01/25/2008
Obama's Alliances with Gays and the Church Examined
Politico examines Barack Obama's position on gays, with regard to the apparent contradiction between his call to end homophobia in his recent speech at Martin Luther King's Ebenezer Baptist Church, and his association with clergy who support the "ex-gay" movement. This not only includes the Donnie McClurkin incident but also a more recent endorsement and association with Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who was discovered to have an "ex-gay ministry occupying real estate on his website.
"The twin developments appeared to encapsulate the tension inherent in Obama’s embrace of what he calls a new style of politics, his belief in forging alliances even with those who hold fundamentally different views. In this case, he has spoken out against homophobia in front of black audiences while embracing some black religious leaders who are resistant to gay rights. 'People are confused,' said Wayne Besen, a gay activist and founder of Truth Wins Out, a New York organization aimed at countering the 'ex-gay' movement. 'We see one report of him saying powerful words. Then he is hanging out with some shady characters. People don’t know what to make of that.' By Monday, Caldwell’s church, Windsor Village United Methodist in Houston, scrubbed its Web site of any reference to the gay conversion program, Metanoia Ministry. In a Politico interview Tuesday, Caldwell said his 14,000-member church - one of the largest United Methodist congregations in the country - is not affiliated with Metanoia. 'I got to tell you, this is going to sound real stupid, but I didn’t know it was on our website,' Caldwell said. 'I was surprised and embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed from the standpoint that I should have known. We have 120 ministries at the church. You can’t be on top of everything.' When asked if he opposed such programs, Caldwell said: 'It’s not a ministry of the church. It is not supported financially by the church. It is not located at the church. That is pretty much where I am with it.'"
Obama, allies don't always align on issues [politico]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:30 PM EST by Andy in "Ex-Gays", Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Obama is a DISASTER for our communities.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 3:42:55 PM
"disaster?"
Look, the second incident was repudiated by the minister himself, he was _embarrassed_ and said he doesn't support it. Are we going to attack every presidential candidate because of a link on a website of a supporter, how about links to those links?
Not only does Obama _consistently_ speak out directly and forcebly to the clergy and religious communities, black and white and other, for our rights, he does so often when they don't want to hear it. He speaks truth to power.
Additionally, his legislative record both in the Ill State senate and US Senate is _very_ pro-gay rights.
AND his positions on gay rights issues, though not a whole lot different, are better than those of both Clinton and Edwards. For example, when it comes to marriage equality, it's a subtle but huge difference. Clinton and Edwards both support repealing half of DOMA, Obama supports repealing ALL of DOMA. That will make a HUGE difference to my family: http://www.lathefamily.org/2008/01/democratic_candidates_glbt_rig.shtml
He won't be a disaster, he'll be a great BOON to our community. I'm voting for him.
Posted by: Trey | Jan 25, 2008 3:53:24 PM
Obama has shown his willingness to give in to the religious left as he seeks the middle ground. Our community will not be pushed to the back of the bus by him, it will be thrown under it.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 25, 2008 4:03:42 PM
So if Hillary went to South Carolina on a campaign tour with a known KKK operative supporter and then made a speech against racism in California, what would all of you brain washed Obama supporters say?
Posted by: ReasonBased | Jan 25, 2008 4:04:05 PM
While I wouldn't call him a "disaster"—yet—I'm convinced he's a fraud vis-a-vis any real empathy with LGBTs or commitment to proACTIVE change should he be elected. He'd be better than any Republican in countless areas, most of all in relation to whom they versus whom he would nominate to the Supreme Court—which is my number one issue so HE MUST BE VOTED FOR if he gets the nomination.
With the help of an incredible number of voluntarily deaf, dumb, and blind gay supporters, Obama's pretty poppies have put too many to sleep. LGBTs will wake up on January 20, 2017, more or less where we are now if it is ONLY left up to a President Obama [which, of course, it's not—Congress is where most of our hopes for full equality begin and end].
But he hasn't even got the nomination yet, and only a gun to my head would get me to vote for him in the primary.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 4:04:41 PM
wow, against all evidence to the contrary in both legislative record, speaking out and positions,
people still think he's anti-gay and a fraud because of a link on a website of a supporter.
:/
Posted by: Trey | Jan 25, 2008 4:09:42 PM
Now David, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Christian fundamentalism is a disaster for our communities. As are Republicans, ex-gay groups, crystal meth, and MRSI. Barack Obama, not so much.
Look, if you want a true progressive Pres candidate who has a 100% rating from the Task Force and will never give a voice to any (naturally anti-gay) Christian organization, you need to build a time machine. Cuz it ain't happenin' now, and probably not for a long while.
For any candidate to win, they need to still be friendly to Christians, as this is still America. And being friendly to Christians means walking a fine line on glbt issues, and for the time being, that's excusable, imho.
Donnie McClurkin, for example, is a closeted fool, as we all know, but he's also a multi-platinum Gospel recording artist, and not because of songs about not being gay anymore. If not for Obama having one concert with him, few of us would even know his name (except those of us who were already fans), and even fewer would know he was a self-loathing denial-ridden faker. So, lets all get over ourselves a little bit.
Obama will work for our equality, as he has promised, despite also wanting the vote of Christians. He never said he agreed with Donnie McClurkin, and in fact made it clear that he disagreed. That's good enough for me.
If it's not good enough for you, hey, YOU run for President.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 4:12:00 PM
Nice to see that our freedom can be sold for a multi-platinum Grammy!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 4:36:05 PM
I'm sorry to disabuse you of your misunderstandings, Trey, but
1. RE Obama "consistently_ speak[s] out directly and forcebly to the clergy and religious communities, black and white and other, for our rights, he does so often when they don't want to hear it. He speaks truth to power."
No, he speaks partial, usually "passive" truths that are more glitter than gold and have blinded too many to their lack of substance for ACTION.
His convention speech in 2004:
"we've got some gay friends in the Red States”—that was it. Period. The 2004 version of “Some of my best friends are gay.” And TWENTY YEARS after Jesse Jackson said in his Dem Convention keynote, “"The white, the Hispanic, the black, the Arab, the Jew, the woman, the native American, the small farmer, the businessperson, the environmentalist, the peace activist, the young, the old, the lesbian, the gay and the disabled make up the American quilt. … [O]ur nation is a rainbow - red, yellow, brown, black and white - and we're all precious in God's sight. … The Rainbow includes lesbians and gays. No American citizen ought to be denied equal protection from the law."
His announcement speech for President:
"We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants." That was it. Period.
Other places are usually mere variations, cheap combo plates of what he's said before, e.g, at Hampton University:
"They want to divide us into Red States and Blue States, and tell us to always point the finger at somebody else—the other party, or gay people, or people of faith, or immigrants." True, but where’s the call to action? Where’s the unequivocal condemnation of homophobia? Where’s the "beef"? That’s not even beef jerky.
Hopefully before anyone regurgitates YET AGAIN the absurd transformation of his single line at MLK, Jr.'s church into an explicit condemnation of homophobia, repeat, all he said was that people should embrace gays. I don't need hugs, Senator, I need action to dismantle antigay legislation and pass pro gay equality legislation. Congress, the profitable Antigay Industry, and gay demonizing churches aren't Sunday School kindergartens where homohating lions are going to lay down with LGBT lambs!
"His legislative record" is no better than Edwards and Clinton. In fact, his constant claims of being able to bring opposing sides together make it WORSE than theirs given that he couldn't even get one of this close friends, one of his "spiritual advisors," James Meeks, who is both a minister AND Illinois state senator, to vote for Illinois' LGBT rights bill. He failed his first audition as a "uniter" big time. And his encore was McClurkingate.
Finally, it might give you little comfort, but you are one of apparently thousands and thousands who don't understand that repealing Section 2 of DOMA will achieve NOTHING because it does NOT actually prohibit anything. Worse still is that Obama is on record as SUPPORTING the related historical principle: a state's right to deny ANY KIND of same gender union if they want regardless of what happens to that toothless section of DOMA. For the record, too, you're wrong about Edwards—his position is the same as Obama's—repeal all of DOMA, including that now meaningless section, but respect "states' rights." Hillary's only difference is that she sees no point in faking being against them by a hat trick with Section 2.
All three have the same position on repealing Section 3 which DOES ban access to federal rights/benefits to same gender couples.
Obama has sprinkled the G-word in several speeches while rarely calling for ACTION. He has paid lip service to "supporting" some gay rights while rarely identifying how he will execute them. He is unable to convince even those close to him to vote for gay rights while employing a professional homobasher to attract homophobic black voters, yet disinvite his own pastor from giving a prayer at his Presidential bid announcement because that minister has some views some think to be antiSemitic. While he addresses gay issues in other places, his official 64-page "Blueprint for Change" has not one syllable about us.
It's sad what we find once we pull back the curtain. Obama is not a bad man; he's just a very bad Wizard.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 4:37:59 PM
Obama is just so full of talk and not much action. America is an important country, so I'd rather Americans pick someone competent (unlike Obama) with okay values (unlike Mitt). Hillary is the way to go.
I am constantly amazed at how Americans like to elect "likable" characters. If you recall, that was used to elect Bush. This is an interview for the most important job in the world, Americans need to pass better judgement than simple "I like Obama because he symbolizes blah blah blah".
Posted by: Landis | Jan 25, 2008 4:50:27 PM
Obama, like all the other Democratic candidates, is not a disaster for our community. He is also not a particularly exciting choice for our community. All three candidates are disappointingly tepid regarding GLBT advocacy.
What's more important here is the overall picture. Let's not allow ourselves to get too uptight about sub-optimal GLBT support. All three are lightyears ahead of the Republicans in that arena. What's more important is the overall picture... investigate the candidates' plans regarding ending the war, starting new unprovoked wars, the role of the presidency in a system of checks and balances, management of a troubling economic situation, support for an independent judiciary, and attention to America's crumbling infrastructure.
We should also be aware of the practicalities of voting for president this year. It is crucially important that we stop and reverse the BushCo legacy. No politician is perfect (especially at this level), but the stupefying and depraved indifference of the Bush administration has seriously damaged Americans' faith in our republic. We must... MUST... rebuild that before anything else can be accomplished.
Posted by: The Milkman | Jan 25, 2008 4:53:29 PM
Look, none of the candidates are really going to do all that much for the gay community. None of them are really going to stand up for gay marriage, etc. Calling one a savior and another a disaster is just silly and divisive. There is very little difference between Obama and Clinton, except leadership style. I support them both.
Posted by: Henry | Jan 25, 2008 4:53:45 PM
Well put, Henry. I couldn't agree more. I'm for Obama, but I'll be happy with Hillary as well. Some of my gay friends have been so nasty to me about Obama. Well, if Obama gets the nomination, I sure hope the rabid Hillary fans support him. I just want the Democrats to win. Because a Republican would be the REAL disaster (take that, hyperbolic Ehrenstein!).
Posted by: Martin | Jan 25, 2008 5:05:09 PM
David- Our "freedom"? Really? Free yourself, brother.
And Michael- actually, we do need hugs, figuratively speaking. Considering that appealing to Christians is still crucial for a win for either party, and considering that mainstream Christianity is still not even tolerant of homosexuality, let alone accepting, no antigay legislation will be passed in this country until hearts and minds are changed. And getting your average southern, Christian, Donnie McClurkin fan to listen to and vote for a liberal Democrat seems like a few good steps in the right direction to me.
I am as fired up about fighting and winning this culture war as any good homo. But if we want to be listened to, we need to work on our listening skills. We are entitled to our inalienable rights. We are NOT entitled to the respect, tolerance, and full equality we demand as the gay and lesbian community. We must earn those.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:14:23 PM
Sorry- I meant to say:
"No anti-gay legislation will be dismantled in this country...."
Or, alternatively:
"No pro-gay equality legislation will be passed in this country..."
Either one.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:18:10 PM
"Free yourself, brother."
Blow it out your ass!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 5:18:56 PM
"I am as fired up about fighting and winning this culture war as any good homo."
Really? If that's the case then why do you FUCKING GROVEL LIKE AN ANIMAL WITH --
"But if we want to be listened to, we need to work on our listening skills."
How old are you? 14?
" We are entitled to our inalienable rights. We are NOT entitled to the respect, tolerance, and full equality we demand as the gay and lesbian community. We must earn those."
If we are entitled to our inalienable rights then we are ALSO entitled to respect and full equality (fuck "tolerance")
Now crawl back into your Log Cabinette hole and FUCKING DIE!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 5:24:27 PM
As the McClurkin scandal was unfolding, Obama's campaign told LGBT activists in SC that the gay vote did not matter.
Recently, when an LGBT activist greeted Hillary by saying that the SC gay community supported her, she said, "Great, we need your vote."
I'm voting for a candidate that actually appreciates my vote.
Posted by: Clint | Jan 25, 2008 5:35:36 PM
David, I'm almost speechless. Almost.
What's wrong with listening more intently to the debate over our rights? Because you're tired of ignorance and intolerance, you've chosen to hold your hands over your ears and just scream about being accepted?
You don't think that our understanding of our enemy is key to our overcoming their hatred and fear of us? You think we can just slash-n-burn our way to equality?
I'll be fighting next to you the whole time, but I'm not sharing any of my animal crackers with you.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:52:52 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Landis. Americans are OBSESSED with LIKABILITY in a candidate, and it will be our downfall. Bush was likable to millions of idiots who voted for him twice, while Gore and Kerry were labelled as "cold and robotic". The same thing is constantly being said about Hillary.
As far as Obama goes, he is all smoke and mirrors, and could care less about gays or their issues. He is nothing more than a conservative in sheeps clothing.
Posted by: michael | Jan 25, 2008 6:33:46 PM
"Because you're tired of ignorance and intolerance, you've chosen to hold your hands over your ears and just scream about being accepted?"
I don't "scream about being accepted" at all. I never have. It's simply not becoming in a 61 year-old who has been fighting for gay rights since 1969.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 6:50:51 PM
Eww. Who is this David Ehrenstein annoyance? He needs to be dispatched.
Posted by: GM | Jan 25, 2008 6:51:47 PM
Jeff, I will give you the benefit of the doubt re your intentions that your rhetoric belies.
I don't know how old you are, but know that David and I are about the same age. If we're older, I don't mean to suggest that "older is ALWAYS wiser," but it does allow one more time to observe the actions, read and listen to the words of others. In short, I don't need to listen to them—I've heard it ALL before. So much so that I could "play one on TV."
Further, David's being reared a Roman Catholic in the days when American Catholics tended to be as dogmatic as Pope RATzinger is now, and my being reared in evangelical churches, without speaking for you, I'm confidant we know VISCERALLY a thing or two about how unwilling religious-driven homophobes are to listening, change, whatever.
Maybe of part of the problem is that Obama doesn't. While he began to do social work among people of color in Chicago as a young adult, he spent most of his childhood outside the US. He's written, "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." He did not experience the Jim Crow days in the US. I know of no evidence that deep-seated hatred of others by others is something he has seen first hand, as Hillary did in Arkansas and Edwards did in South Carolina. I'm not suggesting the "he's not black enough" silliness, but I'm saying that his lack of direct experience re racial bigotry has not helped him understand, as gay black civil right icon Bayard Rustin wrote 22 years ago, when Obama was only 25, that "the new 'niggers' are gays."
Not only is that a fact, not only is homophobia among millions felt today as "to the bone" as racism was 50 years ago [and still is among too many] but I am always confused when Obama talks about such dialogue, as if he imagines some compromise between us. What EXACTLY would he—or you—have me surrender? I'm not asking them to stop believing nonsense, just that they stop using that nonsense as justification for denying me my civil liberties. I would respectfully ask them to get their fucking hands off the Constitution! I would add that it would be more Christian or whatever to stop physically and/or emotionally brutalizing, disowning, etc., their LGBT children. I can send you stories about those who've been killed by their parents in the name of fighting gay sin if you'd like.
The strange contradiction in Obama is that, as I understand it, he never took religion too seriously until he joined the United Church of Christ a few years ago. So I cannot understand, though possibly his books explain, how he continues to tell us that we should let those believers who would legally deny us marriage equality alone and accept second-class citizenship when the official position of the UCC supports marriage equality.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 6:56:59 PM
David- I must say, I'm utterly flattered to be told to "FUCKING DIE" by a man as published and accomplished as yourself, but if screaming for acceptance isn't becoming in a man of your stature, why is bashing me?
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 7:05:13 PM
I had planned to vote for Obama before the Rev McClurkin incident, and it was not 'Obama having one concert with him' he was in charge of a weekend fundraiser.
When told of his statements, not to mention McClurkin performing at the 2004 GOP convention, 'Obama refused to drop the singer from his three-day "Embrace the Change" gospel tour.'
Now between him and his wife playing the victim of a nasty political fight I can't even look at him without my stomach turning. What do they think the GOP would do to them in the fall? I hope that in time he wins me over, because I did like his speech at the 2004 convention, but Obama is nothing but a fake as far as I am concerned.
That and the fact that he has no chance of getting any votes in the south, besides from the black community and a few very liberal whites. He may make it through the 2/5 Super Tuesday vote, but he's pretty much toast after that, and slim chance Hillary will pick him for VP.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Jan 25, 2008 7:10:16 PM
Now that its becoming clear that no one in the democratic party gives a damn about gay and lesbian citizens, maybe we can drop the leftist creeps for good and look at the one who would be best for the whole country. McCain is not beholden to the evangelicals and his middle of the road approach would be refreshing. As for the war in Iraq, its too late to pull out totally anyway, so like a herpes outbreak we need to wait for it to heal up. McCain has been battle hardened. I don't think he would do anything more foolish regarding Iraq than Obama. As for the economy, I would take McCain anyday over a Obama or Clinton who will find more and more creative ways to tax higher and give away more money to more people who haven't earned it.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Jan 25, 2008 9:15:04 PM
Spare yourself decades more of disappointment and self-delusion, Vi Agara, and just kill yourself now.
Your hero McCain didn't even know what "LGBT" stands for four months ago! When asked if he thought condoms helped prevent AIDS, he said he had no idea. When asked about DADT, he said keep it and, "I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen [discussion of] the issue." McCain voted no on extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Voted for DOMA. When asked about Bush saying we may have to be in Iraq another 50 years, McCain said 100—think about your taxes in relation to that!
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 11:09:38 PM
The only person that will help and not harm the gay community running is Hillary,maybe Edwards,obama panders to the intense homophobia in the black community and its religous leaders.And for the person who said Mccain, is that a joke,any gay person who can vote repulibcan in these defining days for gays and lesbians deserves to succomb to what they dish out or wors,Mccain has never voted for any gay right and supports all the evil-gelical agenda of the far right at least with his votes,shame on any gay voting gop.
Posted by: Chad | Jan 26, 2008 12:05:35 AM
The only person that will help and not harm the gay community running is Hillary,maybe Edwards,obama panders to the intense homophobia in the black community and its religous leaders.And for the person who said Mccain, is that a joke,any gay person who can vote repulibcan in these defining days for gays and lesbians deserves to succomb to what they dish out or wors,Mccain has never voted for any gay right and supports all the evil-gelical agenda of the far right at least with his votes,shame on any gay voting gop.
Posted by: Chad | Jan 26, 2008 12:06:43 AM
FIRST, he’s a Democrat, a political hustler in a right centrist party who’ll say anything to get elected. As Gore Vidal said says “We have one party - we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.” A vote for either party is a vote for people whose pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage and gutting of ENDA make them open opponents of GLBT equality.
SECOND, like Clinton the Dixiecrat and the Republicans he openly, arrogantly and unashamedly panders to gay bashing christian bigots.
THIRD, like the Dixiecrat Clinton and the Republicans he’s a candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests; his contributors are a virtual rogue’s gallery of parasites including: Goldman Sachs $430,578,JP Morgan Chase & Co $273,359,Exelon Corp $269,100, Kirkland & Ellis $256,089, Sidley Austin LLP $241,525, Lehman Brothers $241,090,Citigroup Inc $207,500,Skadden, Arps et al $206,271 etc.
FOURTH, Obama was the first presidential candidate to support the NAFTA Peru extension bill before Congress. Look at his list of donors above and his stand makes perfect sense. The AFL-CIO, all Peruvian unions and most environmental and anti-poverty organizations oppose NAFTA because it’s used to pauperize workers, bust unions and is an environmental disaster. Obama, Clinton and most Republicans support NAFTA. They have to if they want corporate money.
FIFTH, in spite of all his hype about the war one thing remains crystal clear, neither he, Edwards, Clinton and the Republicans can end the war. A victory by the Iraqis will end it, just like the war in Vietnam was ended. Obama would spread the war to Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons. All the leading Democratic and Republican candidates flatly refuse to promise withdrawal before 2013.
SIXTH, like Clinton and the Republicans, Obama is a handpuppet for the HMO, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Don’t get sick if one of them wins. The National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO condemns Obama, saying “Obama has chosen to give more customers and more public funds to the for-profit insurance corporations. It’s an expensive gift and one that allows them to continue meddling in medical decision-making while raking in obscene blood-money profits.”
SEVENTH, his appointees to the court will be approved by the companies that own him and the right wing christians he panders to. her democrats pander to. Like Dixiecrat Bill Clintons appointees they’ll do what’s right for the right for the rich.
EIGHTH, and most important, if enough people vote for him he might win. Anyone older that eight or nine years old who believes campaign promises is not that much older than eight or nine. With Democrats like these who needs Republicans. A Republican candidate is a loud-mouthed baboon in a people suit with a theocratic christian attached at the hip. A Democratic candidate is a Republican in drag.
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Jan 26, 2008 12:52:06 AM
The left should look at itself before pointing the finger at others. There's a serious lack of investment in the Democratic Party among social democrats and liberals. In fact, if voter registration was an indication of anything, the Democrats should beat the GOP by 22 million votes every election. The problem is registered Democrats are far more likely to switch sides, throw away their vote in a hissy fit, or bail out completely.
While the right-wing marches in step with the GOP (even when they don't get everything they want), the left always threaten to call off the alliance with the Democrats at the first sign of trouble. Thus, the Democratic base is fickle and disloyal, forcing Democratic politicians to move further and further to the right to find reliable support. A party's ideological commitment is only as strong as the base.
Posted by: John | Jan 26, 2008 11:34:38 AM
To Michael: To the faults you toss out at McCain. Ignorance on these issues means the ability for him to adjust, learn, judge and act maturely once in office, rather than possessing the etched- in- stone dogmatism of an idealogue that only results in a civil war mentality in this country. McCain has many times exhibited contempt for the evangelical right, which is our only hope, not only for gay men but the country as a whole. Its not the politicians, its the politicians who give the preachers an ear. The preachers have caused this problem we face, the politicians in thier hold act like dicks, even though a lot of them are gay, because of them. The president needs to be one who rejects the preacher as ultimate authority on morality and governance. McCain is the only one who will do it imo.
To John: Marching lock step with leftists to get a few political crumbs, so to be as the right wing is with the GOP,is a poor excuse for personal world view. Matter of fact its disgusting and what is now tearing up the GOP to shreds.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Jan 26, 2008 12:47:54 PM
Also Michael, on Iraq, whether the country is in Iraq 50 or 100 years and the associated fed dollars to continue it will have nothing to do with who is president. Obama is not going to pull out of Iraq, no matter what he says now. Hlllary at least is pragmatic enough to know its not a possibilty and is not going to over promise something like that. The war in Iraq will be seen as Obama's first lie if elected. Read my lips....
Who in their right mind would elect an untested, politiclly inexperienced leftist to one of the most powerful positions in the world in the middle of a difficult war and global economic situation? Its madness.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Jan 26, 2008 12:57:48 PM
Also Michael you should try to debate from a higher ground. People take you more seriously when opening with something other than a reoommendation that your sparring partner off himself. It comes across as weak and pathetic. By the way, I intend to live forever. Research the singularity.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Jan 26, 2008 1:06:02 PM
Yeah, you can feign outrage and get all holier-than-thou. But it has absolutely nothing to do with "personal world view", and you know it.
Republicans weren't complaining when the religious right put you in power from 1980-2006. Now, all of a sudden, it's "our party's being hijacked by extremists."
It also amuses me that these same GOPers are claiming that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are somehow immune to the influence of the far right. This, despite the fact that they've been politicians through decades of growing fundamentalism and did nothing to hinder it. And really, why would they stop a force that's responsible for giving them more power? Are you really that naive?
Posted by: John | Jan 26, 2008 1:11:16 PM
Look, it's either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Do y'all want John McCain (an honorable man) appeasing the right-wing of his party when appointing Supreme Court Justices? Be realistic homos! It's either Barack or Hillary.
Sometimes I think me and the Queen, and Grandma Mary of England, Scotland, Ireland(occurpied Ireland), Wales, Empress of India, Goddess of Newark, etc. are the only ones on this blog who have any sense...and between the three of us there's about 300 years of queendom. There would be no "GAY" without queens--we invented it. The rest of y'all were just men fuckin' men.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 26, 2008 2:40:41 PM
TOO much credit is given to Obama's "words" at this MLK event.
He does not challange this community to work for or even acknowledge the CIVIL RIGHTS of the LGBT community.
"If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."
Inspiring words and sentiment from a pastor but as a politician he needs to say: so passage of a comprehensive ENDA bill or hate Crimes legislation and the need to recognize Civil Unions. THEN and only THEN will Sen Obama can earn any marks for courage or leadership.
Again..soring rhetoric but no leadership.
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jan 26, 2008 4:36:27 PM
This just in: Exit polls predict black voters gave Obama an "overwhelming victory" in South Carolina—and rise to a new political term: The McClurkin Factor.
If Obama wins the general election I suppose Donnie will be singing at his swearing in ceremonies, and McClurkin's fellow "Hate Homos for Jesus" Rev. Hames Meeks or Rev. TD Jakes giving the invocation.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 26, 2008 8:43:07 PM
As Leland so aptly put it, ‘The McClurkin Factor' helped Obama win with bigot votes. It’s another shining example of the Democrats inclination to betray GLBT folks.
Whether Clinton or Obama are nominated they’ll pick up bigot votes because Barney Frank gutted ENDA and was rewarded with a leading role in Hillary’s campaign. ENDA, like DADT, DOMA and the Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill won’t be wedge issues for the Republicans in 2008 –the Democrats made them all conveniently disappear.
When the question of civil unions and samesex marriage come up Dixiecrat Clinton, pandering to bigots apes an earlier Dixiecrat, George Wallace, and says these are ‘state rights’ questions. Then she repeats her pigheaded opposition to same sex marriage, just like Obama.
We’re told to hold our noses and ignore the stench of this unending string of betrayals and vote for a party that can’t seem to pass up a chance to betray us. We’re told that we have to vote for these Republicans in drag because they only appoint pro-GLBT judges. The people who make this claim are either brain dead, can’t read, or have an agenda that exalts disinformation as much as the Swiftboat Republicans. Bill Clinton appointed a judge to the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals that votes with bigots. Congressional Democrats led by Dianne Feinstein rammed through the approval of Bush nominated bay bashers for the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals and to head up the Justice (sic) Department.
Leland, did they make those moves in a vacuum or because they're cowards unwilling or take a stand in an election year? Are they afraid, as usual, that the Republicans will call them ‘queer lovers’ even though it’s a lie? When you say the Democrats have ‘moved on’ it seems pretty clear that they moved on by trampling over us and our rights.
Leland, how did you come up with your prophecy that the Democrats will be better after 2008? Do you have an astrologer? Did you walk by a burning bush that let you in on the secrets of the future? Is it in Nostradamus? An assumption that preposterous ought to have some backing. Tell us who revealed this to you? How did you make your ‘leap of faith’? And how can you stomach the idea of voting for fakes like Clinton or Obama. Oh, now I remember, you’re a Democrat.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Jan 26, 2008 11:41:28 PM
I am absolutely floored by this discussion. Obama is not disastrous for our community, the Democratic party has not thrown gay issues under the bus, and absolutely no liberal politician will endorse an agenda that every liberal likes.
Americans of all persuasions are voting for issues that are far larger than the GLBT political agenda-- the economy, access to health care, end to the quagmire in Iraq. I am not certain that any politician will focus on the narrow interests of an extremely small community under the current conditions. I would argue that the vast majority of GLBT people are more concerned with the larger issues as well.
Perhaps the GLBT movement should take a page from Baynard Rustin's book and decide the best strategy for pushing forward without getting push back.
Posted by: David Tanner | Jan 27, 2008 12:10:22 PM
NOTHING is larger than the GLBT agenda!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 27, 2008 12:57:30 PM
David Tanner says "Americans of all persuasions are voting for issues that are far larger than the GLBT political agenda..." Correct, and that’s why we’re even more determined to expose the ‘lesser evil’ shell game so loved by ‘liberals’. That’s why millions of Americans are beginning to oppose Democrats and Republicans on al the issues.
Tanner simply lies when says that "the Democratic party has not thrown gay issues under the bus". They raped ENDA and dropped it and the Hate Crimes bill and they obstinately refuse to repeal DOMA and DADT even though they've controlled congress for two year. They're too cowardly to support us before the elections and will be just as bad after the elections.
If you will look at our objections to Obama, Clinton and their Republican cousins you'll see that they ALL support the war and oppose socialized medicine. Their bipartisan union busting laws like NAFTA and tax breaks for the bloated rich have ruined the economy. The Democrats and Republicans sold us out and sabotaged our standard of living in exchange for a few shekels from the rich. They epitomize the Devils Dictionary definition of politic as “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”
Liberals and centrists are becoming irrelevant because the time for apologizing for the Democrats and Republicans is over. ‘Lesser evil’ is a scam and tens of millions of Americans refuse to buy into it. Why should we. They, and we, are drawing a line in the sand.
David Ehrenstein, you're right when you say that for us "NOTHING is larger than the GLBT agenda!" But keep in mind that
there's no contradiction between opposing Democrats for selling us out and opposing them for selling out unions, the antiwar movement, the aged, people without insurance, immigrant and imported workers, minorities and etc. They're equal opportunity backstabbers.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Jan 27, 2008 8:26:20 PM
First, my opinion is not a lie.
I agree that corporate interests as well as a few PACs have hijacked our country and ruined our economy. I also agree that there are many shady politicians on both sides of the isle. I would add that even the unions and some of the grassroots organizations are selling the average Joe's concerns. However, millions of Americans realize that we only have two viable political parties. Rarely does an independent have the money and support to run a national campaign. The people can only choose between what is available. (Bill, are there any other options?)
Yes, there are many things larger than the GLBT agenda, as I stated in my first posting. The ability of gay folks to get married is simply not the same as an individual struggling to pay for medication. A GLBT couple who lost their home due to sleazy loan practices is not claiming gay discrimination. A soldier dodging road bombs in the desert is not worried about Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The goals of the GLBT agenda are achievable. I am merely saying that the community must be strategic in its work to achieve those goals. We must argue, as the Human Rights Campaign does, that gay rights are good for America-- our agenda is your agenda too. At this very critical juncture in American politics, we cannot afford lose another election by bashing the very folks who are more likely to help us achieve our goals.
Posted by: David Tanner | Jan 28, 2008 12:56:14 AM