The Fight Over Obama's Franchise

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:40


Yes on Prop 8 Flyer

This is a flyer being used by conservatives in California to pass Proposition 8, a segregationist proposal to deny marriage rights to gay people.  And the quotes in it are absolutely true.  Obama has consistently been against marriage equality, both as a Christian and a politician.  It's clear to diehard progressive supporters of Obama that he's simply pandering to conservatives, that he is essentially lying about his position because he knows that there's no way to win as a black man supporting gay rights this strongly.  It's equally clear to conservative supporters of Obama that he's telling the truth, that his position on gay rights is solid and that he's a Christian man who doesn't believe in gay marriage.  Who is correct?  I don't think anyone knows.

Matt Stoller :: The Fight Over Obama's Franchise
Obama has a history of both supporting and opposing equal rights.  He's supported legislation on hate crimes, discrimination in the workplace, gay adoption, repealing 'Don't ask don't tell', and he has spoken out on homophobia in the black community and even spoken out and cut an ad against Prop 8.  At the same time, he's against marriage equality, prominently and repeatedly, and in the primary, he toured with homophobic 'ex-gay' singer Donnie McLurkin.

Obama also refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 after Newsom began allowing same sex marriages.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Marriage equality is the current line in the sand on the new segregationist movement, and Prop 8 in California is their battering ram to roll back progress.  It's pretty clear that Obama's franchise, right now, has ample room for both groups.  It's not clear where he'll actually come down.  Remember, Obama is no longer a person, he's a franchise, and the behind closed doors progressivism carries real costs.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Fight Over Obama's Franchise | 45 comments
Obama does oppose Prop 8 (4.00 / 2)
The No on 8 campaign has a TV ad up responding to this mailer, showing a picture of Obama and quoting his statement against 8:

That doesn't mean I disagree with anything you wrote above. But Obama has come out against 8, and the No on 8 campaign is making sure voters know that.

yup, i added that (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Check out this video on who is really pushing prop 8 (0.00 / 0)


Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!
[ Parent ]
Right, but (0.00 / 0)
He could leverage himself as the "franchise" to do something under the wire, like recorded phone calls to African-American voters today or tomorrow, without hurting himself in other states in time.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter
[ Parent ]
I think he's pro-equality (0.00 / 0)
all the way, but quite honestly like most Democratic Party leaders doesn't think it's politically possible to do that in public.

Support for marriage equality is trending up though and once it gets in the mid forties I think Obama and most major Democrats will be for it.

I predict by 2016 Obama, our nominee that year and our party platform will all be for marriage equality.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

well (4.00 / 1)
How can you be pro-equality if you are against marriage equality?
[ Parent ]
Two Options (4.00 / 3)
(a) You're a Zen master.
(b) You're a politician.

"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
[ Parent ]
I think he's just against the word "marriage" (0.00 / 0)
but would support the exact same thing as long as it's called "civil unions". I used to be that way about 10 years ago when I was a dumb teenager who didn't know any better. I think Obama should know better, but for political reasons has taken this stand. I am glad that his ACTIONS, as opposed to his words, are 100% in favor of equality. I think if he is elected, he may just change his mind on this. Short of that, he'll at least repeal DOMA and integrate the military, which would be two great steps forward.

I seem to remember reading that Kerry and Edwards actually supported many of those anti-gay ballot measures back in 2004.

[ Parent ]
Read the comment (0.00 / 0)
I think at heart he's for marriage equality but Barack Obama is not Paul Wellstone and never has been.

Support for marriage equality is trending up and once it gets in the mid forties I think Obama and most major Democrats will be for it.


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
You do realize... (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Yes. I do. (0.00 / 0)
I used a bad example.

My point is he's not principled on every single thing to the maximum. Paul generally was, but now that you remind me even Paul voted for DOMA which Obama opposes by the way.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Paul Wellstone... (0.00 / 0)
...voted for the Federal DOMA.  Better try a different example.
[ Parent ]
Lets remember Wellstone voted for DOMA (0.00 / 0)
And even though he later questioned the vote in "Conscience of a Liberal," he never fully changed his position.

The point is not that its the right vote or to excuse Obama's position on the issue of marriage equality, the point is that even the most principled of our leaders are often very poor on this issue.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
Easy (0.00 / 0)
Believe that government shouldn't refer to "marriage" at all. It should provide for civil unions, and that is all.

"Marriage" as most people use the term actually contains  two things. A legal contract, and a social agreement. These need to be split; the legal part handled by the government, the social part handled by private social groups (church, whatever).

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
look how quickly California Democrats from Dianne Feinstein to Barbara Boxer came out against banning gay marriage once it became politically viable with the judicial decision. I think if there was real, non-political anti-marriage equality sentiment in most Democratic politicians, we'd see at least a few prominent Democratic politicians actively campaigning for Prop 8.
[ Parent ]
His campaign's statement yesterday (0.00 / 0)
seems quite unambiguous:

"The Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Sen. Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

I don't understand why this is even being discussed.

Maybe Obama learned something from the way Clinton squandered his credits on the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit. A good politician gets the trust of the biggest majorities and THEN uses that trust to pass the divisive culture war stuff.

Possibly...? (4.00 / 2)
I don't understand why this is even being discussed.

Maybe because it's a serious constitutional issue that cuts to the heart of freedom and equality under the law?

[ Parent ]
because democrats think they have to split hairs to win (4.00 / 1)
They say "I oppose discrimination, but I also oppose gay marriage," which of course is a standpoint that is inherently discriminatory.

It's stupid, obsolete, and wrong.

If we take Obama at his word and assume that's what he actually believes, then our nominee has a stupid, obsolete, and immoral point of view on a very important issue.  Which is a problem.

If we try to guess his "real" point of view, then we have to assume that our candidate isn't always completely frank with the American people, which is another problem.

[ Parent ]
Better Democrats (0.00 / 0)
Part of the reason we raise money for Better Democrats here at all is because there are Democrats who do nothing but vote and bring pork (Herb Kohl, who is largely a waste of space) and there are Democrats who will be outspoken leaders for us. My friends at the Prop 8 campaign have told me they, by and large, discourage politicians from cutting ads etc. telling people how to vote (with the exception of the brilliant Feinstein piece), but issuing a statement doesn't cut it. Anyone can issue a statement, and unfortunately, too many Democrats do only that, which is why we're looking for leadership.

The DNC hasn't put any money into fighting Prop 8 after the fight to keep it off the ballot. The Obama campaign held two fundraisers in the same time period as a major No on 8 fundraiser in SoCal. Obama has not, to my knowledge, said anything publicly on Prop 8 since his all-important statement.

Where's the leadership?


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

[ Parent ]
This Is Precisely Why I Couldn't Support Obama In The Primary (4.00 / 3)
It wasn't the only example, but by itself it was more than sufficient.  I've had gay and lesbian friends all my life (though I didn't realize it when I was, like 5 years old, but I did), and so I take this very personally.  I would be a much more alienated, unhappy person without the friendship of gays and lesbians, not to mention the inspiration and connection of great gay and lesbian artists and writers.

So, yes, it' a matter of principle for me, but it's also something I feel personally, about as deeply as I think one can without being a member of the group being targetted.

"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

None of the candidates (4.00 / 1)
None of the candidates were ideal on gay issues.

Hillary, JRE and Obama were the exact same. As a gay voter who is sad they are too chicken to be on the right side of the issue, I don't think this can be a reason to support or not support anybody.

[ Parent ]
And I DIDN'T Support Any Of Them (0.00 / 0)
But I would say that Edwards was somewhat more forthcoming, talking about his own struggle with his upbringing.  But that was fairly typical of Edwards: close, but no cigar.

"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
[ Parent ]
And using his wife as a shield (0.00 / 0)
Saying, basically, "Maybe she'll make me more liberal on this."

One other correction.  It is not true that Obama "toured with homophobic 'ex-gay' singer Donnie McLurkin."  They never appeared together at any events -- McClurkin headlined a gospel concert promoting the campaign, but Obama wasn't there and wasn't scheduled to be there.

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I was really turned off by that shtick. It made it seem like he genuinely did oppose gay marriage.

But then again, that was my view of a lot of Edwards.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Okay as a black person (0.00 / 0)
I'm quite offended by this post.

You act as if blacks are homophobic which is not true. I also listen to gospel music so to call McClurkin not only an ex-singer but a homophobe is just wrong.  

Finally, Willie Brown is the most opportunistic two-faced politician in California, take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

My mother knows his wife(yes, he is still married to one while carrying on a relationship with a white woman and had a child with her) and Willie is a jealous jerk.

Put him in the category of the Harold Ford Jrs.

Please edit your post as it is offensive.

I'm Sorry, But This Comment Is Virtually Incoherent To Me (0.00 / 0)
It's not blacks that are homophobes, it's some blacks, and McClurkin is clearly one of them.  It's not just white progressives like me who say that, it's black gays and lesbians, too.  They know who's hatin on them. This has nothing to do with what kind of music one likes, either.  And what Willie Brown's personal life has to do with this is a complete mystery to me.

Which gets to the final point: As a profressional editor, if I were to try to honor your request to edit this piece in light of what you've written, I wouldn't have a clue as to what to do.

"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

[ Parent ]
Willie Brown's Credibility? (0.00 / 0)
As an benjaminomeara hinted at, mentioning Willie Brown's personal life was done by way of trying to undermine his credibility.  cupcake was trying to say Willie was probably lying.

It sounds to me like Willie Brown's quote was technically not a lie, but perhaps a bit misleading and possibly even intended to help Hillary as few politicians wanted to be photographed with Gavin at the time.

[ Parent ]
obviously... (4.00 / 1)
not all blacks are homophobic. Heck, not all evangelicals are against same-sex marriage either.  
[ Parent ]
Don't fool yourself (0.00 / 0)
there's a tremendous amount of homophobia in the black community. And many peoples willingness to set aside this and tolerate McClurkin illuminate it. Would anyone tolerate a gospel singer who believed blacks were sinful? Or pointed to biblical passages that supported slavery?
[ Parent ]
The Newsom story (4.00 / 2)
I don't disagree with the core of what you say but I would very very strongly argue with you trusting the Newsom story on its face.

Newsom never ever mentioned the story until he leaked it to the SF Chronicle ... the morning of the CA primary when Obama was doing well in SF.

And he also conveniently forgot to mention there were NO other Democrats (including a certain Hillary Clinton of whom he was an enthusiastic supporter) that was willing to be seen with him.

It was a last-minute dirty trick that annoyed us at the Obama HQ in SF where we had made great strides in switching gay voters over.

Obama is still ambiguous on gay marriage and he should be called on it. But trust someone who knows Newsom. That story isn't worth squats.

I wouldn't trust the story either (0.00 / 0)
But if I were Obama, I'd be keeping my distance from Newsom as well. Look, the guy is a great advocate for gay marriage, but he's also really hurt the movement with his smarmy, arrogant attitude. Hell, the Yes on 8 camp gave themselves a five point boost in the polls just by playing Gavin's sound bites about how gay marriage is here "whether you like it or not". John Aravosis and Andrew Sullivan has both expressed anger with Newsom's antics. Some folks think Newsom may have cost John Kerry the election 4 years ago, since he opened the gay marriage can of worms in an election year.

By the way, the No on 8 people are FINALLY cutting some strong ads, with the Feinstein ad and the above ad talking about Obama, but they should have done that stuff a month ago. I can't believe they wasted so much time on crappy, forgettable ads while the Yes on 8 people were going for the jugular.

[ Parent ]
Fun with associations (4.00 / 2)
"Well, He's supported legislation on hate crimes, discrimination in the workplace, gay adoption, repealing 'Don't ask don't tell', and he has spoken out on homophobia in the black community and even spoken out and cut an ad against Prop 8, but since he associated with McLurkin, he probably doesn't believe a word he said."

Sirota has done this recently too, questioning all of Obama's economic policies and views because of his association with Rubin and Summers.

How is this any different than wingnuts questioning Obama's views on Israel because of his association with Khalidi?

Why don't we stick with criticizing Senator Obama for his proposed policies and his actual actions, instead of those of people he associates with.  By all means, hit Obama for taking the politically advantageous route of supporting civil unions and equal rights but refusing to call it marriage.  But its pretty dishonest to suggest that we don't know where he stands on Proposition 8 when he has come out against it and any other similar efforts in other states.  

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

The Difference Is (4.00 / 2)
The reaons for the associations, and what those associations say.

In the case of his chosen economic advisors, the associations tell us what sort of advice he is seeking out, and that's a very strong indicator of what he's likely to do.  He has some economic advisors who are a very good--Jamie Galbraith, in particular--and if he was consulting with them instead of Rubin and Summers, I'd feel a whole lot better.

Similarly, McLurkin was not a private acquaintence, but someone prominently sharing the stage, who then used that platform to spout homophobic bile.

In short, one has to actually look at what Obama was doing in each of these cases.  The fact that two people are in a room together means virtually nothing.  Judges are in rooms with criminals all the time.  It's what they are doing together in the room that we're concerned about.

And that's what makes us nothing at all like McPalin & Co.

"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

[ Parent ]
I agree that these associations are slightly more relevant (4.00 / 1)
but I still don't agree with criticizing Obama over them or jumping to conclusions about what they mean.

A lot of good leaders seek out smart people they disagree with to better form their own ideas and a lot of good leaders are able to see past areas of difference to work on common concerns.  

I take comfort in knowing that Obama hears a lot of different voices on economics ranging from Summers to Rubin to Stiglitz to Galbraith.  If a President Obama tries to implement Rubinomics 2.0, I'll be the first to criticize him, but I'm willing to wait and see what policies are put forward before throwing out all of the Senators actions and words up to this point.  

Likewise, I am happy that Senator Obama has sought out a broad coalition that includes some people who disagree on some issues, but will likely send him to Washington with a large popular mandate.  If a President Obama starts calling for the conversion of homosexuals, I'll be upset, but once again, I think there is a big difference between working with someone and embracing all of their ideas.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
There's a huge difference between this: (4.00 / 2)

A lot of good leaders seek out smart people they disagree with to better form their own ideas and a lot of good leaders are able to see past areas of difference to work on common concerns.  

And using these people as your campaign spokespeople.  And this doesn't even begin to address how absurd the ex-gay movement is, and how it was once (and still could be, if the Falwells of the world had their way) used as a threat to "re-educate" us.

The McClurkin incident was way, way different than talking to church leaders when formulating policies, or whatever.  And Rubin and Summers are on short lists for Treasury secretary.  It's likely just blind speculation based on them advising him.  But you never know-it is a real concern.

[ Parent ]
There's No Jumping To Conclusions Going On (4.00 / 1)
We've already heard Obama speak out, make proposals, and even whip votes on the fiscal crisis.  We know quite well that he is on board with bailing out Wall Street and giving lip service to main street.  Now, that may change in the future, as the pressures become more intense, but his actions so far are pretty clear for those who have eyes to see.  His earliest reaction to the foreclosure crisis was to worry about  individual borrowers who were acting in bad faith.  That's a bone that he still hasn't let go of.

So, in effect, you are asking folks like me to ignore everything Obama has said and done so far, and pretend that none of it means anything because he's not President yet.

Well, tell you what.  I'll take your advice... just as soon as everyone on Wall Street does the same.

As for the anti-gay insanity, I think Valatan's covered that pretty well.

"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

[ Parent ]
Diversity (0.00 / 0)
He has some economic advisers who are a very good--Jamie Galbraith, in particular--and if he was consulting with them instead of Rubin and Summers, I'd feel a whole lot better.

Personally, I'd replace instead with in addition to.  When we analyze the whole of Obama's advisory we get a deep understanding of where he coming from.  When we pick out a name from a line-up that includes many others, we getting close -- or at least within a stone's throw -- to Republican style association attacks.

I've seen both styles this season.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to discern one from the other without checking into the details myself.

[ Parent ]
Diversity's One Thing--But What About Balance? (0.00 / 0)
These guys simply represent the upper 0.01% of the American people. If they had 0.01% of Obama's attention, then I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

But that's not remotely what's happening.

"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

[ Parent ]
"shared the stage"? (4.00 / 1)
I don't believe Obama and McClurkin have ever even met.  I still think this was just shitty vetting by the locals who put this gospel concert together.
[ Parent ]
yup (4.00 / 1)
It's not like the campaign had weeks of frustration pouring out from Americablog.  There's nothing Obama could have done.
[ Parent ]
that's a different question (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you that Obama should have disinvited him and stood on principle, regardless of how much support in the black community he risked alienating. (And at that point, three months before the SC primary, it was a real issue.)  I said so publicly at the time.

But in terms of clearing up the historical record of what actually happened, there was no sharing of a stage, no public embrace, nothing, nor was it planned.  What my campaign sources told me at the time is what I said: local organizers planned the event without running it through Chicago, and once it was announced they (wrongly) felt hamstrung.

[ Parent ]
Who suggested Prop 8 stance is unclear? (0.00 / 0)
But its pretty dishonest to suggest that we don't know where he stands on Proposition 8

Where was it suggested that we don't know where he stand on Prop 8?  If I missed it, I apologized.  If I didn't, then perhaps it is a bit dishonest to suggest people have been suggesting that, hmm?

What is suggested is that we don't know exactly where he stands on gay marriage, but I'm not sure that's very honest either as he's been pretty clear he's not in favor of it.

My sense is that both progressives and conservatives are deluding themselves to some extent.  I'm willing to believe what Obama says: he is not in favor of gay marriage, but believes such a view should not be enshrined in any state Constitutions (agaisnt Prop 8).

Trying to guess when politicians are lying can be a very dangerous game.

[ Parent ]
From the Post (0.00 / 0)
"This is a flyer being used by conservatives in California to pass Proposition 8, a segregationist proposal to deny marriage rights to gay people.  And the quotes in it are absolutely true."

The quotes are actual Obama quotes but what they imply is absolutely not true.  They imply that Obama is for Prop 8, when he is not.

"Marriage equality is the current line in the sand on the new segregationist movement, and Prop 8 in California is their battering ram to roll back progress.  It's pretty clear that Obama's franchise, right now, has ample room for both groups.  It's not clear where he'll actually come down."

This again implies that Obama has not come down on a side of Prop 8.  He has come down firmly against Prop 8.  Or if the quote is just poorly worded and is referring to Obama's position on marriage equality, it is again disingenuous because he has clearly staked out his position. He supports providing all of the rights of marriage while not calling in marriage and instead calling it a civil union. You can criticize him for that position but you can't say we don't know where he is on the issue.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
What I hate about politics (4.00 / 4)
This is what I hate about politics.  I wouldn't have a huge problem with a politician supporting the pro-civil union, anti-marriage compromise if they were honest about it.  (I have no problem with the compromise as long as it is a click in the ratchet; no going back, don't block the future.)  But in our society we force our politicians to claim to believe every official position they take and treat any political compromise as a sign of weakness.

I don't know what Obama really has in his heart on the issue, but given his openness to talk homosexual equality on the stump and his opposition to Prop 8 I'm guessing the liberal consensus is correct.  But obviously, Obama is a follower on the issue, not a leader.

I think all we can divine... (0.00 / 0)
about his personal beliefs is that he doesn't think it's an important enough issue to take a firm stand either way. He thinks that getting involved politically in the marriage debate is not worth the consequences. Which, I suppose is fine as a president. Neither congress nor the supreme court is close to legalizing same sex marriage nationwide. I think it will happen in the next few decades, but Obama will be out to pasture by then.  
The Fight Over Obama's Franchise | 45 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox