Obama and Homophobics

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 13:52


Paul Rosenberg and Patrickson in the comments made a really interesting catch.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama...

Caldwell said Saturday that he's endorsing Obama's presidential campaign because of the senator's "character, confidence and courage."

He emphasized that his support is personal and not tied to his job as pastor of the large United Methodist church.

Ok, so a conservative black minister is endorsing Obama, and is in contact with the campaign about campaign visits two days before Obama gives a major speech on intolerance in the black community.  That's not such a big deal.  But let's look at the church's programming?

Metanoia Ministry

We are pleased to announce the creation of " The Way, The Truth and The Life", a program created to provide Christ Centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins.

That's pretty incendiary stuff, isn't it, especially for an Obama endorsement on the day he's giving a speech on homophobia.  And someone knows that it's really bad, since I had to go to the Google cache to find the page, even though it was working 12 hours ago.  Now all you get is a 'file not found.'  It's weird how, even though Caldwell is making a personal endorsement that is not connected to his official position with the church, the church has changed its programming on its web site to be a bit more on-message. 

I guess that's the power of hope.

... I'm sympathetic to politicians who need to deal with homophobic pastors.  This isn't exactly like McLurkin, since Caldwell is a community leader and it makes sense to speak with all communities if you are running for President.  It is illustrative of a number of structural problems we will and are dealing with, including a very conservative set of religious establishment figures.
Matt Stoller :: Obama and Homophobics

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama and Homophobics | 66 comments
Rhetoric and Record (4.00 / 4)
Maybe we should look at his rhetoric and record rather than that of his endorsers? I would think that might give us a better idea of his policy ideas.
One would think yes (4.00 / 1)
So self-defeating.  So utterly self-defeating of Matt and company.
[ Parent ]
At some point, (4.00 / 1)
don't you expect Obama to take a stand against this kind of crap?  Lofty rhetoric only goes so far with me. 
[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 1)
Today he called out homophobia in black religious communities. He can't choose who supports him. Nowhere have I seen Obama touting this endorsement of this preacher speaking at official Obama events. When that happens let me know.
[ Parent ]
Further... (0.00 / 0)
If this page took down that page (and potentially stopped that  "ministry") isn't that a victory?
[ Parent ]
You may ask, StrawMan, (0.00 / 0)
why people on this blog arent't pounding Clinton on her continued refusal to say she's sorry for an Iraq war vote that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees, while at the same time knocking the hell out of Obama - who no longer has a chance to win the nomination - for an obscure endorsement.  I think we know the answer. 
[ Parent ]
right (4.00 / 1)
Because Chris and I only, you know, starred in Bill Richardson's advertising criticizing Clinton's position on the war.
[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
hats off to you and Chris for doing that.  The whole reason I read Open Left is to see what you and Chris have to say.  My bigger point is that there seems to be a lot of focus these days on Obama for what some (not all) might think are minor trangressions or not trangressions at all.
[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
The Reagan comments certainly roused my frustrations, but I think that we are largely reactive to the campaigns.  And like it or not, Clinton is speaking in a more progressive manner than Obama, though I do not support her.

Though I'm not sure, I probably will not vote in the primary.

[ Parent ]
What if Edwards is in your primary? (0.00 / 0)
I'm genuinely curious: I know you've endorsed Obama because of Lessig & his net neutrality, even though you're holding your nose on a lot of other issues.

Given that you now say you may abstain from choosing between Clinton and Obama in your primary (if I am interpreting right), what is lost by voting for Edwards to send a "progressive" message?  Everyone realizes Edwards is no longer a contender for the nomination, thanks at least in some part to the media blackout he received.

[ Parent ]
This is odd we have similar thinking (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Speaking Just For Myself (4.00 / 1)
though I don't think I'm totally alone on this, I pretty much don't even think about Clinton.  She doesn't have a lot of online support, and there are good reasons for that.

But we expect more from Edwards and Obama, and so we scruitinize them accordingly.

Eternal vigiliance and all that jazz.

"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 ]
Plus There's Your Secret Crush! (0.00 / 0)
But I'll Never Tell.

"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 ]
Pandering (4.00 / 1)
Ok, now you are just pandering for my pro-Buffy vote.
[ Parent ]
Birds of a feather, known by the company you keep.... (0.00 / 0)
Does any of this ring a bell?  Why all of this right wing conservative support for Obama?

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Rhetoric v. Action (4.00 / 8)
Obama makes a speech against homophobia, all the while embracing and utilizing ex-gay ministers who run programs that damage and debase frightened and self-loathing gay youth.

Nice.

Once again, Obama reinforces Clinton's argument that Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions.

I am no fan of Hillary's, but I keep coming (0.00 / 0)
back to the fact that I know who she is. 

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Though I am for Obama, there's definitely a reason why 80% of gay dollars (0.00 / 0)
go to Hillary.  This is the estimate that have read.

Not surprising considering us gay men and lesbians seem inherently more open to a woman president; however, I think gays are uncomfortable with Obama's church shit and McClurkin.

I said it after he lost Nevada:  Obama has the black vote sewn up.  Stop wasting time money and resources courting a constituency you have already attained.  Obama needs to change a little and court vote he hasn't got already, namely the latino vote.  And latinos are indeed turned off by the holy-roller black church schtick.

If Obama does indeed want transcend race, he needs to get out of the black churches a bit.  Not saying he needs to not go at all, but he needs to make it less high-profile.  Now, on MLK Day, of course it's appropriate, but it seems all his eleoquent sermon-type speeches occur at churches.  This turns gays and catholic latinos off.

Note:  this is just a political analysis.  Not necessarilymy opinion.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

*Yawn* (4.00 / 1)
Par for the course Matt, par for the course.

Are you guys determined to make Bowers the only intelligent voice on this site (and Adam B, but he's not really a FP'er)?

I read OpenLeft because it has largely avoided being a DKos candidate diary swamp.  Matt and Paul seem determined to sink it down to that level.

Is Chris the only one of you guys who understands the larger political environment the candidates are operating in?  Matt, your posts these last few weeks have really descended into unbearably silly provocation.

ok (0.00 / 0)
Matt, your posts these last few weeks have really descended into unbearably silly provocation.

Sorry, I'll try to write more posts that you agree with in the future.

[ Parent ]
That's just it though (0.00 / 0)
I really don't require that I agree with what people write.  I read blogs in large part to read why people reach different conclusions than I do.  There are plenty of people that I read because I respect their judgement and analysis even if they are supporting other candidates, like Kevin Drum or Chris Bowers.

Like I said, I don't care if you "like" or endorse Obama, or Clinton, or Edwards, (or anyone else, but I'd probably ignore your posts completely if you came out for Ron Paul), what I care about is the substance of your analysis.  On that count, I think that your posts have become no more insightful or informative than the dime a dozen candidate diaries on DKos.

It's just my opinion, take it or leave.  I'm not here to concern troll, just letting you know that when you "read between the lines" and conclude that Obama is a homophobic, Reagan loving centro-crat, it does more to diminish your credibility than his.

[ Parent ]
Obama's record and rhetoric (0.00 / 0)
Fair enough
1. Obama has lent his support to the  Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," the Nation, June 26).
2.He supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont (google it for a source, there are many)
3.He called Paul Wellstone a "gadfly.
4.Obama voted for the business-friendly "tort reform" bill
5.Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
6.Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act.
7.He opposed Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
8.Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama's call for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq" included repeated references to the need to "defeat" the "insurgency"-a goal that means continuation of the war
9.Obama  sees virtue in a prolonged American military presence in Iraq:

  "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.

  "At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."
obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/

10. Just what were the "excesses of the 60's" he was referring to? Excess civil rights? Excess women's rights? Excess opposition to american empire via the VietNam war? Excess personal freedoms and a break from 50's traditionalism? More Republican codewords.

All of this and more leave me less than overwhelmed with Obama's progressive creds. The Reagan worship may have been aimed at lulling the conservatives into trusting him but instead it hit progressives in the heart of what they fight for. No "audacity of hope" for me in this record.

All very interesting... (2.67 / 3)
How does it relate to this diary?
[ Parent ]
Important Note: Caldwell Approved by Obama Camp (4.00 / 3)
Caldwell is officially campaigning on Obama's behalf (i.e. Caldwell has been in contact with the Obama campaign and gotten approval).  So this is not just merely a supporter, but he's an official part of the Obama campaign.

From the Houston Chronicle:
"I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team," he said. "I will be making visits on his behalf."

I'm surprised the site has been taken down.  It was up earlier today.  Anyone who knows anything about this gay "cure" camps knows the tremendous psychological scars they leave on people.

Yeah, I Got It From Your Link (0.00 / 0)
And it was up last night when I looked at it. But then I went to blockquote from it this morning and it was taken down.  Had to do the Google Cache thing.

As you say, the Chronicle article makes it quite clear that this guy is a major conservative figure--Bush's main man--and now he's switching to Obama in a big way.  Obama might even visit his church, according to the story.

People who think this is something minor we're blowing up out of all proportion just simply don't have much knowledge of such things work.  This is a very long-standing source of anguish within the black community, only made worse by the fact that the minister in question has spent the last 8 years as a Bush crony, and godflack.

Read Pam's House Blend, for gosh sakes!

Or, come to think of it, James Friken Baldwin!

"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 ]
As I remarked downthread (4.00 / 1)
this is all very speculative - the Chronicle has the pastor saying he's "been in touch with" the campaign and that they "may" do events.  As an Obama supporter who was pretty dismayed over the McClurkin fiasco, I'm not thrilled to see additional issues like this come up again, but I do suspect that you may (at this point) be slightly overestimating the significance of this endorsement.  Right now, a lot of this is speculative - no one really knows what's going to happen with this particular individual in the future, as relates to the Obama campaign, and so I can't (and would discourage others) from being particularly dismayed or enraged by something about which we don't know very much.
[ Parent ]
With The Webpage Being Taken Down (0.00 / 0)
I do think we may be seeing a move to walk back from this as quickly and quietly as possible. And form the point of view of wanting to strengthen the progressive coalition generally, that's a good thing, and I'm glad to see it.

The point of raising a ruckus here is not to punish people, but to encourage them to do the right thing. So I'll be happy as a clam to see this go away, because it has been dealt with rather than because it has been stiffled.

However, I think you're downplaying it a bit too vigorously. The story did say:

"I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team," he said. "I will be making visits on his behalf."

Which doesn't sound all that tentative to me, particularly given his apparent prominence.

That said, you can never tell anything for certain from a single story with limited sourcing, unless you really know the reporter's work. So you could be right.

The point is, why even entertain the thought in the first place?  Especially after Mclurkin and then his speech yesterday?  It just doesn't make sense.

"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 ]
Yeah -- but this 'endorsement' might knock for six (0.00 / 0)
... the "Hussein" slur...  Obama might have some protection there?
[ Parent ]
Obama doesn't control (4.00 / 1)
who supports him, and though I'm not crazy about it, this is not, nor will it be a focal point of Obama's campaign.  Plus, are we really to think that any other candidate would have openly declined the endorsement (which, in pure political terms, would have almost certainly provoked a significant negative backlash of its own)?
Read the Houston Chronicle article (0.00 / 0)
It clearly shows he's not just a supporter.  Obama is allowing him to campaign on his behalf:
http://www.chron.com...

Think: Magic Johnson or Mayor Villaraigosa campaigning on behalf of Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Or Johnson (4.00 / 2)
Clinton got rightly blasted for Johnson making those remarks on the campaign trail.  Johnson apologized.  This reverend is much worse and it smacks of hypocrisy for Obama, especially after yesterday's speech.  If he had done this with an antisemite or an anti-Latino racist would anyone dare justify such exploitation of intolerance and hate for political gain?  Surely no one thinks the Obama camp just accidentally chose this minister to be a campaigner.
[ Parent ]
The thing is (0.00 / 0)
Johnson was never speaking as an individual citizen, but as someone more associated with the campaign. As I said in the other comment I just posted, I'll wait to see what kind of role this pastor will play - but Johnson was established and said something stupid about another candidate. There's a lot more hard evidence to go on there, so before we call for apologies and retractions and whatnot, I think it would be wise to see exactly what's up here.
[ Parent ]
So Would You Say This If He Were An Anti-Semite??? (4.00 / 1)
I'll wait to see what kind of role this pastor will play

Really?

Would you?

Or would "benefit of the doubt" time be over as soon as you found out?

"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 ]
Rosenberg you are AS BAD as the ReTHUGlicans (0.00 / 0)
As I said down below 20 min ago, that the next thing would be you starting the "anti-semite" talk........And here it is!
Let's wait and see what Obama says at that church IF he really goes there to speak....I take Obama's A+ record on gay rights HIV issues etc to be more important, than Taylor Marsh wannabe's like yourself, opinions by those who are just provacateurs for their own self importaance.
[ Parent ]
So Your Answer Is An Ad Hominem Attack (0.00 / 0)
That's very enlightening.

"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 ]
That's just about all this clown knows how... (0.00 / 1)

.........to do. Although...I'm not sure he knows what that is.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
Hey ACitizen (0.00 / 0)
here's an ad-hominem
In culo de lo tejo.
[ Parent ]
Your introducing (0.00 / 0)
anti-semitism into the debate is enlightening, as I mentioned, which is WHY I thought you were behaving like the Repubs. Congratulations on having the vile ACitizen as your protector and tag-team partner, at least that is how it appears, considering whenever someone doesn't agree with you that troll is right behind making ad-hominem attacks and calling people like Obama who have been champions for his community petty vile names.
[ Parent ]
Despite your use of quotation marks (0.00 / 0)
I never said benefit of the doubt. I'm skeptical of the merits of this endorsement, and not very happy about it, but it seems to me that we don't really have that much information about it, other than this one particular public statement of endorsement and that they've been "in touch." Again, I'm deeply skeptical, but I'm not going to get things really whipped up over something I don't know much about (nor does anyone), and so I'll reserve appropriate comments until I actually know something about the involvement of this individual within the campaign, if they do events together, etc.
[ Parent ]
your post makes no sense (4.00 / 1)
you said you will wait and see, which is effectively saying benefit of the doubt. look i am not even going to get into the substance here, but the illogics are high mostly when people aren't event thinking about what they are saying. there is no other interpretation of your post that makes sense
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (0.00 / 0)
and I can't say, as an Obama supporter, that I'm in love with this endorsement. However, the article you link to is a little too speculative for my taste - he says he's been in touch with the campaign, they may do events - if they do, that's more of a concern for me, but until I see something actually happen campaignwise, this is really a non-issue for me, as it should be for everyone else. But, that's hinges upon the role that he will actually (not speculatively) play in the Obama campaign.
[ Parent ]
It Wouldn't Be A Non-Issue If He Were An Anti-Semite (4.00 / 1)
And you can't even imagine a gay politician going a single news cycle without denouncing a racist if one should get that close to their campaign.

This is what rightly outrages gays, lesbians, and lifelong allies like myself.  Anti-gay bigotry is seen in a totally different light, and judged by a different set of standards than any other sort.

That's just sick.

"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 ]
Obama has a very good record on GLBT issues (4.00 / 1)
I think there's a good argument to be made that he's trying to move these people to the left.  They like him enough on the other issues that they're willing to support him in spite of their homophobia.  I think that's pretty important.
Yes he does, but... (4.00 / 3)
His failure to publicly and consistently call out the homophobia of those who support him, to me, is no different than his use of right-wing talking points.  Yes, yes, yes, I know he's doing that to get a larger tent and instill hope and all that, but wouldn't it be nice to see him challenge these people on their own bigoted turf?  To say something to the effect of change and hope, to use his overused terms, require you to see how you are wrong, not for me to say how the left is wrong?  How will right-wing people move when he continues to rhetorically validate their theoretical framework?  I can see the moment he does something more progressive, which I'm sure he will do, they'll abandon him because he hasn't challenged their belief structure.

He has a good record, but where is his leadership?  On this and on many other things?

[ Parent ]
You can't persuade them if you get them all defensive first (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Obama lost the gays (4.00 / 1)
He lost the gays a long time ago...

McLurkin sealed the deal for me and I know there was a huge uproar from people I know when he allowed McLurkin to spew his venom. Not easily forgotten and this latest pander is weak.

Obama should try concentrating on women, Latinos, blue collar Democrats and all the other groups he's hurting with, because getting the gays to come to him will be a hard sell.

When I see Clinton marching in gay pride parades and meeting with gay groups she seems comfortable and at home. You can tell she genuinely understands the plight of gays.

With Obama it just sounds like a another one of his "good speeches."  All talk no meat.

And don't even get me started on Edward's...

He Lost Some Straight People With McClurkin (4.00 / 5)
campaigning for him.  It is one of the reasons that Obama won't receive my primary vote. Sorry, I don't view this as a "structural problem" like Matt does. If you want to really support the gay community you can politely turn down "Cure All Gays" ministers who want to campaign for you. And you definitely don't take money from their campaign events (McClurkin).
[ Parent ]
Obama did NOT lose the gays (0.00 / 0)
LOSE THE GAYS.......I guess you have spoken to every gaqy person to make a bold claim like that.
[ Parent ]
And, by that logic, Matt (0.00 / 0)
Every rightwing looney who signs up for this website is endorsing your view.  By having this website, open to anyone who gets an ID number, make you, not only responsible for what they say on here, but we can therefore assume that you endorse whatever crazy points they wish to make here.

Feh. 

Matt for President (0.00 / 0)
If we take it as a given that none of the top three candidates are with the progressive community on every issue, yet we still want one of the three to become president in November, then it is inevitable that we will have to play the "lesser of two evils" game.  That is until Matt Stoller becomes a viable presidential candidate (though I am not with him on his internationalism, and I will excoriate him with great ferocity  on my new website "isolationistleft.com," due out in 2025, regarding that single issue - thus fracturing the progressive blogosphere and handing the nomination to Chelsea Clinton, who will then nominate her campaign manager, Jerome Armstrong, as Secretary of Information).

We are all going to have to hold our nose and vote until the above scenario plays out.  Obama is going to stay neutral on gay issues, and he will have some surrogates who have pasts that are unfriendly to gays, to women, and to several other very important identity groups.  While little 8 year-old Jimmy may have fewer gay role models to look up to in the Obama administration, he will find the illiterate rednecks on the playground a slightly more immediate concern to the security of his identity.  Educational, health, and labor policies might indeed have more impact on homophobia than the identity politics with which you are unwisely, albeit only occasionally, infatuated. 

Rudy is a Tyrant

um, tell that to little 8yo Jimmy if he turns out to be gay. (0.00 / 0)
Making fun of and bullying gays is a serious issue these days.  And it's one of the few bigotrys that at "tolerated."  Indeed may gay kids end up committing suicide because they cannot handle being bullied and being such an outcast.

Whereas even on the playground it is taboo to make racial remarks, but gay ones are A-Okay. 

You show your ignorance and being out-of-touch with this post.  You have zero understanding of gay people or what they go through.  Thus, not knowing what the hell you're talking about, you ought to refrain from opening your mouth and commenting on this subject.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Learn how to read (0.00 / 0)
First of all, anyone who dares to claim savanthood should exercise better reading comprehension.  It is obvious from my post that I was assuming that little Johnny was indeed gay and that the roots of homophobia are economic and environmental.  Like racism, homophobia will not end by shaking our finger and telling people that they shouldn't be racist or homophobic.  People either are racist or homophobic or they are not, and it is more function of education and economic factors than some sort of inherent meanness.  Those who think it originates with inherent meanness probably also agree with Bush that the terrorists attack us because they hate our freedom.

The solution to the problem of encountering "the other" is always education and security - not political correctness.  Although he may not address the issue frontally (and stupidly) like old-guard identity politics liberals, Obama could do more to end homophobia with his economic and social policies than a capitalist, corporatist Democrat who gives lip-service to civil rights but does nothing to change and challenge structural power (yes, that would be Hillary).  That was entirely the point of my post, and it whizzed past you like an episode of the Office whizzes past my irony-deaf mother.

You have no idea what my personal experiences are, nor do I need to produce evidence of my sexual street cred.  That you think you can speak for all gay people and their experiences - having the audacity to say who is in touch with the gay community and who is not - shows your narrow-mindedness and your intolerance - not to mention your putrid insolence.  Without revealing my sexual identity, I can point to one very ardent Obama supporter - Andrew Sullivan - who is gay and also very serious about gay rights.

Rudy is a Tyrant

[ Parent ]
Matt you are turning into Taylor Marsh (0.00 / 0)
My partner who happened to have worked on the Clinton HIV advisory council for 8 tears in the WH and who thru the ADA was doing outreach work in Chicago told me that Obama was the ONLY one to come forward and help with their efforts for HIV/gay rights in the Chicago A.A. community. He worked with various people to get training and information about HIV and gay rights when NO OTHER African American male politician at the time would touch it. You are doing a REAL disservice to FACTS  by your posts especially concerning Obamas record on gay rights. Why don't you do a little research it is available about Obamas record concerning gay rights or friggin ASK. You post is similar to Taylor marsh in its utter disregard to facts versus a GOT YA find on a website. I realize you are in awe of Paul, and you are so angry your IDOL Joe Trippi's guy is washed up, but this is too much. If I sound pissed I am, because I HAD so much respect for you even when I didn't agree, but that is shot to hell now.
I guess we will should be expecting a post about Obama being an anti-semite as I hear that is on Taylor's top 10 list of future posts.
REALLY DISGUSTING!
Policy (0.00 / 0)
This morning I left a comment to Paul on a now dead thread.  I hope this gives a better idea why I approach policy different than Paul and other activists on this site.  (Slightly edited because, damn, I suck at writing sometimes.  Read before Post, Mark!)

---
Activist?  I'm just a guy procrastination on a design document due tomorrow, I have no well thought out theory of activism.

I think it is extremely important that there are people out there working through all the various details of policy, looking at what solutions work in the real world and what solutions tend to fail.  I think it is incredibly important for people to speak up about those segments of our society that still have a long ways to go and need more attention.

I'm a pragmatist who believes there are "many ways to skin a cat".  My ideology tells me what the problems are that we face, they don't always tell me the solution.  I don't know if welfare style solutions or Jack Kemp style solutions work better to solve urban poverty.  I hope that both have been tried and we have some answers we can apply.

I believe in expertise and a government filled with professionals who work through these problems, come up with good policies, follow through to see how well they actually work, correct and continue.  Rinse and repeat.

I'm not anti policy at all.  But I'm under no allusion that I know the answers.  I have guesses and I know what kinda sounds good to me, but I'm no expert.

This is why Obama's core message about process hits home with me.  I understand the enlightenment and science and how one goes about solving problems and I see Obama understand this as well.  But I don't know what form all the solutions should take place.  Just because a solution sounds good to me doesn't mean it is good.

The goal of science is answers, not process, but it is the process that makes it science and it is the process that gives us the correct answers.  I believe the same is true in government.

So I need to know what a candidate thinks are the core problems to be solved, and I need to be convinced he'll try to solve them.  The difference between concerns about stagnating median wages versus keeping labor costs under control is huge.  It goes to the heart of understanding what is really important.

But how do we improve wages?  I have lots of opinions on the matter, but I'm no economist.  I claim no expertise on how all the details work out.  So expecting me to choose between detailed plans is not only stupid, but as someone who believes in expertise and professionalism, I actually find it offensive.  What I want proven to me is the experts will be brought on board, experts with different opinions and backgrounds, and the best guessed set of solutions will be applied.

If this is the "persistent divide" of which you speak, then yea, it is a divide.  Perhaps you are an expert and do know all the answers to everything, but I seriously doubt it.  You are an expert about some things and you've done a great job of explaining what you understand.

Again, we agree that Obama should weave more policy into his rhetorical narrative, but I believe this is minor correction, not a major flaw.

Your comment should be posted everywhere as (0.00 / 0)
.........what's truly wrong with American politics. It's the Americans; their stupidity is showing.

Our political process just does not work with this attitude:

I claim no expertise on how all the details work out.  So expecting me to choose between detailed plans is not only stupid, but as someone who believes in expertise and professionalism, I actually find it offensive.  What I want proven to me is the experts will be brought on board, experts with different opinions and backgrounds, and the best guessed set of solutions will be applied

You can, perhaps, if the laws are written correctly expect an automotive engineer to do a good job on designing the brakes in your car.

You cannot assume that  your elected representatives are going to formulate policy and implement it correctly; nor can you assume that their policies will be to your benefit, if you have abdicated your duty as a citizen to understand those policies, in depth, and so inform your elected reps.

All this crap about Obama being a 'new kind of politician...' because he's seemingly adept with the technocratic aspects of our society is just another way of people saying, as you are, that they want to be left alone in their warm, fuzzy cocoon in front of the TeeBee with a good, imported bear.

Meet the new boss, pal....

Same as the old boss.

'Cause your too lazy to think for yourself.

To do the work that frikin' Plato asserted needed to be done by each and every citizen.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
And yet... (4.00 / 1)
'Cause your too lazy to think for yourself.

And yet, the very fact that I am here pretty much disproves your assertion.  Funny that.  Try harder.

You are quoting freak'n Plato, he who opposed democracy and thought that only the elite 'citizens' who were a very minor percentage of the population should allowed any say or control?  And even then, you are quoting he who stated:

The greatest principle of all is that nobody whether mail or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to do anything at all on his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully.... In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it.

Yes, I believe in expertise and professionalism.  I expect to be let in on the conversation and help judge the results, but if I have time to follow the details the way the professionals do, they aren't doing their job.  You confuse laziness with humility, or to turn this around, you confuse work with arrogance.

[ Parent ]
Of Arrogance and Philosopher Kings (0.00 / 0)
That said, one of the reasons Democracy works as well as it does is citizen activists who do look in on the details and work diligently to get the best policies in place.  In no way should what I wrote be taken to be against that.  I have huge respect for Matt, Paul, Chris, Mary and others on this list who spend the bulk of their lives working on the issues, policy and politics.

But you took one of Plato's arguments for why democracy demands too much and thus must fail and turned it around.  Ironically, it appears what I wrote could be used to support Plato's positions, since it kinda looks like I'm in favor of philosopher kings and the wisdom of reason and expertise.  That would be the neocon position, and no I'm not there either.

To me the perfect politician (and note I'm not describing Obama) clearly explains where we are and where he wants to take us.  As you state, he explains where the roadblocks are and how to get around them. 

But the details aren't so important.  Policy is important, but only about third on the priority list, at best.  They will change through the process and might change again as the facts change.  Ultimately, we must judge by results.

For those who work long and hard on policy, I applaud you.

Also note we are in a primary season where all three candidates have basically the same policy solutions.  Even if Obama does nothing purposefully to improve his policy narrative, the extreme differences between Democratic and Republican policies will improve the narrative nonetheless.

[ Parent ]
Non Story (0.00 / 0)
Haven't read most of the comments, because I am taking a tiny break from work, but I have to tell you guys that this doesn't surprise me AT ALL.  I was wondering when something like this was going to happen.

Let me tell you a little something about block society (not culture, as Paul Rosenberg has pointed out).  Black society, as a general rule of thumb, is more homophobic than white society is.  Being a Black man, I don't like this, but it's the truth.  The fact that Obama got endorsed by a preacher is homophobic is so much of a non story to me.

It's Not Simply The Endorsement (4.00 / 1)
I agree. A run-of-the-mill endorsement would not be a big thing.

But this isn't that.  It's the apparent involvment in the campaign, aggravated by his Bush-loving big-cheese status on the one hand, and Obama's mishandling of the Mclurkin incident two months back on the other.

In fact, I'm all in favor of Obama entering into a dialogue with these guys to help change their minds (they ought to know how important gays were in the civil rights movement, and show some more respect is my ignorant white boy James-Baldwin-loving take).  But he can't be doing that with people who are too high profile in their anti-gay stances or his campaign.  There are right ways and wrong ways to go about this.

"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 ]
Yesterday, I used the line-- (0.00 / 1)

"Stoller doesn't like Obama because he's black."

to show the logical fallacy of Stoller's line, "Obama lost Nevada because of Reagan Comments".

But the more of this crap he writes, the more I'm afraid it may be true.

It's ok if you are white (4.00 / 2)
Otherwise, Hillary Clinton's cosy relations with homophobic Rick Warren would be causing equivalent pearl clutching.

Of course, in his sermon, Obama directly confronted homophobia in the black church and in hers, Senator Clinton did not discuss the issue. But that's ok, because ?? ?

Someone give me a reason other than race.

Just 'cause (4.00 / 1)
It's okay because we already know Hillary is bad so we can hold her to a lower standard.  Also see Edwards, John: entire voting record and political career.

But in fairness, there are multiple conversations going on.  We get into candidate wars, where it is all compare and contrast.  (And kick, bite and claw.)  But we also should show where individuals are failing.  The complaint stands even if the complaint is valid elsewhere.

But yes, to those using this as a reason to vote for Hillary, they need to be reminded early and often she ain't so pure.

And to be fair to both preachers, the actual Bible is homophobic, so it isn't like they are making this up.  Literal, fixed interpretations of 2,000+ old writings can do that to you.

[ Parent ]
Because some see Obama as the one who Knocked out Edwards (0.00 / 0)
So they go after him more. This is Joe Trippi territory. As a Deaniac myself I think Trippi is a good guy but he has been a disaster for Edwards in my opinion.
[ Parent ]
Nitpicking (0.00 / 0)
Incidentally, I believe the more common term would be "homophobes," not "homophobics," though admittedly they're all kind of made up terms.
Best. Frame. Ever. (4.00 / 1)
BTW, for those who think the left sucks at framing, I've always thought the single word "homophobic" was the best frame ever.  There is neither lie nor spin.  It takes the defensive, macho posturing against gays and turns it around.  Makes the macho shit all about their fear.  I have no idea who came up with it, but great stuff.
[ Parent ]
Citing Andrew Sullivan damages your credibility amongst most gay voters. (0.00 / 0)
Sully voted for Bush in 2000 and is AGAINST hates crimes legislation.  He's basically a conservative.

No dice.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Obama and Homophobics | 66 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox