right now, however it's factual.

[Apollo11]

103. That's like saying we will help black folks who want to turn white.

It basically confirms the evil idea that there is something wrong with being gay. That your value as a person depends on what sexual orientation you were born with. As already pointed out - being born gay is something that can be equated with being born black or being born female. All part of the natural pattern of variation in human biology. Or if you prefer - part of "God's creation" :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

96. Great post.

He goes in front of black churches and black organizations and preaches tolerance of homosexuality. He doesn't do this in front of gay rights groups. He does it in front of people most hostile to gay issues. He wants to start a dialog with them. Hell, he wants to start a dialog with America.

And you can't do that if you turn your back to everyone who holds a position contrary to your own.

When I first learned of the Donnie thing I was very disturbed. I thought that Obama was riding the anti-gay-train through the primaries. I wrote a few posts saying so. After I thought about it some more, I realized that Obama's actions may actually be helpful for us. We need someone that the bigots will listen to. I hate LIA, but what does my hate do for me or my cause?

[readmoreoften]

110. This is such naive nonsense. These are coded statements to the anti-gay voter. It's not "tolerance".

It's like the White Supremist movement saying it isn't about "hating" Blacks and Jews, it's about promoting the achievements of working-class white people. All these movements can whip out a rhetoric that sounds "reasonable" on cue. Obama is winning the votes of homophobes on this--and that's what these associations intend for him to do. And he's not going to ruin re-election by burning them if he wins.

[THUNDER HANDS]

114. well, i guess I can't change your opinion

but I hope you realize that Obama has a lot of supporters who in no way endorse what that guy said and firmly believe that Obama doesn't either.

[ZombieHorde]

115. "This is such naive nonsense."

It's like the White Supremist movement saying it isn't about "hating" Blacks and Jews, it's about promoting the achievements of working-class white people.

I think that that may be a fair assessment of LIA, but not Obama. He has a plan to ease homophobia, and I think that it may work. If you have a better plan, I would love to hear it.

All these movements can whip out a rhetoric that sounds "reasonable" on cue.

Unfortunately, this is true.

Obama is winning the votes of homophobes on this--and that's what these associations intend for him to do. And he's not going to ruin re-election by burning them if he wins.

If Obama is preaching that homophobia is bad in churches that are reportedly homophobic then your statement is false.

[Hello_Kitty]

104. Interesting point you make. What about the "prolife" Democrats?

I completely understand people being upset by a homophobe representing our candidates. Homophobia literally kills people. Yet at the same time we have people in our party, including elected representatives, who have stated they believe abortion is murder. They may or may not vote that way but using that kind of rhetoric plays into the hands of the woman haters who want to deny us the right to control our bodies, even to the point where it brings us death. I have yet to see the kind of vitriol directed at those politicians, or against otherwise ideologically pro-choice ones who make appearances with preachers who espouse not only anti-choice views but also subscribe to highly traditional roles for women.

Why aren't the people who are (again completely understandably) out for Obama's head over homophobia agitating with equal force to oust people like anti-choicer Harry Reid?

[readmoreoften]

111. This is an excellent thread for figuring out who you want on ignore. /nt

[Solon]

116. This isn't about "one man", godsfuckingdammit!

For fuck's sake! would you even listen to yourself, Obama's own campaign actually DEFENDED McClurkin's ex-gay beliefs, in their own words:

"MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS,"

They then say they disagree with McClurkin's views after the fact, isn't that just peachy? :eyes: