10/24/2007
Obama Adds Openly Gay Minister to Counter McClurkin Furor
Barack Obama held a conference call with supporters today and announced that he had added Rev. Andy Sidden, a United Church of Christ pastor in Columbia, SC, to his South Carolina gospel tour as a response to the uproar caused by his decision to retain anti-gay pastor Donnie McClurkin.
The Boston Globe reports that The Politico noted that "Obama's advisers also asked supporters to contact the Human Rights Campaign, a leading national gay rights organization, and urge the group not to criticize the senator."
HRC's president, Joe Solmonese released a statement late this afternoon: "I spoke with Sen. Barack Obama today and expressed to him our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to 'break the curse of homosexuality.' There is no gospel in Donnie McClurkin’s message for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. That’s a message that certainly doesn’t belong on any Presidential candidate’s stage. I did thank him for announcing he would be adding an openly gay minister as part of the tour and for his willingness to call on religious leaders to open a dialogue about homophobia. We hope that Sen. Obama will move forward and facilitate face to face meetings with religious leaders, like Rev. McClurkin, and the GLBT community to confront the issue of homophobia. We also call on all of the Presidential campaigns to look within their ranks of supporters and make the same commitment to engage in a dialogue among differing views around issues of equality and fairness for our community."
So, I guess the question is, does adding a voice of tolerance negate the hater on the other end of the scale, which is what Obama's intention seems to be with this move? If a candidate's tour included Fred Phelps but he or she decided to suddenly "balance it out" at the last minute by adding Judy Shepard, what kind of message does that send?
Recently
"Ex-Gay" Reverend McClurkin Speaks Out on Obama Controversy [tr]
Barack Obama Releases Statement on Reverend McClurkin [tr]
Barack Obama to Tour with Anti-Gay Gospel Singer [tr]
Posted 7:14 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin, Election 2008, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
More black people support Hillary than Obama. After this latest outrage, I can see why. Hillary is a professional Pandercrat, but I don't recall her sticking anyone on her bandwagon as offensive as McClurkin.
No wonder she has a lock on the nomination. Obama just seems to be spectacularly clueless. He's not getting a dime of my money or my vote after this.
Posted by: sunspot | Oct 25, 2007 12:18:54 AM
homophobia was engineered by whites! whites are more homophobic by far. it was the Europeans who burned homosexuals at the stake, who converted African, Asian, and indigenous American peoples to Christianity and filled their heads with homophobia, when in fact before colonialism, there existed cultures which accepted homosexuality, including African cultures, African religions.
All the anti-gay influential leaders are white. I'll feel safer around a black person than I will around some white hillbilly. Just recently Terry Mark Mangum some Christian white hillbilly in Texas killed a gay man according to God's orders. Most black Congressmen support gay rights, you can't say the same for the white congressmen.
GAYS NEED TO BE UNITED. no matter our color, we need to be out there protesting together for our rights. stop this bullshit waddling over someone's associations. few of the candidates from both parties are for us anyway. Hillary's not gonna give us rights, probably less of a chance of that than Obama. and Joshua shut up just because Obama is black doesn't mean he's any more unfriendly, I don't understand what that was supposed to mean but seriously.
Here's a BLACK POLITICIAN running for President who supports gay rights, his name is Stewart A. Alexander, of Peace and Freedom Party. Think about it. gays need to stop taking Republicans and Democrats seriously. Puh leeze. Let's starting thinking as true left-wing.
Posted by: Stan | Oct 25, 2007 12:28:54 AM
I'm taking the HRC bumper stickers off my car as I feel ashamed of the HRC's intolerant and quasi racist handling of this situation.
Posted by: kevin | Oct 25, 2007 12:33:47 AM
Since voting to support the invasion in 2003 most Democrats having been marching in lockstep with Bush while he murdered over 650,000 Iraqis and 3837 GI’s. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton voted for the war precisely because it’s an economic war of aggression, and voted to extend it to Iran, to fund it every step of the way, to arrogantly demand that the Iraqis divide their nation into three procoulsular colonial regions and to surrender their petro assets to American companies. The brutal oil pirates of both parties are digging in for a permanent conquest, but like Democrat LBJ's war in Vietnam they’re going to get slapped down by the combined efforts of Iraqi resistance fighters and trade unionists, unruly GI’s and the US antiwar movement.
That will shut up the cowardly Chickenhawks and shills backing Bush and the congressional Republicans and Democrats who support the war.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh going after Iran
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/65743/
Iraq war as bipartisan economic aggression and mass murder
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/1432233&mode=thread&tid=25
650,000 dead
http://www.afsc.org/cost/documents/iraqicostofwar.pdf
650,000 dead
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/65381/ Democrats vote on war
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 25, 2007 12:47:19 AM
I could tell HRC was joke when they held that Forum on the Logo channel and they made Obama and Edwards give detailed answers on why they did not support gay marriage but they let Clinton just say it was a personal belief and get away with it.
They will do anything to help Clinton even if it means getting down and dirty and ignoring the things she does. I have nothing against Clinton but I can't stand these gay hypocrites.
Posted by: Mick | Oct 25, 2007 12:59:06 AM
Either/or, black/white - where does this get us?
Seems to me that there is the ideal and the real.
Politicians need to suck up in order to get elected. What I want to know is this: Once elected, will you serve? And who, or what, is it you will serve?
Even with all of this rationalization considered, what can Obama possibly say to get my vote now? I think our host framed the discussion brilliantly. Would balancing Phelps with someone diametrically opposed clean the slate? And what are we willing to accept as reasonable accommodation? And are there depths to which we should not go in order to win an election?
JT
Posted by: JT | Oct 25, 2007 3:24:06 AM
this is unforgivable. if obama doesn't get rid of that asshole, he's toast. this really calls into question his decision making ability. would any other dem have done this?
Posted by: nic | Oct 25, 2007 4:26:18 AM
Christ. What a mess. I have to say from a Canadian perspective, the whole thing is unbelievable. I say drop both the GD preachers from the tour. Draw the fricking line between church and state. Keep the men of the cloth in their GD churches and off the hustings!
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 25, 2007 7:18:56 AM
This says to me that I don't want to put up with this shit for 4 additional years so he's completly off my radar. Dead, done finished. Doesn't he realize how tired we are of this crap?
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2007 8:47:03 AM
Leland Frances prattles on and on about: " This whole thing is just a stunt to help Hillary. If it were serious, the first questions would have gone to McClurkin, to ask him why he felt comfortable supporting a candidate who supports equal rights for gays. Instead, it was "attack Barack" from the first moment. The ruthless Clinton machine at work. Disgusting. You wanna known what is TRULY digusting? Seeing a justified criticism of an Obama Supporter labeled as some creation of a 'ruthless' Clinton machine. Why is this the more truly disgusting thought? a) because it took such little rational wofk to dream it up and b) that Leland balks at calling McClurkin's message free of the Gospel. The word Gospel means "Good News and there is hardly any good news from McClurkin. Instead of 'good news' we get regurgitated mental pablum meant to demean any adult gay male as incapable of being happy and complete as long as he doesn't 'escape' from homosexuality.
Posted by: Parker | Oct 25, 2007 9:08:33 AM
Obama's running for Prez?
Posted by: Davey | Oct 25, 2007 9:25:37 AM
None of this matters because Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination much less the Presidency.
Posted by: Johnny Lane | Oct 25, 2007 9:40:55 AM
"Alito & Roberts" and if we have a Republican president, maybe a Southwick on the Supreme Court.
I agree with Leland (but I aint gonna' call another poster a motha' fucka' on this or any other blog)
Most black evangelicals are just like most white evengelicals: they either hate gays or don't take us seriously as people who deserve the same human rights they have. Donnie McClurkin is the same as Senator Larry Craig: a hypocrite and a liar(and maybe they can't help it). And that's that.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinith, or that wonderful old guy: it doesn't matter, I must vote Democrat in November 2008.
Has it ever occured to y'all that gay people's equal rights may NOT be a national issue meant for presidential campaigns. Maybe, for now, our rights are meant for local and state wide initiatives. Too many Americans still believe we are sick sinners who do what we do out of spite and rebelliousness. Gay people's civil rights become a national issue when the federal courts are involved, that's why like I said, "Alito & Roberts" will make me go to the polls in November '08 and vote Democrat.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 25, 2007 10:24:10 AM
I don't see what all the hoopla is about, its not as if Obama has or had a chance to win, and, when dealing with "church" folks, tolerance isn't a word they fully understand, no matter who is trying to encourage them to open thier closed minds.
At the end of the day, he is a politician, and, all he wants is votes, although, I don't think he is going to get the black vote with this gospel tour, as a girl friend of mine likes to say, he is in one hot mess!
And, Derrrick, the next one on the Supreme Court will be Southwick, Bush is not as dumb as many think he is and, that's where the rage should be as its already set up with anti-gay bigots under Roberts, with Thomas, Scalia and Alito, goosestepping on "moral issues" with him, and one more who feels like they do, Southwick, and, the next 50 years are going to be awful, and, this "debate" over some lame gospel show long forgot.
The Superme Court is where the focus should be when pondering who to vote for, not this concert.
Posted by: Sebastian | Oct 25, 2007 10:43:38 AM
A bucket of cold water over your head Leland. Your rants on 3rd patry voting come up real short and you have a nasty mouth. You're bullying will get you no where. Gays can vote dem all they want and will get the same old bull they have for years. Queers will check out 3rd parties and vote for real change. There is nothing self centered about voting what and for what one believes. I think most people do that don't they? All I can see are a bunch of lesser than evil, march in line with bush dems who are as much to blame as the repub's for starting this war and voting to continue it. I say to the Guillotine with the lot of them!
Posted by: Richard | Oct 25, 2007 10:51:18 AM
You can find my remarks on the Magic Negro's latest shuck and jive here --
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Oct 25, 2007 10:56:31 AM
it only makes sense that an ex-black would pair up with and ex-gay.
obama can kiss my gay a$@.
Posted by: psgoodguy | Oct 25, 2007 11:08:19 AM
Ian wrote, "I think y'all are having the response of white gays reacting to black culture that you don't understand. What we call "homophobia" is for a lot of people "just how things are"--no matter how much we dislike that. Obama's actions show that he's interested in DIALOGUE amongst groups, instead of reactionary shunning of people who don't think like us."
Amen.
I've seen way too much talking AT blacks, instead of WITH blacks, by whites (straight but especially gay) over this issue. White gays have no idea who McClurkin is, and aren't interested in finding out why his message resonates with so many black Christians. Instead, whites appear to be seeking to transplant their cultural ideas on blacks. This talk of 'remove him!' ignores the fact that this conference is not for gays, it's for black Christians...who are going to feel exactly (if not moreso) as McClurkin.
There is enough ill feeling between blacks and gays, without white gays pulling the white-skin card to tell blacks how we will think and who we will listen to while throwing us in the gutter anyway as not worthy of support.
Obama has done the right thing by seeking to ADD a voice to the tour, instead of removing a voice. No one can learn anything by preaching to the choir, and hearing only people who agree with you. A learning opportunity has presented itself, and I think Obama has handled it admirably. This is how a person engages in dialogue across the aisle -- not by silencing voices one doesn't agree with, but by hearing those voices and then countering them with intelligence and life experience. If Obama had bowed to gay whites -- gay whites who, as this thread and many others online show, *never* had any intention of truly supporting Obama and cut and ran at the first opportunity -- he would *not* have gained any gay whites, but he would have lost a sizeable portion of blacks because he would have looked like a coward and an easily bent panderer.
Obama is showing that he can make the hard decisions, and live with them. Good for him. Where are the other candidates, who are willing to make hard decisions and stick with them? There are none.
I didn't think anything of Obama before, because I thought that he was being cruelly held up as 'the first real black candidate for president' by whites, who once again were choosing our leaders for us and ignoring our history for us. But this incident (coupled with his straight talk to black ministers about gays, HIV, sexual promiscuity and the need to go beyond abstinence) are making me notice him in a new light. I still think he's being cruelly held up as 'the first real black candidate for president', and I still think he's being used by whites... but he is willing to reach out to viewpoints and people who usually don't get a national stage.
Any other candidates willing to do this?
Posted by: Nita | Oct 25, 2007 11:22:23 AM
Powerful stuff Nita, powerful stuff.
Posted by: Sebastian | Oct 25, 2007 11:29:21 AM
Seriously Leland, we've lived through the worst with Bush. I can take more too so I'm not going to let the stupid dems off the hook at all anymore. I will vote third party with no problem if just to teach those lazy dems not to take my vote for granted. Its well past time for them to step up, and I think we can all agree they having been doing it.
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2007 11:30:14 AM
I'm sorry, Leland: You didn't call anyone a "motha' fucka'". You said, "fuck you." Well, you shouldna' said that either! Just say something more subtle like, "go screw yourself". No, need to use profanity. It aint gentlemanly.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Oct 25, 2007 11:31:28 AM
MCNNYC wrote, "he STILL does not get it Rev Motor Mouth who was raped by a STRAIGHT pedophile UNCLE not a GAY UNCLE gets to have a production number..."
http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608004374/Donnie-McClurkin.html
Pastor McClurkin gets a production number because he's there as entertainment. Think before you write.
As the link above states, McClurkin won a Grammy Award in 2006 for 'best traditional soul gospel album for Psalms, Hymns & Spiritual Songs'. He is an extremely successful musician, having multiple gold, platinum, and a double-platinum album under his belt. McClurkin touches lives... and many of the people who enjoy his music don't believe that he's cured himself of homosexuality, instead confusing abstinence with being straight, but they still find inspiration and hope within his music.
Double platinum -- that's two million souls, not counting people dubbing his music to give to family on mixtapes, or singing his songs on Sunday during church. You honestly expected Obama to toss a man like that out to the wolves? to say, 'your voice is not worthy of being heard because those paying my bills don't agree with you'. The only people who can get away with that are American Jews. That's not anti-semitism, that's real talk. You may shrug your shoulders at him -- but that's a lot of people watching how this goes who aren't necessarily gay, or white. How Obama treats this man affects how ose who listen to McClurkin are going to respond to Obama -- and that's exactly why Obama is there in the first place.
If gays want to make an impression, they can seek to ADD their voices to this conference, and ask for a round-table discussion with McClurkin and others on the tour who feel as he does. But it's ludicrous to shut him down or honestly expect him to disappoint his audience by 'stepping down' just to satisfy folks who never heard of him, didn't give a damn about him before the HRC tried to help their girl Hillary Rodham out, and are not going to give a damn about him and his audience after this is over.
As for the other, how do you know his uncle was straight, and not gay? If you're molesting little boys, it doesn't matter if you're also screwing older women -- you are not straight. You are at least bisexual. I know what the statistics say; I also know that the medical books used to list homosexuality as a disorder, a mental illness. It doesn't matter whether the uncle was gay, straight or bi anyway: what matters is that McClurkin was horribly abused as a child, and that's where his ideas about homosexuality come from. Has he met any homosexuals who have shown him love, and not lust? not using and being used?
Are any of you offering to show him love, Christian love, humane love? agape?
Show him love, and you all might be surprised by what love accomplishes instead of hatred and silence. You all need to think. By the way, I'm agnostic.
Posted by: Nita | Oct 25, 2007 11:49:48 AM
Nita - Interesting and valid points about inclusion.
However, what disturbs me is a self-described "ex-gay" as part of a national political campaign and being taken seriously by a candidate.
I voted for Obama for senate, I will not do so for president.
Posted by: Mike_in_Lancaster | Oct 25, 2007 11:57:07 AM
Brad wrote, "Obama is really not understanding the concept of bigotry very well. Would he want David Duke on the panel and then balance it out Martin Luther King?"
I should hope so, Brad. I cannot understand this willingness shown the past couple days by many gays to silence a voice and provide no alternatives just because gays don't like that voice. People can make their own decisions and choices; they have to be given a chance to do so, even when those choices are disagreeable to you. To not provide an alternative voice in balance with the viewpoint you object to, is to say that your own voice is *not strong enough* to carry your message. Why would gays be afraid that their message is too weak to meet another viewpoint head to head? The tour has not fought the adding of this minister. So far he is being embraced, is he not? If you all want more of your voices to be heard, then you all need to go make yourselves seen in those communities in a positive way. You can start by opening more doors for GLBTs of color, instead of ignoring their voices and input most of the time.
Mike wrote, "Andy, that means Mr. Obama is triangulating in a fashion that indicates his need to win trumps his need to do the right thing."
I don't know what 'triangulating' means, in this context, though I've seen it at DKos. I thought it was just a buzzword. Can you explain? As for Obama needing to win -- when's Obama ever used his wife's illness to garner sympathy votes for himself? or aped President Bush' Iraq war stance? The only time I would suggest Obama showed a 'need to win' would be his embrace of illegal aliens; but *all* the candidates are opening their mouths for that particular nut, it hits close to home because of what's going down in Chicago, and he still hasn't gone so far with the ludicrousness as Ted 'I'm the runt' Kennedy.
Everything I've read so far has shown Obama to be more of a friend to gays than an enemy. And everything I've read of McClurkin has been a lot less dire than the shriekers have made him out to be. That's a matter of my opinion; I can accept that 'homosexuality is an illness' and 'it's possible to change one's sexual orientation' are fighting words in the gay community. I just look at it as blacks would look at another black claiming to be white and wanting to be white, and it makes more sense. It's still a long way from advocating killing yourself if you are gay.
Posted by: Nita | Oct 25, 2007 12:22:59 PM
Mick says, "I could tell HRC was joke when they held that Forum on the Logo channel and they made Obama and Edwards give detailed answers on why they did not support gay marriage but they let Clinton just say it was a personal belief and get away with it."
Is that on youtube? That sounds a damn shame. Typical, though. I used to support Hillary, back when she was First Lady. I thought she was given a raw deal, and no one appreciated her drive and intellect. She was more than arm candy, and that scared people. She's been around power brokers too long, though; and in trying to play their games their way, she's lost her soul. Too many people obviously owe her favors, and it shows in a negative way. As for civil unions versus gay marriage, I'd take the civil union if it comes with every tax break except a church wedding... and no one can force anyone not to hold a church wedding if the church allows it. It's half a step from that to outright marriage. Is there a bigger difference than that, though, for gays to fight civil unions and seek marriage instead?
Jersey, the problem with third parties is that sometimes they're in the pockets of one of the major parties. A lot of people voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004. They had no idea, or didn't care, that he was in the Republicans' pockets, accepting Republican money, and making excuses for accepting that money. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Gotta research your third parties. Of course, so many folks think it's not worth it period, and they don't go vote. Or do they do vote, and their votes are suppressed, so what was the point?
Has the gay vote ever been suppressed, like the black vote? Do gays ever fear that they will vote, and their votes will not be counted anyway? or that someone will openly attempt to mislead them regarding election day, or election polling place availability?
What struggles do gays face, in making their voices heard at the polls?
Posted by: Nita | Oct 25, 2007 12:41:20 PM