Backstreet Boys | Barack Obama | Donnie McClurkin | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | News

BigGayDeal.com

Clinton References McClurkin in Swing at Obama's Gay Record

In an interview today with the Washington Blade, editor Kevin Naff asks Hillary Clinton about "critics who say Obama is more likely to address gay issues in front of a non-gay audience." (Obama specifically mentioned gays and lesbians most recently in his MLK Day speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, and in his speech following Ted Kennedy's endorsement)

Clinton_22Responds Clinton: "I find it ironic since Sen. Obama had his gospel tour with [Donnie] McClurkin that he and his supporters would take credit for that."

Clinton again defended her position on DOMA. She favors repealing the portion which prohibits the recognition of same-sex couples while Obama favors repealing the entire act.

Says Clinton: "I believe that my position reflects the experience I had fighting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. At the time, I was chair of the Democratic Steering & Outreach Committee and I worked hand-in-hand with [the Human Rights Campaign] and other members of the LGBT community to stop the amendment. We’d already seen the success the Republican majority had had in 2002, 2004 in using this as a wedge issue. I was able to explain to other senators that DOMA ensured marriage would be left to the states — that was critical in defeating the amendment. It gave us an argument with both Republicans and Democrats. We cannot count on the political atmosphere staying favorable. That’s something we’ve learned to our unfortunate detriment and I think we are in a much stronger position to bury forever the Federal Marriage Amendment and other mean-spirited, discriminatory legislation."

Clinton also speaks on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' ENDA, and her willingness to use forceful advocacy towards gay rights measures.

An interview with Hillary Clinton [washington blade]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Obama more recently referred to gay folks at his Seattle speech on Friday, the 8th. It's a standard part of his stump speech. I don't know about Clinton (in more ways than one).

    Posted by: Seattle | Feb 11, 2008 1:25:04 PM


  2. Clinton also addresses gay issues at her campaign stops. You can watch the candidates on CNN, they follow all of them on their tours.

    Posted by: Mike | Feb 11, 2008 1:31:02 PM


  3. McClurkin is such a non-issue for me when it comes to Obama. Anyone using that to cast aspersions on him is really stretching for something, anything, they can make into a smear. Obama is not required to endorse the views of every person who supports him. He's ready to ditch DOMA, DADT, and supports federal recognition of civil unions. Does Hillary?

    Posted by: Mike | Feb 11, 2008 1:37:24 PM


  4. Zing! But her keeping article 2 sucks. So...

    Posted by: Jersey | Feb 11, 2008 1:47:52 PM


  5. In response to Mike: yes she does.

    I don't think that the McClurkin issue is meant as a malicious smear, but more a a point of skepticism to draw upon. It makes me really nervous to see someone like that hand-in-hand with Obama. I know who is in Hillary's pockets, and I know the capacity she operates in with them in tow. With Obama and McClurkin, I'm not sure where his loyalties lie, that scares me. Finally, he is not required to endorse every supporters views, but if you are doing a campaign tour with them, you should expect some fallout if they hold such ignorant beliefs.

    Posted by: Tyler | Feb 11, 2008 1:48:40 PM


  6. to Mike, re: 'Obama is not required to endorse the views of every person who supports him." No, but he should endorse the views of every person he SHARES THE STAGE WITH. McClurkin was not a random supporter, he was speaking FOR the Obama campaign, on stage at an Obama rally, in appealing to (largely homophobic) African-American evangelicals. Note: I am PRO-Obama. But, as a gay man used to being thrown under the train to garner votes, I must say the McClurkin thing was not a smear. P.S. I am glad Clinton would repeal DADT, I am still pissed at the Bill Clinton for breaking his campaign promise and equivocating with that sh*tty legislation...

    Posted by: Strepsi | Feb 11, 2008 1:49:40 PM


  7. FACT: Barack Obama supports a full repeal of DOMA, Hillary Clinton does not.

    FACT: Barack Obama never embraced "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Hillary Clinton did until 1999 when she said she had a problem with its implementation.

    FACT: Hillary Clinton said in the Logo Forum that Bill Clinton saved us from the FMA by signing DOMA - COMPLETE revisionist history.

    FACT: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war.

    A gay voter has a clear choice in my mind.

    Posted by: John | Feb 11, 2008 1:56:09 PM


  8. Obama is too educated to believe in McClurkin's message. He needed McClurkin's drawing power on the tour. He's probably told Michelle in bed, "that McClurkin's still as gay as they come. Everytime he came near me I had to cover my back."

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 11, 2008 1:59:56 PM


  9. Hillary has her own repudiating to attend to: Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry. And they've been on her payroll! At least McClurkin isn't on the Obama payroll.

    Posted by: chris | Feb 11, 2008 2:05:24 PM


  10. Jersey, Washington Blade, et al.: it is insane-making that the myth about Section 2 of DOMA has such a shelf life. And that Obama continues to get away with misrepresenting his position just like he does his lie about being responsible for passing a gay rights bill in Illinois.

    DOMA S.2 has NEVER been more than a pat on states' heads saying, OK, do what you want. It NEVER told them they had to BAN gay relationships. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: How could we now have gay marriages in Massachussetts and domestic partnerships/civil unions in nearly a dozen other states if it does? And why would some 45 states have passed their own laws banning either marriage or any type of gay relationship if there was a federal law doing that?

    Obama's support for repeal of S2 is mere political smile fucking when he is on record as supporting a state's right to do whatever it wants REGARDLESS of DOMA. Don't believe me? Check out the link below from which the following is quoted from an ABC interview in August with Obama spokesman [and his Constitutional law professor at Harvard] Lawrence Tribe, emphasis mine. Aren't you TIRED of being played stupid, people????

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3468949&page=1

    “OBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES. He wants to fully repeal DOMA, however, because he views the statute as "ineffectual and redundant," in the words of Tribe. OBAMA BELIEVES A LONG-RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION'S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EXEMPTS A STATE FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FROM ANOTHER STATE WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO ITS OWN PUBLIC POLICIES.
    "MARRIAGE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT STATES HAVE EVER BEEN OBLIGED TO RECOGNIZE IF IT'S BEEN AGAINST THEIR OWN PUBLIC POLICY," said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress. "SAME-SEX COUPLES IN MASSACHUSETTS ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED EXCEPT THAT THE REPEAL OF DOMA IS A WAY OF TELLING THAT COUPLE THAT THEIR MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS IS NOT GOING TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A SYMBOLIC AND INEFFECTUAL SLAM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."
    ..............
    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    "NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED"

    Is anybody listening?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 11, 2008 2:09:37 PM


  11. ROFLMAO

    Derrick

    "that McClurkin's still as gay as they come. Everytime he came near me I had to cover my back."

    LOL

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 2:22:24 PM


  12. Bedwell,

    Aren't your rants tiresome enough already? Must you take up additional acreage with CONTROL-V spasms?

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 11, 2008 2:23:38 PM


  13. If Hillary fought it, why didn't Bill Clinton veto it? His veto would have been overridden anyway. It would have been plitically expensive for them - but what's the point of ethical comittments if we don't sometimes have to sacarifice for them? What's the point of having a veto (and the subsequent possibility of override) if not for presidents to formally announce their opposition to legislation. I don't doubt Bill and Hillary are enlightened in their attitudes toward gay people - but I know that when push came to shove he avoided bucking public opinion and signed DOMA into law. I can't help but feel Hillary would have done exactly the same thing.

    The fact that Obama would choose to address homophobia at speeches given to baptist churches in the south shows he is a much more fearless promoter of gay interests. He could simply avoid bringing up up the subject altogether and I doubt anyone would notice. I'd be happy to see/hear Hillary address gay rights in a church-centered campaign stop - anybody got one? Gays have all the like-minded friends we need - it's not enough for Hillary and Bill to like us. They need to be willing to fight for us and willing to risk political capital. Hillary (and certainly not Bill) seems to have never been willing to do that.

    Posted by: kipp | Feb 11, 2008 2:49:47 PM


  14. One errant campaign event does not compare to the Clinton legacy of DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama is the only candidate who consistely speaks about gay dignity without being prompted, often before hostile groups. I have never heard Hillary mention gays -- except at her gay fundraisers or in the gay media. She cannot be trusted.

    Posted by: Jim | Feb 11, 2008 2:55:24 PM


  15. What disturbs me is not whether Hillary is better for the GLBT community or whether Barack is better for the GLBT community. What disturbs me is the fervor with which individuals who typically vote Democrat have embraced EITHER Barack Obama OR Hillary Clinton, but not both candidates. Of course most everyone is going to have some preference between the two Democratic candidates. And no one gets the chance to vote for Hillary and Obama in the primaries. But it does seem to me that far too many Democrats have decided that if 'their' candidate doesn't get the nod for Democratic nomination, they'll just tune out the remainder of the race.

    Over the weekend, I ran into an old roommate who told me that if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination based not on the popular vote, but on the votes of the super delegates, he'll just stay home on the day of the general election to "send a message". Another friend walked up at that moment, so I didn't get a chance to tell my old roommate that the only "message" he'll be sending to Washington by staying home on the day of the general election is that it is fine by him to have another eight years of Republicans stepping the rights of faggots/dykes/trannies.

    Another friend told me that her husband (a very liberal, counter-culture type) plans to vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton get the nomination. And yet another person told me she'd stay home on the day of the general election if Barack Obama gets the nomination.

    PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! This is NOT the way to win the equal rights that GLBT Americans deserve under the U.S. Constitution. This is not the way to ensure federal protection by including GLBT people in federal hate crimes laws. This is not the way to defeat those from the religious right who would turn our government into a theocracy. This is not the way to put an end to this shameless war. This is not the way to solve the healthcare crisis in this country. This is not the way to make sure the Federal Marriage Amendment dies an ugly, painful death.

    This sort of either/or attitude is *exactly* what the Republicans want from us. And such an attitude will buy another 4, maybe 8, years of Republican rule.

    Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are good candidates for the GLBT community. Neither one of them is perfect. But they are both very, very good.

    Posted by: peterparker | Feb 11, 2008 3:02:33 PM


  16. Bedwell speaks the truth as far as I'm concerned...so rant on Bedwell, my stranger-friend!

    Hillary understands the way government works when you are dealing with idiot Republicans(especially in the south). She knows that some things take small steps to attain the big goal.

    I love how quickly people forgetthat the Don't ask, Don't tell bill was the FIRST piece of legislation Bill Clinton put into law, and at that time, he was making inroads for the gay community. Show me any politians of that time that were speaking to the gay issues besides the Clintons.

    The Clintons have always supported the gay community, and known how to get us to our ultimate goal of equal rights, one step at a time.

    I would bet you that Hillary would never have allowed McClurkin on stage with her with his bullshit. The reason Obama did was because he wanted the Black Evangelical vote, no matter what the cost. Have any of you supporters of Obama looked at Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Obama's pastor who is a major homophobe and bigot?

    Those who say Obama is not politics as usual don't have their eyes open.

    I heard Obama saying the other day that if you're in Washington to long, then you become corrupted by the way Washington works.

    So does that mean Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Edward Kennedy who he loves to name drop are his biggest supporters corrupted by the Washington as well???

    Give me a break.

    Posted by: daniel | Feb 11, 2008 3:06:46 PM


  17. Michael just doesn't get it. Full repeal of DOMA is ESSENTIAL for symbolic reasons. Every bit of this law is as hateful now as it was then. Overturning a section of it only serves to validate the original law.... Exactly what we don't want to be doing.

    The legal reasons for overturning are secondary.

    Posted by: John | Feb 11, 2008 3:16:02 PM


  18. If Obama gets the nomination, I am voting for McCain.

    Why? Because anyone that spouts a line that of hope, when really they are just as devisive, if not more devisive than other canidates, I do not trust.

    Michelle Obama said that if her husband doesn't get the nomination, she's not sure she'll vote for Hillary. I've never heard Bill say that about Barack.

    I want someone, even if I don't like their policies, I know where they stand.

    Go Hillary is what I'm hopeful of. She is CHANGE I believe in, and more than believing in her, I BELIEVE what she says!

    Posted by: jeffbecker | Feb 11, 2008 3:16:08 PM


  19. Of courseMcClurkin is no matter of importance to Obama supporters. It seems Barack breaks wind and many gather around to bask in it's gaseous glory.

    Same with the war. Obama says he didn't know how he'd vote three years ago, but now he's the anti-war candidate. He's so against the war in Iraq, he continues to fund it.

    Hillary and Barack, for all their faults, are still better than President John McCain. I hope we all remember that in November regardless of the outcome of the Democratic race.

    Posted by: Marco | Feb 11, 2008 3:18:04 PM


  20. Sorry but she's willing to leave a discriminatory law on the books no matter how you (Michael) feel it will be interpreted. Oh and she also voted for the war. She's hardly a person for change.

    Posted by: Jersey | Feb 11, 2008 3:43:49 PM


  21. She's so full of empty sentences. The things she says don't follow each other logically. She says that she thinks she's in a much stronger position to repeal the FMA - does she mean that Obama, than she was in the past, than people have been in the past because of her work on DOMA, what? She wants us to fill in the blanks with whatever makes us happy, instead of noticing that what she's saying doesn't stand up by itself.

    Posted by: oakling | Feb 11, 2008 3:51:42 PM


  22. See, she even has me doing it. She didn't say anything about repeal- she said "bury forever," which could mean anything.

    Posted by: oakling | Feb 11, 2008 3:52:52 PM


  23. Could somebody please show Michael Bedwell how to set up a Blogspot page so he can take his freakshow somewhere else?

    Posted by: crispy | Feb 11, 2008 3:53:53 PM


  24. I repeat that I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. I just hope he doesn't because I think that every one of Sen. Clinton's positions from health care outward are better; that she would kick ass in the White House while he would still be trying to create "change" and fight the Republican Religious Right by shouting, "'Kumbaya', everybody! ONE MORE TIME!", and I don't want to reward his naked lies to us, his half lies to us, and his substitution of smile fucking for substance.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 11, 2008 3:54:04 PM


  25. Jeff Becker, you said the following:

    "I want someone, even if I don't like their policies, I know where they stand."

    Am I to infer then you voted for W twice?

    This logic is a little silly in my opinion -- if you go to the candidates' websites and read their positions on the issues, you can find out where they stand. Anyone waiting to hear policy specifics in a stump speech is going to be disappointed.

    Posted by: David | Feb 11, 2008 3:54:12 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «McCain 08: Like Hope, But Depressing « «