Obama on McClurkin, GLBT issues: (from The Advocate)

[Blue-Jay]

The Advocate: How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?

Senator Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues -- at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn’t undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.

The Advocate: Some black gay activists I’ve spoken to say this doesn’t make them question Obama the senator, but it does make them question the campaign -- do they really understand the nuances of these issues, are they really sitting down and talking with gay folks, because it seems like this decision came purely through the lens of faith?

Sen Obama: Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It’s important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who’s got a black minister or a white minister who’s supporting them prominently who subscribes to similar views.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that’s important. We can try to pretend these issues don’t exist and then be surprised when a gay marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we’ve got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they’re viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up.

The Advocate: I know you’re in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency?

Sen Obama: No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You’re talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.

One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you’ve got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that’s not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.

Look, when I went to Rick Warren’s church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn’t trim my remarks, I specifically told them, “I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution.” And by the way, I got a standing ovation.

My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.

At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And If I have not, then that’s how I expect to be judged.

more: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

and...

Sen. Obama made a telling comment at the very end of my interview with him last October. Dismayed over the level of attention the community gave to the McClurkin imbroglio, he said, “It is interesting to me and obviously speaks to the greater outreach that we have to do, that isn’t a greater source of interest and pride on the part of the LGBT community.”

He seemed genuinely disheartened that people didn’t know more about his stance for full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (Edwards also supports full repeal, while Clinton supports partial repeal), or the fact that he sponsored a gay nondiscrimination bill in the Illinois state legislature, or that he regularly addresses AIDS and homophobia in black and religious venues that are not particularly gay friendly.

When he spoke about HIV/AIDS to evangelical leader Rick Warren’s congregation at Saddleback Church in California, Obama said, “Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes – to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’ I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.”

This is perfectly consistent with his message of bridging communities gay and straight, red and blue, black and white. But a big part of why many gays and lesbians don’t know Obama’s record here is because it wasn’t readily available. It required digging and a beat reporter covering his campaign at the national level – resources that are the province of mainstream magazines and big-city dailies. This is where a publication like The Advocate, viewed by many as essentially mainstream media, doesn’t actually have the same reporting capacity as those other outlets. Instead, the LGBT community and gay journalists were left to put together information piecemeal from sightings by bloggers at campaign events and the slow trickle of gay mentions that flow from the straight press.

more: http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid51483.asp

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Both articles written by Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate.

[xchrom]

1. i don't read anything here that makes me change my mind about obama.

obama used 4 anti-gay gospel acts to ''advertise'' for him in south carolina.

it wan't just donnie --

more even if i weren't gay -- he is reaching out to peope who since reagan have had way more than their fair share of say so in american life compared to everyone else.

if elected -- the chickens will come to roost and demand attention.

they will never, ever be friends to lgbtq folk. never.
and i am suspicious beyond words with this whole making up to this crew.

lastly obama has made it clear in statements that he has some very -- unusual -- thoughts about lgbtq folk -- and telling right there in the interview is the word promiscuous.
which backs up very neatly with this quote of his -- "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


you might like him -- but obama is no friend.

[Blue-Jay]

3. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.

I merely did a little bit of research to help myself to a different perspective. Not only do I understand that many of my brothers & sisters were wounded (yes, wounded.) by Obama's "gospel tour", I too was hurt and disappointed. You'll get no argument from me about that. I just have not seen his response posted on DU, so I looked around a little bit. He (Obama) seems to regret the decision to include anti-gay singers in his gospel tour, if I read the article correctly.

Edwards regrets his IWR co-sponsorship, and many people take him at his word. (I do)

Sen Clinton regrets.....well...probably something, and I take her word about that as well.

I just had never seen Obama's response to the hurtful "McClurkin Incident", and I looked to The Advocate to see if there was a response.

That's all. I was looking for some perspective. I was pissed off about the whole debacle as well, and I still am. This is an issue that is close to me, but I'm willing to give it further consideration.

[xchrom]

5. you are your own person and you will make up your own mind.

ultimately it's a private affair.

[Blue-Jay]

12. .

:thumbsup:

[JVS]

39. "Sen Clinton regrets.....well...probably something"

Speaks volumes of her contrition concerning policies that upset liberals

:rofl:

[cloudythescribbler]

33. I've read thru these arguments & it seems people are just LOOKING for things to complain about

Amazingly, where there are REAL signs of a strategy, of race-baiting where there are even reports of corroborating thinking on the part of her CAMPAIGN, this is seen as off-limits and taboo by many.

Obama made very clear in this interview AND elsewhere his support of gay rights. Most gay organizations supported the Democratic ticket in 04 of folk who said they accepted marriage as defined as between one man and one woman. HRC, as is pointed out here, doesn't fully support repeal of the DOMA. But about these things not a peep.

Now, about "promiscuity" -- Obama is criticizing, and yes, DARING TO ARTICULATE, the underlying frames of reluctance to address the AIDS issue. Remember silence = death, from ActUp in the 80s? I do. This pillorying of Obama is heavily agenda-driven.

Another canard is how there were a NUMBER of gospel singers with anti-gay views. Guess what? That's not suprising. People heavily into (traditional) religions, unfortunately, often though not always, feel that way. It's part of reality and Obama has shown the courage to address it -- maybe not sufficiently for some. I'd much rather have a political leader who, like him, raises these issues in fora where others dare not, and at the same time maybe offends the politically correct sensibilities of some, in addressing himself to a broad constituency, than someone who is unquestionably PC to all relevant parties, but then again doesn't embrace the risks inherent (as he notes in this interview) in the kind of broad coalition he is seeking to build. When you have a real and diverse coalition, these problems arise, one way or another. There is NOTHING to indicate any lack of sincerity or commitment to a progressive agenda on LGBT issues on Obama's part.

For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend one of James Baldwin's most exquisite but lesser-known novels, about a gay gospel singer -- JUST ABOVE MY HEAD. Especially now, it is one of those things that speaks to today in a way very little said today does.

[cloudythescribbler]

34. Yes, I know this unvarnished opinion will offend some, but it is ...

amazing to me how in OTHER CONTEXTS, when the issue of what is a discernible and a deliberate pattern of trying to exploit race issues by leading supporters of HRC, and by her herself, people have NO PROBLEM distinguishing their position from the position that seem universal on this thread. Yet no one comes HERE or in THESE venues to say that. Like myself, some of these are LGBT themselves, and then, having distinguished themselves from THIS controversy, they go on to suggest that, not as essentially a difficult moment in the campaign (one for which Obama himself admits some regret) but as a patterned strategy, it is somehow beyond the pale, in an open forum like DU, to bring forward comments about how HRC's OWN STAFF see stirring the pot of race controversy is a way to win.

Here, there is to my mind NO similar pattern, no STRATEGY, and certainly nothing of the intent as in the other circumstance, yet here, where the merit is decisively less, many just keep on this issue, and (unlike on the race-baiting) no one seems to come to Obama's defense.

I find this perverse, and stifling of real democracy.

[Bluebear]

35. "This pillorying of Obama is heavily agenda-driven."

What is this mysterious a-g-e-n-d-a that is "driving" all of this "pillorying"?

[cloudythescribbler]

37. I thought it was self-evident, but here goes:

There is NO mystery about it at all. Some people want to seize on this issue and ride it and milk it against Obama all they can. The issue, note, has remained on the DU board FOR MONTHS, while (by contrast) the issue (which I personally see as much more substantive) of a STRATEGY of race-baiting by Hillary Clinton and her campaign/top allies (like Andrew Cuomo)has largely been SINCE the NH primary (and the recent remarks about LBJ and Dr King, described in a January 9 ultratactful NY TIMES editorial as "peculiar"); already, the latter issue has a HUGE backlash on DU, and they exiled discussion of the divergence between the exit polls and the reported results in NH, again, an issue LESS THAN ONE WEEK OLD (largely), until Kucinich recognized the arguments to be valid (though not necessarily proof), and cited arguments that DU moderators had dismissed in seeking a recount.

I would add that I haven't myself been able to fathom how BILL Clinton's particular "fairy tale" remark relates to race at all; but other remarks noted here CLEARLY DO.

Any further questions???

[Bluebear]

38. Yes further questions::: so what is the "agenda", as I asked before.

"Some people want to seize on this issue and ride it and milk it against Obama all they can."

That is your idea of an "agenda"?

[cloudythescribbler]

42. Yes, that 's my idea of an "agenda"; especially in light of my overall comment nt

[Bluebear]

47. So everyone is just out to "get" Obama, that is your "agenda-driven" claim?

:silly:

[cloudythescribbler]

64. No, those bashing Obama are out to get Obama

:wow:

[cboy4]

36. So many apologists, so little time before Tsunami

Tuesday here in California.

[NorthernSpy]

57. "...HRC's OWN STAFF see stirring the pot of race controversy is a way to win."

A toast to the post!

:toast:


I think you're absolutely right about this.

HRC's OWN STAFF see stirring the pot of race controversy is a way to win.

Me, I've defended Obama a number of times. But there's this small group of detractors who are deaf to all reason on the subject.


Worse is when they lose all shame and start the race-baiting.


:puke:


And yes, I do think the race-baiting is part of a strategy.

[xchrom]

45. obama has made it clear he believes in SOME kind of rights for lgbtq folk.

but he does believe in full blown equality.

so now we have a guy who not only doesn't believe in full blown equality -- but uses anti-gay activists to promote his candidacy.

and not just any anti-gay activists -- but those virulently opposed to gay folk period.

and this business about ''promiscuity'' -- well you must be young because that's language that has been used to describe the ''depravity'' of gay folk LONG before there ever was an aids crisis.

promiscuos, predator, the whole business of what gay men would be up to in the military, the catholic churches rather successful attempt to switch the focus from pedophilia to gay folk.

and you -- you play right along with this and wave that bigoted flag high.

what the fuck is wrong with you -- i mean you pretend to be well read -- urging people to read baldwin{one of my favorite authors -- and baldwin was NO friend of conservative african american churches} lecturing about what the real meaning is -- well the real meaning is that obama took several anti-gay activists who in turn took the opportunity to threaten the well being of gay folk --

and i have to listen to ignorant comments about what a nice guy obama is.

puh-leez miss thing -- get a grip.

[Hekate]

2. KnR. Thanks Blue-Jay. I hope this latest injection of actual facts will help some here change...

...their minds.

But I'm not holding my breath. Like the Senator, I'm rather disheartened.

Hekate

[calteacherguy]

4. K&R. nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

6. K&R

Thanks for these articles, always nice to learn more about Candidates and their views

[David Zephyr]

7. Here's Senator Obama on video addressing the issue directly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY&feature=related

Thank you for your fair research. It's good to hear Obama's words directly. Too many have fabricated words that he never, ever said. That was sad.

[cboy4]

24. David, please don't perform a hit and run post.....If you're

going to weigh in on a controversial topic like this, won't you please address at least some responses?

[Bluebear]

8. Less than truthful on Obama's part in his 15-minute interview with The Advocate:

Less than truthful:

"since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us"


The Obama community here at DU consistently uses the same excuse: "He only sang a song"/"He only sang a few songs"/"He only sang a song in a very small town"(my personal favorite).

The fact is, McClurkin was the Master of Ceremonies for the Obama event. He concluded the event with a half hour sermon on how God "delivered him from homosexuality":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/29/reverend-mcclurkin-at-oba_n_70202.html

Furthermore, the "number of other artists" Obama refers to included more anti-gay acts than McClurkin. One act said gays could "come to the concert; I’m going to hug them just like I hug everybody else. They have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else - just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute, everybody needs God" - - -

Finally, Obama tried dismissing the McClurkin concert as having happened "a while back", when in fact it happened THE DAY BEFORE:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/10/the_pm_line_71.html

So, Obama's talk is pretty but doesn't match what happened regarding this pandering "Embrace the Change" concert.

[Blue-Jay]

9. I only posted a link to the interview.

Please don't think that I was attempting to be untruthful. I'm not against you, nor am I trying to further my own agenda. (I really don't have an agenda, aside from electing a Democrat) Not to be a bullshitter, I DO think that Sen Obama would be the best president, even though I wish that he & I agreed on policy issues more often.

I'm on your side, even though we may not agree on a candidate. Understand that.

[Bluebear]

13. The wounds you mention run deep. Obama sold out GLBT votes for evangelical votes.

He was begged not to put on these anti-gay acts, the pleas were met with silence and one day after the concert dismissed as happening "a while back" and that was that.

I don't doubt you are on my side, I am unconvinced that your candidate is.

[Blue-Jay]

16. Well said.

I don't disagree with you at all, Bluebear. I'm not too convinced that "my" candidate is on your side either. I'm not convinced that ANY candidate is on your (no..OUR!) side. I get the impression that he's "least worst" though. Not a rousing endorsement, is it?

Thanks for having a discussion about this. I really appreciate it. (The GDP shouting match is getting to be too much for me)

[Chovexani]

54. Donnie is also not "just" a singer

He pastors a church in Long Island. http://www.perfectingfaith.org/

But these Obama koolaid drinkers don't understand gospel music anyway, or they wouldn't be calling him "just" a singer, even if he didn't have his own church. To many (I'd even say most) gospel artists, their music is a form of ministry.

[NMMNG]

10. Oh my

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us,

The other artists were also homophobes, and he was acting as a spokesperson for you.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community

Nice work, enforcing the stereotype that there are no LGBTs of faith and that the Democrats are unfriendly to faith. LGBTs of faith have to work that much harder to be accepted when their existence is denied, as do Dems of faith.

One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you’ve got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters?

When you know a person is a rabid homophobe and you put them on a stage as part of your campaign event despite protests I'd say yes, you are responsible for what they say and do.

And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.

You haven't told me yet about your plans to "bring the country together" by hosting a KKK rally.



Color me unconvinced.

[Blue-Jay]

11. I wasn't trying to convince anyone about anything.

I just hadn't seen either of these articles discussed on DU before, and I trust the source. (even though I know that it's an interview and an opinion piece)

[NMMNG]

14. I'd definitely seen the first one before

It rubbed me the wrong way. Big time.

[xchrom]

23. beautifully dissected. nt

[cboy4]

15. What exactly is newsworthy about this October 2007 interview?

This is all rehash.

Senator Obama was aware of McClurkin's dangerous homophobic views, yet made the decision to keep McClurkin on the schedule despite pleas from the gay community.

It doesn't matter that McClurkin wasn't a "spokesperson" for the campaign.

Fine. Obama did what he wanted, but he has to live with the consequences!

The consequences are that a large segment of the gay community no longer trusts Senator Obama, despite reassurances he's on our side.

Why is this?

Because if he'll do something once for political purposes (which this McClurkin stunt was), then he'll do it again and again. It was politics over principle.

You can't have it both ways.

But that's okay. I don't expect most heterosexual Obama supporters to understand.


on edit...typo

[Blue-Jay]

18. I didn't post this in the LBN forum.

It's not news. It's an enlightening discussion (so far).

[cboy4]

21. Please tell me how this is enlightening? Do you and

other Obama supporters understand why McClurkin is a particularly dangerous gay person slash homophobe?

As I'm sure you're aware, he's on record as saying homosexuality is evil and it is a choice.

Do you know how dangerous his view is weighed against the battle for equal rights?

Here's what countless people who have a problem with gays say to themselves when they hear McClurkin:

"Hmmm, if this gay man thinks homosexuality is evil and if he believes the 'lifestyle' is a 'choice' and can change, well then gee, it must be true/possible. And if this is the case, then I'm sure as hell not going to support equal marriage or equal anything for these people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle.

"Donnie McClurkin says it's evil and he says it's possible to change. I had a feeling this was the case, and here is a gay man validating my hunch."

Do you understand this?

Senator Obama embraced the worst possible kind of homophobe.

[mtnester]

26. Yes

yes and yes

<<Senator Obama embraced the worst possible kind of homophobe.>>

Absolutely, for the reasons you stated, and...AND...also the worst possible kind - a self hater who is certain his own communty will reject him because he is gay himself (if ANYONE here believes that he is "cured through God", come see me about a bridge)

[Blue-Jay]

27. OK.

(this is my last post before I go to bed)

I find this discussion enlightening because I'm truly interested in the views of other people, as it helps to educate me with regards to the feelings/opinions of people who I like to think are like-minded with me on most issues. I appreciate the input, and I'm glad that you're willing to engage me with civil discussion. I don't see how that's a Bad Thing.

As I'm sure you're aware, he's on record as saying homosexuality is evil and it is a choice.

Could you please provide me with a source of Obama saying that? I'd appreciate it.

As far as the rest, you're quoting McClurkin (an idiot, no doubt), NOT Obama who states "My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights."

"Donnie McClurkin says it's evil and he says it's possible to change. I had a feeling this was the case, and here is a gay man validating my hunch."

Please provide a source for this quote. Did Obama actually say that?


Listen, man - I'm not going to allow you to berate me and put words in my mouth. I am in support of equality. I have also stated previously in this thread that I was upset with the McClurkin debacle, and that I disagreed with Omaba's handling of the situation. That's all. I'm not going to fight with you or try to demonize anyone. Have a good night (what's left of it). Maybe we'll talk tomorrow.

[Bluebear]

28. Blue-jay, Obama *endorsed* McClurkin by giving him the MC slot.

Many people have asked "show me where Obama said this".

The Human Rights Campaign and other prominent gay groups beseeched Obama not to put McClurkin on. They told Obama what McClurkin's views were. They communicated that McClurkin said gays are trying to "kill our children". The campaign told teh gay community that McClurkin would only "sing a song" - - we learned later that he was the master of ceremonies and he gave a half hour sermon against gays.

The campaign went ahead with it, and a cynical campaign insider said "We got what we needed out of it."

Obama could have taken the opportunity to apologize for wounded feelings, but he didn't. He said McClurkin was not "vetted" enough and I just don't buy it.

[cboy4]

29. Blue Jay, maybe it's my fault for leaving out a pronoun or

two, but you can't possibly think I was referring to Obama when I said, "As I'm sure you're aware, he's on record as saying homosexuality is evil and it is a choice."

Of course I wasn't talking about the senator. I was citing McClurkin.

Additionally, I WAS NOT quoting Obama when I said:

"Donnie McClurkin says it's evil and he says it's possible to change. I had a feeling this was the case, and here is a gay man validating my hunch."

I was hypothetically thinking out loud for a fundie-type, who will use McClurkin's stance on homosexuality to validate/justify that fundie's position that indeed homosexuality is evil, is a choice, and therefore homosexuals should not be afforded equal human rights, etc.

I understand Obama's position(s) on gay issues. Most of it sounds good on paper.

But I'll say it again == At least for me, it's now a matter of trust.

What's to say Obama (if he's elected), won't cave on an important gay-related piece of legislation if it's for political purposes?

I mean, he did allow a notorious homophobe to perform at a campaign event, because he decided it was in his best interest politically.

So why won't he do it again?

How can I trust him?

Actions speak louder than words Blue Jay.

You shouldn't mistake my disappointment and outrage for berating you or puting words in your mouth.

I've done none of that. I'm happy taking the time at three in the morning to try to explain why what Obama allowed to happen is more damaging than so many of his supporters believe.

[wiley]

17. Research this

AIDS is spreading like wildfire among Black and Hispanic women (and young gay men of color). Regardless of who they are having sex with, it's typically unsafe sex. A large number of women who have been tested for HIV also have a history of injection drug use, or have had sex with a drug user who has not been tested so we're still talking about not really getting in their faces about AIDS killing off young Black and Hispanic people faster than anything else. Studies clearly show that Blacks and Hispanics are the least able to negotiate or insist upon safe sex because they are neither financially or physically able to. And many women believe AIDS is a gay disease, still. And you still can't tell kids whose lives are typically filled with rejection and pain - often created by homophobic religious figures - to protect themselves against yet something else that could kill them.
The only thing that has changed is that now more people believe there is a cure for AIDS, and most Americans would rather focus on AIDS in other countries than in the US. Both Cheney and Edwards expressed that they were unaware that Black woman had the most rapidly increasing rate of HIV in the country during a 2004 debate. When Obama says that abstinence only education funds go almost exclusively to faith based groups in this country and that's a huge waste of money and supports homophobic religion based BS, and that none of these groups are telling young people - and that's if they even will speak to young gay people - that they need to always have protection and not to have sex if they are too high to remember to use protection, I will consider him a leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama's record on AIDS as a Senator is not bad at all. He deserves credit.
The McClurkin thing was a huge mistake, although there was a political calculation that pandering to known religious homophobes could net him votes. It will. He should get the national news to cover him visiting and interacting with young gay men with AIDS and young gay men trying to prevent AIDS somewhere, saying that he extends the same offer of Hope and Love to them. He's a handsome man and he'll be very warmly received. The political and moral value of being seen talking bout preventing AIDS with these kids - especially kids of color who no one really wants to talk about sex with, especially their parents or religious leaders - would be worth 100 times the benefit of his really awkward and unfortunate relationship with that moron McClurkin. Until such an event occurs, I can only see him as pandering to people and supporting homophobia if it means attracting votes.

[Blue-Jay]

19. No research needed.

There were some facts and some opinions. The facts were...well...FACTS, and the opinions I don't really disagree with.

Thanks, I think. (this is not your typical GDP hate-fest, if you hadn't noticed)

[wiley]

30. Thanks for responding.

[Bluebear]

20. "No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background...

about the Illinois senator's posture on LGBT issues."

http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19187115&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569342&rfi=6

Really, don't hold your breath for the visits you describe with young gay men.

[xchrom]

22. well -- young gay men are ''promiscuous'' --

the great boogie man assaulting the hetero castle.

seductive young gay men.

there are stereo types and deep misunderstandings about men, gay men and male sexuality of both orientations when any body drags out the word ''promiscuous'' -- i HATE it.

[donheld]

25. Thanks for posting Blue-Jay

I was glad to see this.

[Lerkfish]

31. none of the top three address this issue correctly, IMHO.

so, since that's true, I'll have to support whomever wins, and hope that enough pressure can be brought to bear to make them change their minds.
let's not forget, though, that Bill Clinton ran on the plank of allowing gays in the military and after the election achieved a horrible compromise of "don't ask, don't tell".

I don't see why this is a difficult concept: all citizens have the same rights.

[blondeatlast]

32. What you said. nt

[jlake]

40. Hmmm... So he is pro GLBT, but uses McClurkin... against the war, but in 2004

said he didn't know how he would have voted, supposedly to help Kerry/Edwards.

What is the next thing he is saying just for political gain?

I have NO trust in Obama, and this kind of posting just shows that he does NOT offer any "new kind of politics" ... unless by "new" he means worse.

[terrya]

41. Thank you for posting this, Blue_Jay - kicked and recommended

Here's a comment that I picked up on:

"He seemed genuinely disheartened that people didn’t know more about his stance for full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (Edwards also supports full repeal, while Clinton supports partial repeal), or the fact that he sponsored a gay nondiscrimination bill in the Illinois state legislature, or that he regularly addresses AIDS and homophobia in black and religious venues that are not particularly gay friendly."

Well, you know? Maybe he can begin doing some outreaches to the GLBT community. Maybe instead of pandering to bigots and hiring people shilling the disgusting "ex-gay" movement, he can go out and talk to the GLBT community. And, frankly, he could out and out apologize to us for the McClurkin thing. That would be nice.

A press release touting your championing causes important to GLBT people is just that...a press release. I'd like him to talk more about this...and hey, maybe not just in front of GLBT people. In general...how a President Obama, for instance, would do all he could to fight discrimination against GLBT people. How a President Obama would, for instance, make ENDA an important part of his administration. How he would do all he could to help pass ENDA. A fully inclusive ENDA, protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual AND transgendered people (unlike the debacle from this Congress). Actually, it's also important that Clinton and Edwards do this.

[Lyric]

43. WTF?

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

What the hell is he talking about? Nobody's "hermetically sealed" from the faith community. We're avoiding the bigot community. Big f'ing difference there. People of faith are NOT automatically anti-gay bigots, and GLBT folks do NOT need to "extend a hand" to the freaking bigots out there.

I sure as hell don't want a President who wants us all to hold hands and sing kum-ba-ya with people who believe that I, as a GLBT human being, am somehow damaged, sinful, diseased, harmful to children, ad nauseum. The problem is not that we "disagree". The problem is that the bigots are flat-out fucking wrong. There's no room for misunderstanding or "disagreement" there.

Please somebody sit down with this guy and explain the reality of GLBT life to him, so maybe, just maybe, he'll finally get it.

[kevinbgoode]

44. Funny, but I've never heard about any special appointment of Obama

as official negotiator and spokesmodel for the GLBT community. There really was no excuse for the McClurkin situation at all. Has Obama recruited an openly gay singer to perform AND speak out about HIS/HER attitude towards the Religious Right? Of course not, and we all know that ain't gonna happen. Yet I hear Obama repeatedly talk about listening to the voices of those who oppress me, while MY voice is, apparently, supposed to be either silenced or ignored. So why wasn't the big uniter bringing together people who trash white evangelicals? Shouldn't he be allowing his campaign the opportunity for those voices to be heard at public events?

I'm getting tired of this attitude that WE, the OPPRESSED group, must understand the tremendous pressure a straight man's presidential candidate is under just getting to discuss MY RIGHTS with some group of loudmouthed bigots. I certainly don't see any understanding of our position that the loudmouthed bigots shouldn't be entertained or encouraged, or that perhaps there are voices in strong opposition to those bigots which never get to be heard. Instead, what I see is Obama talking about getting these people to "understand" me - without, apparently, accepting the fact that perhaps there are some people like me who want to know why we aren't discussing THEIR rights instead of MINE. So, right away, we are always put on the marginalized fringe. Now why is that?

If he wants to listen to all of the voices, he should have hauled in the KKK to sing and talk about their "opinions" to one of these rallies. Then he could explain away how he is all about "bringing people together" and explain to the African-American voters how important it is for him to "engage these KKK members" on BEHALF of that community, even though no one has asked HIM to be their voice.

This is, in my mind, the most disturbing element of a potential Obama presidency. He can tell us all he likes that he is on our side, but in the end I don't trust him not to toss us under the bus at the slightest whining by the Religious Right. Bill Clinton had no problem doing that as well during the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" spectacle, despite his campaign promises. But when a candidate is asking for my vote for President and doesn't have the balls to openly declare that my citizenship is equal to the citizenship of even the most rabid bigots and that no one deserves less treatment based on the "religious" beliefs of someone else in the laws of my country, then he's going to have trouble getting that vote.

[xchrom]

46. i could kiss you!

[Bluebear]

48. Me first!!

[xchrom]

50. ok -- i'll go second -- if i can watch.

[Bluebear]

60. Oh alright

:rofl:

[Morning Dew]

49. Best post ever.

:)

[Chovexani]

51. This article is old news.

And every time someone posts it, it sticks in my craw a bit more. Especially this quote.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

Uh, does he not know that:

a) there are a LOT of LGBT people in the "faith community", (whatever the fuck that is, there are queers of every faith but the consistent conflating of evangelical Christianity and faith is another rant for another post) and I guarantee there were more than a few in the audience that night when McChickenhead started clucking his nonsense.

b) there is no dialogue to be had with people who want you to convert or die. Believe me I've been trying for about 10 years, with my own family. The way Obama constantly makes this shit sound like people arguing over whether or not Wolverine could kick Batman's ass never fails to piss me off. These assholes who "disagree" with homosexuality, WTF is there to disagree about? That's like "disagreeing" with the fact that some people are left-handed or born with red hair. We are LGBT, we deserve equality under the law, end of fucking discussion.

:banghead:

[Deja Q]

52. Well, Obama is talking to everybody. So it's one of two things:

1. He believes in a democracy where everybody gets a voice.

2. He's shilling for votes.

Unless there's a third option, but it's amazing who gets disqualified from the group known as "everybody"...

[mondo joe]

53. But is he giving everyone a free platform? How about Imus?

How about some KKK members?

[jpgray]

55. Great thread. I think, as in many campaigns, it was a choice of who to piss off

Either piss off the religious tour by dictating to them who would be allowed appear with him, or piss off gays by passively connecting himself to a bigot. I would never choose the latter, but in some form of abominable political calculus I suppose it's the less risky option--it's a less direct action, it's deniable, and it's impossible to tour with such a religious group without disagreeing with many of their views. The condom issue, the abortion issue, etc.--Kennedy and other Catholic pols regularly walk this same tightrope, but in this case it touches a -very- raw nerve for anyone who is truly supportive of equal rights. And I believe he probably knew this was his choice. Did he allow himself to be connected to anti-choice people in the same way? Probably. Yet there is less flak on that issue.

[terrya]

56. I always respect your comments, jpgray

Of course it was a political calculation. But, I don't think he and the campaign realized how bad this was. Towards gay people and gay supporters of the Obama campaign in particular. I see a lack of understanding in how much of an insult this was to the gay community in Obama's comments after the event. You know...if he's the nominee, there's still time to mend fences with the gay community...no one, excepting some demented Log Cabin Republicans, relish the idea of a President Huckabee. But the ball, so to the speak, is in Obama's court.

[jpgray]

58. I think it was a horrible choice on his part--at least he should have made his distinctions clearer

As he apparently made clear distinctions on abortion and birth control. His (later?) statement that he personally believes marriage is sanctified between a man and woman is also out of step with his own church (the UCC) and smacks further of a disagreeable point of view, in my opinion. So I wouldn't say Obama is blameless or receiving unfair criticism in any way.

[xchrom]

59. with everything christian being defined by conservatives -- few people even know

that the church obama attends -- and i think i use that term loosely -- has a different stand than the one obama presents for himself.

they never ask liberal churches one damn thing.

[hulklogan]

61. Senator Obama apparently thinks GLBT Americans living with HIV/AIDS are dirty evil sinners

Obama said, “Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes – to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’ I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.”

It's nice to know that Senator Obama thinks gay men are sinners, as are AIDS orphans, young sluts, and wives whose husbands cheat on them. I suppose he can't possibly imagine a situation where a gay man contracts HIV through no fault of his own. Notice how all of the "good" HIV/AIDS survivors are implied to be heterosexuals and all the "bad" HIV/AIDS survivors are gay, male and/or sexually active.

Can Obama make any statement about GLBT issues without pandering or putting his foot in his mouth?

[Bluebear]

62. Truly...

you should make an OP with that quote with a link.

[LittleClarkie]

65. And me, and you, and that other guy down the street. It's an equal opportunity thing.

One of my old pastors said once that a man he was talking to said that he'd never go to church because it was full of hypocrites, to which my pastor answered "There's room for one more. Come on in."

I know what he's trying to say. That people have compassion for one group of people with AIDS and blame the other group as sinners. He's saying that is wrong. And that no one is perfect so no one can point at someone else as if he/she is better than they are.

He's saying that he is a dirty sinner too. He's included. You left that out. WE are all sinners. Including Obama.

So, come and vote for the dirty sinner, eh?

[FreeState]

67. He's saying that he is a dirty sinner too.

One of my old pastors said once that a man he was talking to said that he'd never go to church because it was full of hypocrites, to which my pastor answered "There's room for one more. Come on in."

I know what he's trying to say. That people have compassion for one group of people with AIDS and blame the other group as sinners. He's saying that is wrong. And that no one is perfect so no one can point at someone else as if he/she is better than they are.

He's saying that he is a dirty sinner too. He's included. You left that out. WE are all sinners. Including Obama.

So, come and vote for the dirty sinner, eh?

He is saying he's a sinner too?

OMFG Homosexuality is NOT A SIN.

[LittleClarkie]

68. He's saying that no one is qualified to judge anyone because none of us are perfect

Essentially.

[FreeState]

72. So homosexuality is somehow not perfect? n/t

[LittleClarkie]

74. That would be judging.

So if I'm right, that's not what he's saying.

It's a "judge ye not lest ye be judged" sort of thing.

[FreeState]

75. The poster implied it is a sin n/t

[ecstatic]

66. Curious, how did you do on the verbal portion of the SAT? nt

[LittleClarkie]

70. It's also church speak

From my vantage point, he's saying that none of us is perfect and so we can't judge others. That's what I think he was trying to say, anyway.

[FredScuttle]

63. At the end of the day, it still says here that Obama hired a known bigot to headline his event

and has yet to apologize for that decision and for the hateful bile spewed by his "MC" at his event.

[rodeodance]

69. and so many are clamering for Hil to cut Bob Johnson or for her to say

something.

Seems both have their achilles heel

[goodgd_yall]

71. Obama isn't getting it

It wasn't that McCurkin just sang, he preached, and he preached some ugly things about gay and lesbian people. And Obama has never acknowledged that he offended part of his constituency. When you see this inconsistent behavior, of course you question exactly what is this man going to do for me if he is president? Obama sounds too dismissive in his response.

[Prism]

73. Make no mistake . . .

McClurkin is the new Isaiah Washington - i.e. an ultimately pointless, inconsequential exercise that only serves as a useful venting target because our community is somewhat ineffectual when it comes to the big goals.

Hate crimes legislation? Not law. ENDA? A complete debacle. DOMA, DADT? Still there. State marriage amendments? Destroyed our equality for decades.

But hand the LGBT a Donnie McClurkin and we can be outraged for miles. It's easy, requires no effort, and allows us to scream at someone else for a change (because screaming at America isn't working out very well for us just at the moment).

I find the entire incident - and the fixation on it - completely bizarre. People going on and on about how wounded and hurt and pained they are by the whole affair.

A bottle on the back of the head hurts. Being kicked in the teeth hurts. Having the living snot beaten out of you simply because of who you love hurts.

Donnie McClurkin? Doesn't hurt. It's stupid. And yes, people need to desperately get over it. It's this inability to get over the stupid shit and focus on the important issues that cripples the movement and our community. We can't get hate crimes law on the books, we can't figure out ENDA from our own ass, we give candidates passes for supporting marriage amendments. But, my god, there's an "Ex-gay" gospel singer. Hold my gold girlfriend, he's going down!

Oh, and we totally gave Snickers the what for!

I'm embarrassed for us. Isn't anyone else?

[LittleClarkie]

76. Why did your post make me think of Log Cabin Republicans?

I wonder if any of them were outraged about McClurkin.

[Prism]

77. Maybe you should ask them

I'm pretty unabashed in my support of Obama. I've stated that upfront. But I think many gay organizations, activists, and bloggers need a little truth spoken in their direction. We should not be immune to truth-telling. We shouldn't be afraid of a mirror.

Or is that just a fancy slogan we throw around a lot but don't really mean?

I'm tired of being unequal in American society. I'm tired of issues like McClurkin eclipsing solid, actionable, important problems facing our community. This incident has been hashed out for *months* on this board.

Why not nearly this kind of energy on hate crimes law? Why not nearly this kind of energy devoted to ENDA?

I've heard no good answers to that question. Just responses like yours. "You disagree. Must be a Republican." And I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to explain I'm not really gay as has happened before whenever I had an opinion that wasn't group-approved.

When you have no good defense, attack in the hopes no one will notice you didn't answer the criticisms.

[LittleClarkie]

78. That's not what I mean. I wasn't calling you a Republican

For the life of me, I don't understand how a gay person could be Republican. Your post seems to be about priorities. And log cabin Republicans have odd priorities as well, it seems to me. Hence why what you were saying reminded me of them.

It would rather prove your point if a number of log cabin Republicans were up in arms about McClurkin. Never mind that the party they belong to doesn't support their rights, let's get all upset about the gay preacher. That's why I was wondering what their general reaction was.

Absolutely wasn't calling you a Repbulican. Just didn't express myself very well I guess. And was only musing out loud. Sorry about that.

As for asking log cabin Republicans anything, I suppose I could but it would be a paltry sampling. I only know one.

[Prism]

79. Ah, I apologize then.

Sorry. I've weighed in on this before here, and I was accused of being anything from being a Republican to pretending to be gay. I was being wrongly defensive in response to your post.

I agree. I just don't understand the priorities. Hate crimes law faded and ENDA was a congressional disaster. And yet all I keep seeing are McClurkin posts over and over and over again. I understand it's a primary, but if we could harness a quarter of the energy spent on non-issues as we do on the Isaiah's, Snickers, and McClurkins, where would we be?

In a better place, I think.