Jeebus Christus! (0.00 / 0)

Don't tell me Bob Shrum is involved in this mess!

America....we have the leadership we deserve...Incompetent!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:16:36 PM UTC

What are you advocating? (4.00 / 2)

I don't understand the position that we shouldn't talk to people we disagree with.  You are advocating the Bush Foreign Policy mindset played out on the National stage.  Obama is for Gay rights.  He is appearing with and in front of an audience which is anti-Gay and that has failed the Black community in areas like AIDS prevention by their homophobia.  Your solution to this is to not address them.  Thank God there's finally someone with enough sense to know that to change people's minds you have to first be able to talk to them and be willing to meet with them without out of hand demonizing them.

---

by: DD2 @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:27:50 PM UTC

Doug (4.00 / 1)

Obama isn't sitting down to talk with people who may disagree with him on GLBT issues, he's choosing someone who is virulently homophobic to represent him onstage.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:32:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He isn't representing him. (0.00 / 0)

Barack is representing himself and McClurkin represents himself.  Obama is bringing this issue to the fore with a community that needs to talk about Homosexuality and rethink their response to it.  When Obama was asked the question about AIDS during the debate at Howard, his answer went right to this issue, that the Black Churches in particular are reluctant to talk about the issue and deal with it in upholds their Christian values.  He is now bringing this issue into play with them in a non-confrontational yet forceful manner that might have some possibility of effecting change.  To try to make this into anything else  is a gross distortion of what this is all about.

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:10:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So much. . . (4.00 / 2)

for the political ineptitude and personal messianic narcissism of a man who thinks politics is about avoiding fights and always creating some kind of perfect mythical kumbayah compromise.

---

by: Pachacutec @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:29:47 PM UTC

Idiotic. (4.00 / 5)

is what that description is.  You don't go into Detroit and tell them to raise CAFE standards by singing Kumbayah.  He's never been about that.  He's not afraid to go into the lion's den and speak out for what he stands for and try to change people's minds.  Or to limit the viewpoints expressed or limit the participation by race. 

---

by: DD2 @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:34:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Have Simultaneously Raised Delusion To A Fine Art (0.00 / 0)

and given it a bad name.

Quite impressive!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:06:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama, gays, gospel singers, etc, etc (0.00 / 0)

I have been disposed to laugh at this particular kerfluffle; but as it goes on (and on) I am reminded that the line between comedy and tragedy is fine, indeed.

---

by: JTL @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 23:32:16 PM UTC

Obama's fair and balanced tour? (0.00 / 0)

At least he'll win brownie points from FOX.

---

by: fafnir @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 00:10:42 AM UTC

Progressive? (4.00 / 4)

This site is supposed to be about building a progressive governing majority in America.  And yet look what is being advocated here, either implicitly or explicitly:

1. It is wrong to appear at a forum where people hold opposing viewpoints.

2. A white man can have nothing to say to a black audience.

3. Homophobic and/or bigoted people cannot be reasoned with nor have their minds changed their minds. It is wrong to even address them.

4. The winning path is to not challenge the faith-based community on moral values. Far better to cede their votes to the Republicans who use homophobia and abortion as wedge issues to divide the country. 

I'm sorry, but I respectfully see absolutely nothing Progressive about these positions.

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 00:12:10 AM UTC

It doesn't appear that... (4.00 / 1)

Obama is going to either reason with or challenge the homobigots of South Carolina.  He's going to pander to them and beg for their votes.

If he wanted to engage the issue seriously with the audience, he'd do it himself, not push some poor guy out on the stage to do it for him.  It's a feeble and transparent attempt to take the sting out of his exploitation of homophobia.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:35:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

Obama is appearing himself, not pushing out someone to represent him.  Far from pandering, he is trying to effect change.  This whole effort goes back to his answer at the Howard debate about AIDS and the Black Churches refusal to deal with the issue because of the stigma of homosexuality.  This is about putting words into action and getting the churches to rethink what it means to be Christian and to be a Christian.  Do you really not get it? 

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:16:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, it does go back to his excellent answer at Howard (4.00 / 1)

As far too often seems to be the case with Obama, what he said at Howard was just pretty rhetoric.  Absolutely the right position--but apparently not one worth defending when there are triangulatory alternatives that can help him "win".  All politicians do such things, but they still need to be called out when they do--Obama included.

FWIW, I would have considered one comment expressing my opinion enough on this issue.  But there's something really off-putting about the way you (and other Obama supporters) try to pass off his clumsy and transparent crapping on the gay community as visionary leadership.  You don't do your guy any favors with those kinds of defenses.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 15:33:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the opposite of mere rhetoric (4.00 / 1)

His point was the Black Churches by their refusal to deal with the issue and in turning their backs on their Gay brothers and sisters are doing a tremendous disservice to the Black Community.  He is forcing the issue into the light and into discussion.  It would be nice if people would at least wait to see what actually happens.  I don't see how supporting of Gay rights in the midst of those who have an opposite view is crapping on the Gay community. 

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 16:09:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh (4.00 / 2)

this site is also about politics; this has been a rather obvious blunder by Obama, both in the initial decision, and especially w/this "response".

Obama is caught in the crossfire here, sure, but he's not handling it well. That's revealing.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:48:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Biggots (0.00 / 0)

Exactly. All I'm hearing is, "Oh no! That man has opinions I don't like! Sack him! Oh no! That man has opinions I do like but he's the wrong color! Sack him too!"

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 14:23:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

point by point (0.00 / 0)

1. It's wrong to feature a virulent homophobe as a supporter at a rally on your behalf.

2. Featuring a gay white man at the same event at best doesn't erase the fact that a virulent homophobe is appearing on stage, too; at worst, it's another white man talking down to a black audience.

3. There's nothing wrong with addressing and attempting to persuade homophobes and bigots. There's no reason to feature them as a supporter at one of your events (where he's singing, not participating in a roundtable discussion.)

4. Again, how is featuring a homophobe challenging communities of faith on "moral values"? How is Obama ceding African-American votes in South Carolina to Republicans if he doesn't have a homophobe on the tour?

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 16:31:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

point by point / counterpoint (0.00 / 0)

1. McClurkin is not appearing as a supporter, nor as an anti-Gay activist. He is appearing as a Gospel singer. McClurkin has never expressed his political support for Obama, in fact it appears he is a Republican.  Obama has very forcefully repudiated McClurkin's anti-Gay remarks, and McClurkin is not being given a place on the stage to promote anything anti-Gay.  But this is a Gospel event, and there is homophobia within the Gospel community.  Obama's attempt here is to bring Evangelical Christians back to what he sees is its Liberal values which are not in keeping with some of the stances the community at large has taken. 

2. Exactly where does this "white man talking down to a black audience" come from?  Andy Sidden is a minister and will be speaking as a minister.  To characterize a minister as "talking down" to his congregation because he is a different color than some of them is quite a statement.  And his presence is not to "erase" McClurkin but to address the issue that has been created because of McClurkin's statements which have nothing to do with his purpose on the stage as a Grammy-winning Gospel singer.  Were the Grammys endorsing his views when they gave him the awards? 

3. Yes McClurkin is singing and I doubt he will be singing that old Gospel song "Homosexuality is a Choice".  Nor will he be singing "Vote for Obama". He is being used to bring a Gospel audience into the tent where Obama can speak directly to people of so-called faith about how he feels his Christian values have shaped his Political views which includes being for Gay rights. He is not being used as a Homophobe to bring other Homophobes into the audience.

4. The man is not appearing on stage as a Homophobe.  He is a Gospel Singer. It would be one thing if he was appearing to preach about the evils of homosexuality but that is not the case.  Is your vision of America or even American politics one where a litmus test of your social values be applied to everyone who appears in front of an audience?  Would it be right for a Church to exclude Al Gore from a conference on Global Warming because of his stance on the abortion issue? 

What you are putting forward is the same divisive politics that we have been cursed with these past 20 years or so.  It is based on the idea that at heart people can't be trusted and the only way to win is to divide and conquer.  Obama is not triangulating here, nor equivocating.  He has stated forcefully:

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

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

Tolerance, not division.  That can be a hard thing for an oppressed minority to accept.  It was hard back in the Civil Rights days for Blacks and still is hard for many of them today.  It is hard for the LGBT community.  But still, it is what is right for our country and for all of us.  And that is what this is really about.

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 18:36:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow that "letter from supporters" is offensive (4.00 / 1)

A lot of Americans are racist, too.  So a president who panders to racists is the kind of president we need?  In order to help bring racists and African American people together?  Good grief, what logic.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:27:56 AM UTC

Hey, if you really want to hate Obama, consider the possibility (0.00 / 0)

that inviting a white gay guy on stage was not another dumb accident, but rather another pander to the black homophobic leaders.  That is, putting a black gay leader on stage would set up a direct clash between pro-gay and anti-gay camps, with both sides having equal footing due to their presence on stage.  However, putting a white gay guy on stage just cripples the pro-gay camp further, by reinforcing the already widespread argument on the black homophobe side that gayness is a cultural contamination from whiteness.

Ie, consider that the black homophobic leaders might have dropped out of the tour en masse if Keith Boykin or Pam Spaulding were put on stage (which would have totally screwed Obama over... at this point the gospel singers have leverage over him), but now that it's a white gay guy, well, that just helps the homophobes' arguments rather than hurts them, so they'll accept that.

That's the argument made by Jasmynne Cannick, and it's a pretty sharp one.  And of course, it means that Obama wasn't "tone deaf" for getting a white gay guy... it means he was screwing over black gay people even further, avoiding any real damage with his original constituency of interest, and getting the HRC off his case to boot.  A brilliant play rather than a stupid one.

And of course, if he was choosing to placate his original bad-ideology constituency by agreeing to actively further an awful argument of that ideology (that gay=white), he really is selling his soul.  Deliberately pushing a destructive argument like gay=white (that Obama surely knows isn't true) is a really immoral thing to do.

Incidentally, one of the corollaries of the gay=white argument is that black gay people who speak up for themselves aren't "authentically black," but rather are contaminated by white ideas and behaviors.  "Aren't authentically black."  There's a lot of different ways to connect those dots...

---

by: texas dem @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 23:56:51 PM UTC