(GayWired OpEd) Hypocrite of the Week: Barack Obama

[Maddy McCall]

Op-Ed
Article Date: 02/29/2008
By Duane Wells

snip/

But my question is: Where was all this love, respect and concern for the gay community back in October, 2007, when the junior Senator from Illinois was actively courting the conservative African-American vote in South Carolina with his pal and supporter, ex-gay minister Donnie McClurkin? The same Donnie McClurkin who performed at the 2004 Republican convention and cozied up to that famous agent of change, George W. Bush.

Where were the ads in the local gay press in South Carolina talking about what a friend the Senator was to the LGBT community? South Carolina: An area where such pronouncements might not have been so well received by the stridently homophobic demographic whose support the Obama campaign needed to defeat Hillary Clinton in that state’s primary?

And in what forum back in South Carolina, when his campaign was struggling, did Obama espouse lofty goals like using “the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” as he does in this new and timely appeal to the LGBT community?

Senator Obama had none of these messages in South Carolina, more than likely because it was not politically expedient for him to write such a letter back then. However now, with the race tight and the stakes high, Obama is now finally extending an olive branch to the very gay community that he quite unashamedly distanced himself from in South Carolina.

The fact of the matter is that when the Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese and other gay rights leaders urged Obama to cancel Donnie McClurkin’s appearance at one of his Faith and Family Values tour stops, their arguments fell on deaf ears. This despite the suggestion that the endorsement of someone as antagonistic to the gay community as McClurkin could be construed as an effort by his campaign to cultivate the support of black evangelicals at the expense of the campaign’s stated commitment to gay and lesbian equality.

Boldly ignoring the obvious implications of such a slight, Obama and his staff brushed off the criticism simply citing the Senator’s belief that the country needed to broaden its reach of equal rights.

snip/

Sorry Mr. Obama, this is where the rubber hits the road. Prior to your cowardly actions during the South Carolina primary, the LGBT community willingly accepted you at your word, believing that you would be a true friend, despite your imited record of support on gay and lesbian issues.

But that was then and this is now.

Because he did nothng when he was asked to take action on behalf of an issue of importance the LGBT community, and yet now asks the LGBT community to accept him as a friend and support his political ambitions in Texas and Ohio, Senator Barack Obama is the Hypocrite of the Week.

Much more of this two-page OpEd available at: http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=70&id=18333

[anonymous171]

1. lol

A resurgence in Mclurkin threads...

[FrenchieCat]

2. It will take time.....But President Obama will prove these posters wrong.....

[JoFerret]

42. ...and it will be too little, too late

we do not want his preachy patronizing pander.

[Maddy McCall]

3. It must mean something to Obama, since he's running ads in gay media...

But his feeble attempt to cover his ass is being noted by gays for the hypocrisy that it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Speaking of hypocrisy...

are we supposed to believe that Clinton is any different?

[avrdream]

21. Here you go. She IS different on this issue.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_8211.php

She also stood proudly next to Gavin Newsome for photographs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Sorry, no.

Obama's been for federal benefits for gay couples for some time.

I guess if you need to pretend though...

[avrdream]

31. So he says.

Like everything else he says. No actions to back it up.

Explain why he was afraid to stand next to Gavin Newsome in a photo-op.


Never mind, don't bother. I know I'm not changing your mind whatsoever.

[JoFerret]

43. I do

.

[theboss]

18. He could just be, you know, seeking votes

It makes sense that a Democratic politician would be courting a strong Democractic constituency, no?

[babylonsister]

26. Not these gays,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4824189&mesg_id=4824189

or these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4819916

[avrdream]

32. Weak endorsement from the Houston group that doesn't specify any action on BO's part.

And the second thread: "some of Clinton's supporters" isn't very factual either.

This gay woman supports Hillary.

[babylonsister]

33. And good for you; that's your right. nt

[Voice for Peace]

29. OT your frog is so hilarious, makes me laugh every time I see it.

is there a way I can send it to somebody by email? When I copied it to my
computer it isn't animated.

[Maddy McCall]

30. Yeah, it should animate be animated if you downloaded it.

Thanks. :D

[TheDonkey]

4. Desperation mode again. Didn't this happen pre-Potamic Tuesday

It seems to always swell before a big election day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. It's on repeat.

McClurkin-Rezko-Muslim-Xerox-Farrakhan-Inexperience-McClurkin

[shoopnyc]

28. Read.

http://www.theroot.com/id/44630

[NMMNG]

38. That's because your hero didn't put out a pathetic ad and letter

trying to suck up to us pre-Potomac Tuesday. Did you ever think about that?

[AZBlue]

50. What else have they got?

They're out of money to pay the evil-brains to come up with new crap.

[NMMatt]

5. Why post the whole article - MC LURKIN!!!!!!!!!!! would have been more concise -nt

[NMMNG]

8. A huge K&R

He is the biggest hypocrite ever. If he thinks his BS ad and letter are going to fool anybody he is sorely mistaken.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Thanks!

:hi:

Isn't the uproar above funny? How dare anyone criticize Obama!

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

40. Yes, how dare they?

[maddiejoan]

41. ......

:rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

9. LMAO at the usual hell-raising Obama supporters protesting this op-ed.

Too fuckin funny. :rofl:

[theboss]

19. I have no problem with the op-ed

The author has a right to his opinion. It's a stupid opinion but he has a right to it.

Obama is the most openly pro-LGBT national candidate of anyone's lifetime. The fact that he associated with someone who is apparently a homophobe (to be honest, after all these weeks, I still have no fucking idea who the guy is) should not call into question the fact.

[yardwork]

10. Support for Obama among gay organizations = wonderful news!

Criticism for Obama from gay organizations = you jerks don't matter anyway.

Hypocrisy is indeed the name of the game.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. K&R

[Maddy McCall]

13. ...

love your new sig photo. :thumbsup:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. ....

thanks :loveya:

[GarbagemanLB]

15. The Clinton's have a flawless record with gays: DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell...lol

[zabet]

16. K and R

[grantcart]

17. I hope that the gay individuals who sincerely believe that the fate of

Sen. Obama campaign was sealed in the moment when the obviously self hating Donnie McClurkin thrust himself into his 15 seconds, and the fact that Sen. Obama has not stopped his campaign to apologize, will not compromise their moral ground. I hope that when Sen. Obama becomes the nominee that they maintain their unique position and form their own political party. They then can bring forth an effective political campaign to take America to a higher ground.

[peacetheonlyway]

20. I'm an Obama Delegate and A VERY PISSED OFF GAY PERSON

I shouldn't have to decide between the queen of don't ask don't tell
and a man who puts an anti gay bigot on stage.


I was frustrated and conflicted at my caucus, I decided to go as an obama delegate
and then raise bloody hell within his campaign to get BONAFIDE concrete gay support from his campaign.

that's the only way I can attack this beast.

but my very practical political side says, ONCE AGAIN the candidates steal our gay money and steal our votes while producing nothing.

History will never erase the mistake and resulting Insult Obama delivered to the gay community.

I"m VERY VERY VERY Disappointed in Obama for thinking he can ignore this insult.

[ruggerson]

44. thanks for your perspective

I'm all for pressuring him to be stronger on these issue.

[joeybee12]

22. Thanks for posting...get ready for the veiled homophobia...

...lots of contortionists here at DU trying to justify bigotry.

[ExtraGriz]

23. thanks for the article.

how can i seriously consider a candidate who speaks kindly of glbt folks when its convenient, and act like hes against glbt folks when its convenient....seriously, i'm more and more believing his double standard with nafta and ctv.

[Forkboy]

25. K&R...he stepped in it on this issue big time.

[shoopnyc]

27. Disgusting Donnie...

...comparing me on the TBN Network to Drug Dealers and Prostitutes. Obama is not who he pretends to be.

[Honeycombe8]

34. I still don't understand what was wrong with Obama having that gospel singer in the gospel act.

He was "the" most famous gospel singer in the area. He wasn't there to preach. He has certain beliefs about his own prior life as a homosexual, but has not condemned others (is what I've read). Obama has a campaign that supposedly wants to be inclusive of people of varying views. There was an intro to the evening by a gay pastor.

I just don't see anything wrong with the gospel event, except that someone was present that gays don't approve of. Did he say or do something offensive?

It's like being ticked off at someone for having a gospel event that includes the most famous gospel singer in the area, who happens to believe a woman's place is in the home and not the workplace (I'm a woman and must work for a living). I mean...I wouldn't be all upset about that gospel event. I would be upset if the gospel singer preached about how women should not work outside the home, etc. But if the gospel singer is there to sing, I can't say that I'd hold it against Obama or anyone else that the key singer has beliefs I disagree with. I just don't get it?

[Solon]

35. first, the fact is that he claims to be something(ex-gay) that is practically impossible to claim...

According to damn near every major medical association, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. He is either lying about being cured, or lying about ever having those "feelings" as he puts it. He also characterized homosexuality as a "curse" and also called for the closure of the Harvey Milk high school in New York, a high school specifically established to allow GLBT teens to have a SAFE educational environment free of harassment. He claims the school is a "bastion of pedophiles", so yeah, he's offensive alright. Oh, and you forgot to mention the half hour of pontificating he was allowed to do at the concert in question.

[anonymous171]

36. But what did he say at the concert?

[Solon]

37. That Jesus saved him from homosexuality.

That's more or less a quote, by the way.

[Honeycombe8]

46. And? That's it? He merely reported what he believes happened to him?

You're not saying that you want to force others to quit associating with people just because of what they believe about their own situations? I hope not. That's scarier than a homophobic gospel singer, IMO.

Gospel singers are religious. Most religious people are socially conservative - the singers and the audience alike. As long as it was a gospel event and not a sermon on being gay or how to be a proper Christian woman, or whatever, it sounds like just standard stuff for a gospel event.

[NMMNG]

49. If you have to ask why it's offensive you're either clueless or

just choose not to get it. Read this and maybe dawn will break.

[NMMNG]

39. If you don't have any clue about what happened

Why are you denigrating the people who are offended by it?

[Honeycombe8]

47. What in my post was a denigration? I think maybe we're getting to the crux of the matter.

What you consider denigration may merely be other people expressing their opinions or asking questions? It's either your way or the highway, and no questions allowed?

Hmmmmmm. Now I think I'm understanding why you're upset about a gospel event. (You know...a gospel event ---- an event where religious people sing religious songs to a religious audience. Surprise! They're not always socially liberal! It's not a big deal, really. Just a standard gospel shindig. - I'm guessing you're not from the south?)

[NMMNG]

48. I'm sorry, when did I reply to you?

But since you can't seem to figure out what was so offensive about McClurkin's tirade, maybe this will help you. It has nothing to do with "not being socially liberal". It has to do with preaching and encouraging bigotry that harms and even kills people.

[Honeycombe8]

45. From my understanding, I agree with what you say about being "cursed" and "cured" and all.

And I read that he spoke, but he did not, and does not, preach that others should "do" what he has done or that others should be like him. He merely states his beliefs, as it applies to HIS situation - even though others believe his beliefs are stupid and offensive.

I read that altho he spoke at the gospel event, he just spoke about the music and such, and then made a couple of statements about him being villified for his beliefs, when all he did was agree to go on a gospel tour, which is what he does for a living and is famous for - sing gospel.

I understand how abhorrent his beliefs are to some. I get that. But I don't get why Obama should NOT be inclusive of everyone, as long as they aren't hate mongering or trying to force others to conform to his ideal as a person.

I'm wondering if maybe some people don't understand what a gospel shindig is about? Maybe it's just a southern thing? Most gospel singers are religious. Most religious people are not pro-gay, or hold conservative beliefs about that (and about other things - like women being submissive, pro-life, etc.). If someone is going to have a gospel event, I mean...everyone knows that at least some of the gospel singers, as well as the audience, are going to be socially conservative in some respects.

As long as the guy didn't give a speech about others should be like him, believe like him, I don't see a huge problem w/it. (More to the point: why do a gospel event to begin with?) It occurs to me that it is actually the critics who are the ones who are insisting that the gospel singers believe like the critics believe.

I get that the guy is a dope. I just don't get why it's a big deal to some people. Oh, well, each of us finds different things unacceptable, I guess.

[Solon]

52. Do you even understand what the ex-gay movement is?

I cannot fathom how you can be this clueless, McClurkin is part of a movement that is responsible for the TORTURE of teenagers due to their sexuality. This isn't hyperbole, electro-shock therapy, psychological torture, sleep deprivation, condemnations of hell, etc. are all used to scare these kids "straight". Seriously, don't be so fucking dense, and don't pretend to play us for dopes either.

[last1standing]

51. This is my biggest problem with Obama and why I almost didn't support him.

It's completely fair to look at Obama's actions in this election cycle and view them as rather cynical with regards to the gay community. While his stance on gay rights is very similar to Clinton's, he has found more traction in courting southern evangelicals than gays. I find this very unfortunate and wish there was someplace I could turn to for a better candidate. Unfortunately, everyone but Clinton has dropped out and she has, in my opinion, proved herself to be the worst possible Democratic candidate we could have running in the G.E. It's not easy to make me so disgusted with a Democratic candidate that I would say that I could never vote for them in a primary but it has come to that with Clinton. She has played to the very worst of our fears and emotions. She has used tactics that help ensure that if she does not get the nod that Obama stands no chance in the G.E. I believe she is working to make a run in 2012 and does not want an incumbent Dem to stand in her way.

However, once again, this is a completely justified colunm from gaywired.com. I just wish there was a better choice for the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is at this point.