A question about the Obama McClurkin thing

[BL611]

I've noticed a lot of people seem to be real hung up on Obama accepting the support of Donnie McClurkin, so I have a question:

The reality is that black voters(in general,obviously there are many exceptions) make up the most socially conservative wing of the Democratic Party, and as a group hold social views more akin to white Republicans than white Democrats. Do you people who are angry at Obama for accepting McClurkin's support think that the Democratic Party should refuse the support of the majority of African Americans (especially older ones who tend to be the most socially conservative as well as the most loyal voters) who happen to hold views similar to McClurkin?

[IndianaJones]

1. uh..what? nt.

[BL611]

2. I apologize for the typos

they have been edited.

[dbackjon]

3. You are saying that since many older African-Americans are BIGOTS

That we should, as Democrats pander to them to get there votes?


HELL NO.


There are far too many common issues that we can win their votes. AND we can be PROGRESSIVE, not Regressive and work to change the culture.

Hand-selecting a hateful, bigoted man like McClurkin to MC a major campaign event is the WORST thing any Democratic candidate has done in years.

It is 10,000s of times worse than any negative issue raised by any other Democrat.



And until Obama apologizes, and shows real leadership, he is known by the company of bigots he keeps.

[emilyg]

4. Excellent.

[BL611]

5. Once again by "bigots"

you are refering to a large amount of the African American community, many old, but also many young (not to mention Latino's). So to clarify, Democrats should drop them?

[dbackjon]

6. Yes, they are homophobic Bigots

Should we tell them NOT to vote Democratic? Nope. They still have more in common with socially liberal Democrats than Repukes.

But, we need to press forward on civil rights, with or without them.

[BL611]

8. Thats fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

Let me ask a slightly different question.

Say Obama or another Democratic Presidential candidate did an event with Andrew Sullivan. Would unions be justified in taking the candidate to task and withdrawing support because of this?

[dbackjon]

29. Did Andrew Sullivan MC the Event?

Was he the headliner?

[FredScuttle]

53. Did Andy Sullivan thank Jesus publicly for delivering him from....unions?

Has Andy Sullivan gone on the 700 Club and proclaimed that UAW membership kills children?

What a ridiculous analogy.

[Maven]

7. Drop them, how?

Nobody's hiring them for a campaign, and no one can control whom they vote for.

What candidates can control is the messages they use to win votes.

Stop confusing the issue, either deliberately or inadvertently.

[BL611]

9. Did Obama's events with McClurkin

have anything to do with an anti gay message?

[maddiejoan]

10. yes

they did

[BL611]

11. Care to

expand on that?

[IndianaJones]

12. doesn't your own OP expand on it? nt.

[BL611]

13. How?

BTW although I cannot say this as a validated fact, I am fairly certain that there are black preachers on the list of South Carolina clergy endorsements that Hillary touts, that hold views similar to McClurkin.

[IndianaJones]

15. I'm sure there are as well. I find them to be as disgusting and do not defend them in any way. nt.

[maddiejoan]

Does Hillary give them a platform to speak from?

[maddiejoan]

14. Sure

McClurkin stood on stage at Obama's "Embrace The Change" concert to deliver his "Ex-Gay" message that God can deliver one from homosexuality, and affirmed the stance that being Gay is a choice.

let me know when Obama apologizes for that.

[BL611]

17. Obama has gone on record

as saying he does not agree with McClurkin's view on homosexuality. As far as I know McClurkin did not sermonize on his feelings about homosexuality, he only touched on the topic by saying:

"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay,' he said. "Don't call me a homophobe, because I love everybody. . . Let me tell you something, the grace of God is given to all men,"

[maddiejoan]

19. McClurkin said way more than just that.

and Obama saying he doesn't agree isn't enough for me.

[BL611]

20. Can you find a quote?

[FredScuttle]

23. “God delivered me from homosexuality"

There's your quote....7th paragraph down

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/obamas-gospel-concert-tour/

Now....why are you excusing Obama for hosting and promoting a bigot?

[BL611]

27. Thanks for the quote.

I'm not excusing him. The Democratic Party is made up of many different constituencies that one must navigate through in a national election. I don't think its right to ask Obama to turn his back on significant part of the Democratic base (and a group he himself happens to be a member of). Obama did not endorse McClurkin's views on homosexuality, he did the opposite. I think maybe Obama should have asked McClurkin to not speak in that way while at one of his events, and I understand why people may be offended.But again, this is where the black community is on this issue, unless you want to turn your back on this group, you have to accept the Democratic Party is a big tent and where going to disagree on certain things we feel strongly about.

[FredScuttle]

39. "the black community" - heh

the "black community" is all over the spectrum on this issue....just like the white and Hispanic and many other groups.

You are taking the filth spewed by homophobic black ministers and extrapolating that to be the views of black Democrats everywhere....bullshit.

our party is a big tent, but REAL Democrats will never accept, excuse, tolerate or reach out to bigotry.

[BL611]

49. Yes I mentioned that in the original post

But the majority of the black community is not where you are, and where you want them to be. I have cited a survey below that supports that, if you have any evidence to the contrary, you're welcome to introduce it.

[FredScuttle]

55. I don't have to provide "evidence to the contrary"

because the surveys you quoted don't support your assertion in your OP - if Democrats don't embrace (or, at the least, tolerate) anti-gay bigotry, then they risk losing a majority of their traditional support among black voters.

You can cite chapter and verse on how black voters don't support gay marriage and the whole nine yards, but you can't provide any meaningful study that says they'll take their vote elsewhere if the Democratic platform includes support for gay rights.

[BL611]

56. Obama's platform

supports gay rights as much as any other major Democratic candidate does.Your putting words in my mouth. YOU don't want Democrats to actively associate with socially conservative blacks, if Democrats turn their back on this group, of course they will lose votes.. Look at Ohio '04 why do you think Bush had a large increase in black voters. The OP is a tough question, but rather than answering it you would like to knock down strawmen.

[FredScuttle]

64. Geesh...talk about strawmen

you're the one taking the example of an "ex-gay" clown bigot and asserting that he is of like mind with a majority of black voters. What a canard!

Also, do you think that the results in Ohio in 2004 had anything to do with, you know....voter suppression?

[NMMNG]

69. Obama endorsed McClurkin's views

He endorsed them when he hired the man to sing for his campaign tour, let him MC the entire event, let him give a 30 minute sermon demonizing LGBT people, and most of all when he said after the whole thing; "I was right not to drop Donnie McClurkin".


That's right. Despite pleading from the LGBT community Obama refused to pull McClurkin from the event. Then he promised McClurkin was only going to sing some songs, but then McClurkin ended up MCing the entire event. And, Obama promised, McClurkin certainly wasn't going to be preaching. But he preached a 30 minute sermon against gays. Yet after all was said and done Obama had the audacity to say I was right not to drop Donnie McClurkin.

So he gave explicit endorsement to everything that SOB said and did, because he wanted the votes and $$$ from the bigots.

[maddiejoan]

26. Here's the full pile of crap.

http://thejusticeofmh.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

If you're good with a man saying Homosexuality is a sin, and that God can deliver one from homosexuality --then I guess it's all good for you.

[LostinVA]

34. Zero wiggle room on civil rights

Dr. King would agree.

[BL611]

38. By all accounts

Dr. King wasn't sympathetic to gay rights. Sorry, you can't rewrite history

[FredScuttle]

48. "by all accounts"

Please do enlighten us to Dr. King's anti-gay views.

[LostinVA]

60. I can't wait to see who the poster thinks trumps Mrs. King

[Bluebear]

58. Yes, do cite all these "accounts" for us?

[LostinVA]

59. By all legit accounts, he was

Unless you want to call Coretta Scott King a liar.

Sorry, you can't rewrite history.

[LostinVA]

67. *crickets*

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

68. Please explain to me how Dr. King opposed my basic humanity, when Mrs. King said otherwise. n/t

[msongs]

16. obama endorsed mcclurkin and gave him a public stage to spread his views nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbackjon]

35. So personally selecting him to be the MC and headline a major campaign event

Is not an endorsement?


God, that is a pathetic defense of an indefencable action. I have read more intellegent responses in Freeperville.


So condemn Obama for his endorsement of anti-gay hate.

Otherwise, you are a HYPOCRITE.

[FredScuttle]

57. Don't forget Obama defended that decision

rather than apologize for Pastor McClurkin's ugly homophobic rant, Obama threw out some inane general comments about needing to "reach out" to bigots like McClurkin and further insulted LGBT Democrats by saying McClosetCase "DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES"....meaning that unhappy gays better watch out because Rev. Donnie gonna pray the gay right out of them

[Politicub]

21. I've read your question three times

and it still doesn't make sense, because Obama did more than "accept" McClurkin's support. He put him on stage as the emcee of his SC roadshow. It was a poke in the eye to the gay community, and Obama clearly didn't mind pissing us off. He made a calculated decision by putting McClurkin on stage -- which is far beyond accepting his support.

:crazy:

[BL611]

22. He made a calculated decision

based on McClurkin's popularity in the black community, not to offend gays. I would ask you to look at the alternative question I posted about Andrew Sullivan in this thread also, nobody has answered that yet.

[Politicub]

25. Your second question is a strawman, which

isn't grounded in the reality of what actually happened. But to play your game, if Obama did place Sullivan on stage, I would think it to be quite bizarre but not offensive. But, Sullivan doesn't rise to the same level of odiousness as McClurkin for me. Forgive me if I don't find anti-union opinion as vile as ex-gay spew.

[BL611]

32. You don't

But what about those who do?

What about those who say social issues aren't a big thing for me, but I strongly support economic fairness, should they wallop Obama for accepting the support of someone they disagree with?

[Politicub]

36. Sure, it's up to them

I can't control anyone but myself. If someone gets that up in arms about something, who am I to try and change their mind?

You are the most bizarre inquisitor I've encountered on DU - and that's saying a lot! I know you must have an agenda, but I'm scratching my head at what it could possibly be. Are you part of the "Through the Looking Glass party" or something?

[BL611]

41. Yes I have an agenda

Just like you do and everyone else here does.I am an Obama supporter. But I was asking an honest question in good faith and open to the answers that I would receive.

[Bluebear]

50. So, you are excusing it away as well.

[Bluebear]

33. Fine. Could one calculate hiring a White Power rock band?

You know, calculated to appeal to ultraconservative whites, not to offend blacks? :silly:

[Bluebear]

61. :chirp chirp chirp:

[bullwinkle428]

62. "Calculated decision", as in 2 = 2 + 3 !

:crazy:

[Bluebear]

24. "Accept" his support? He HIRED him to emcee his "Embrace the Change" concerts!

McClurkin gave a half hour speech of how he was "delivered" from homosexuality, and how being gay goes "against" God! At a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate!


You're goddamn right a lot of people are "real hung up" about it.

[Politicub]

28. Obama lost the majority of the gay community

with his campaign's stupid hiring of McClurkin as emcee. If they don't see the harm in what they did, they're not looking close enough.

And like I said earlier, Obama or his handlers used a cost/benefit analysis along the lines of - does embracing homophobes outweigh pissing off the gay community? His campaign made its choice and now has to live with it.

I was honestly on the fence between Obama and Hillary before the McClurkin incident. After that, I enthusiastically began supporting the Clinton campaign.

[Bluebear]

30. And I was honestly on the fence too

My support ended up with Edwards, but you are right, Obama lost me over this....not to mention his supporters who excused it away.

[mtnsnake]

66. It was the beginning of the end for me, too, concerning Obama

He was always third on my list of favorites, behind Kucinich and Hillary, but screw him and his deplorable conscience. AFAIC, Obama sold out an important part of the Democratic Party when he chose to side with McClurkin and not do anything afterward about all the opposition that was voiced about it.

not to mention his supporters who excused it away

I don't think half his supporters on DU are really his supporters at all, but Repukes that are here in disguise. I don't know of any true Democrats who would ever condone intolerance in our Party like that.

[BL611]

40. You don't think Clinton

has done events with preachers with a similar view to McClurkin????

[FredScuttle]

43. And that excuses Obama's decision, how?

n/t

[Politicub]

44. Perhaps,

But I doubt it. I just don't care as much.

Will you answer one of my questions, are you straight? If you are, you will have a very difficult time understanding how caustic and damaging the views of ex-gays are to all LGBTQ people, especially gay youth. There's enough self hating that goes on in the gay community, and I have a very hard time getting passed a self-confessed ex-gay emceeing a sanctioned campaign event.

[BL611]

46. Why would you not care as much?

If she is just as guilty as he is, why does she deserve a free pass?


I don't mean to be callous but,the bottom line is that this is the view of a majority of the black community, unless you expect Obama (or Clinton, or any other Democrat) to turn their back on their black constituency, their are going to be things like this that happens.

[Politicub]

47. What is Hillary guilty of?

And I completely dismiss your opinion that ex-gayism is the "view" of a majority in the black community. This conversation is done, because you are not being rational by positing a stereotyped view of the black community.

And why oh why do I keep feeding the trolls?

[BL611]

51. I have posted evidence from the WSh Post to support

the view that blacks are far less sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage/civil unions. As far as "ex-gayism" I have no idea, but it would be reasonable to extrapolate from the evidence that they more supportive of it. You have made no argument to the contrary except for calling me irrational.

[FredScuttle]

31. How many black voters do you know?

You're talking out of your ass about black voters. They're not the "most socially conservative wing" of the party and they are not a monolithic group you can readily say feels one way or another as a bloc about a host of issues.

I'm a Democrat of color and I am beyond appalled at Obama's craven pandering to bigots in S.C. This concert was not simply an insult to the LGBT community, but also to straight Democrats like me who value equal rights. People who are angry, disappointed and disgusted by Obama's decision in this matter are not refusing the support of the "majority" of black voters...they're expressing opposition to courting bigotry.

[BL611]

37. Plenty

I was careful to preface my comment with the qualifier that this is a generalization, I'm sure you saw that, but decided to ignore it.

But you don't have to take my anecdotal evidence for a given:

"According to Washington Post-ABC News national surveys this year, 43 percent of white Democrats support gay marriage, compared to 22 percent of blacks. Around half of blacks, 52 percent, don't support civil unions or gay marriage for gay couples, compared to only 26 percent of whites."

Here is the link to the whole article, lest you say I'm talking out of my ass...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html

[FredScuttle]

42. You're talking to a Democrat of color right here

I can read the surveys, but they don't support your assertion in the OP...that we must embrace bigotry to retain (and attract) black votes. That seems to be the point you're agitating about...why are you so insistent that we must embrace bigotry to win votes?

[BL611]

45. My assertion in the OP

is that black democrats tend to be more socially conservative than white democrats, if that survey doesn't support that I don't know what does. You're a person of color thats LGBT, good for you, no problem by me, but you don't speak for the community of people of color.

I'm not saying we should embrace bigotry, Obama has said he disagrees strongly with McClurkin, but the bottom line is if you're going to reject the active support of any African American with socially conservative views, you're talking about the majority of the black community, like it or not.

[FredScuttle]

52. You don't read very carefully do you?

I'm a straight Democrat who stands with my LGBT brothers and sisters in opposing, at every turn, ANY attempt by ANY of our Democratic candidates to pander to bigots in a craven bid to attract votes in key primary states.

When you asked if those of us who were up in arms about the McClurkin debacle believe that "the Democratic Party should refuse the support of the majority of African Americans who happen to hold views similar to McClurkin?", you were asserting two things as fact:

1) The majority of black voters are clown bigots like McClurkin
2) If the Democratic party opposes bigotry, we lose a majority of black votes.

I think both of those assertions are ridiculous...they're also your roundabout way of saying "Obama has to court bigots for key votes in S.C."

[BL611]

54. No what I said and its very clear,

is that a majority of black voters are socially conservative including on the issue of homosexuality, if the Democratic party opposes socially conservative blacks who DO make up a majority of black voters (and I provided evidence to support that, you have provided nothing to support you're own assertions, except your own anecdotal evidence), then yes they may lose a large number of those voters.

[FredScuttle]

63. Tell me this

support for gay rights has been a part of every Democratic Party platform for over 20 years. Yet, over that same period, Democrats running for President have never gotten below 84% support among black voters.

Tell me again why we need to sell out our values for the sake of voters who still vote Democratic?

[ZombieHorde]

65. Huh?

if the Democratic party opposes socially conservative blacks

Are you saying that we need to spew gay bigotry to win Black votes? Do you believe that the Democratic Party needs a homophobic platform to win elections?

[BronxBoy]

76. No you didn't

You provided a poll showing that Black voters support Gay Rights including Gay marriage at a lower level than White Democrats. Social conservatism encompasses more than the issue of Gay rights. Other elements of social conservatism are outright rejected by Black voters in the Democratic party.

So you can keep on posting your "little" theory about Black social conservatism but I'm going to call you on it every time.

[BronxBoy]

77. Jeez

You just don't get it.

WE ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE SOLIDLY DEMOCRATIC IN SPITE OF OUR COMMUNITY'S STANCE ON GAY RIGHTS.

Obama didn't even need to go there.

[BronxBoy]

73. You are flat out wrong

How does a close affinity to social conservatives on ONE issue translate into Blacks being more socially conservative that WHite Democrats as a whole.

Social conservatism involves a lot of other things other than Gay Rights and its intellectually dishonest to look at one issue and make a blanket statement as you are doing.

[BronxBoy]

74. You are talking out of your ass

That article only deals with the issue of Gay rights as it pertains to the Black community. Your OP posits the argument that Blacks are more socially conservative that White Democrats, not more socially conservative on this issue but overall. And you go as far to say that socially conservative members of our community have more in common with Republicans than with Democrats which is absolutely ludicrous. ANd then you try to make the point that Obama needed to do what he did to basically to keep these voters in the Democratic camp.

I think what he did was calculated but not for for the reasons you suggest.

[BronxBoy]

70. I had to read through this a couple of times

First, putting aside the obvious homophobia that exists in a lot of our community, what makes us the most socially conservative wing of the Democratic party? I can't wrap my head around that one. We have typically been pro-labor, pro-affirmative action, pro-voters rights and against the prison industrial complex. Not sure how our community shakes out on the abortion issue but I do know that I haven't seen Black religious institutions supporting anti-choice measures ala Focus on the Family. We tend to be fervently anti death penalty. So how exactly are we closer to Republicans again?

Next, there is one major weakness in your argument: Gay rights is not a flashpoint issue for our community. There was no need for Obama to pander to that religious constituency because it was not as if a large part of our voting block was going to flee the Democratic party ala White Southern Baptists if he didn't address this issue. He could have staged this event without involving McClurkin, and by extension the whole Gay rights issue, at all. And I submit to you that there would have been no major exodus of Black voters from the Democratic party. There are just too many other issues where we feel that all things being equal, the Democratic party represents our issues best.

And your assertion that Black voters have more in common with White Republicans than White Democrats is truly delusional. Last I've seen, support for the Republican party among Blacks is around 5%. You don't think we remember Katrina? You don't think we see the two systems of justice that works in this country on a daily basis? You don't think we see that programs that affect our community are being cut to the bone while billions of dollars get shipped off to Iraq? You don't think we see that when we invited the very Republicans that you claim we share close political interests with to discuss our issues at a presidential debate, that ALL of the major candidates refused to attend? If a significant number of our community is so closely aligned with the views of White Republicans, how come they aren't expending any effort to peel those voters away?

I still posit the argument that this whole thing happened because Clinton polls showed that Clinton had significant support among Black voters in South Carolina. More than Obama could concede to her. So he pulled this stunt. Not sure if that is correct but it is grounded a little more in reality than your OP.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. You're more or less correct that Obama made this calculated decision

It wasn't right by any means but doing the right thing usually isn't condusive to winning in the game of politics.

[MethuenProgressive]

72. Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he crawled into bed with the bigot wing of his church.

Wink wink. Nudge nudge. :puke: :puke:

[William769]

75. So if the KKK came out and supported Edwards, that would be ok by your reasononing?

After all they are mostly southerners as well as loyal voters. Give me a fucking break that would be just as bad as the McClurkin thing. :eyes:

[ecstatic]

78. Surveys show that black Americans are less homophobic than whites

I wish people on DU would stop circulating the meme that blacks are more homophobic--it is not supported by facts.

...there is no point in fetishizing black homophobia, for there is nothing essentially antigay about black Americans either. Whatever African-Americans think about gay rights, the fact is they don't think about it very much. Of the thousands of black people interviewed by David Bositis, an analyst at the JCPES, not one has volunteered it as a priority. Other surveys show blacks are more likely than whites to support antidiscrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians. Indeed, according to the Human Rights Campaign score card, black legislators have done a better job of defending gay rights than white Democrats. In other words, when black people have the power to protect gay rights in law, they are more likely to use it than other racial groups.

Despite these facts many white liberals are peculiarly invested in the notion that African-Americans are backward on all social issues except race. What this assumption is based on other than an innate sense of superiority is not clear. What is obvious is that it will have to be confronted before any progressive coalition capable of mounting an effective challenge to the right can be built.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/younge

Now getting to the McClurkin thing--McClurkin is a grammy award winning gospel artist. That is the only reason he was invited. If the audience was indeed homophobic and seeking a homophobic artist, then wouldn't they have preferred someone who was not gay at all?