Senator Obama, please just cancel the McClurkin performance and move on

I want to try to clarify this contentious issue. Obama is not a bigot. Many religious people are not bigots. Now, having dispensed with those two red herrings...

The Obama campaign should cancel Donnie McClurkin's appearance at an Obama fund-raiser. (The Obama website advertises the event as "proceeds go to benefit Obama's campaign." The ticket cost will barely cover the venue expenses, still technically a fund-raiser.)

The most pressing reason the Obama campaign needs to do this is not really a gay issue, or a religious issue. It is a Democratic issue.

Nobody is going to get anywhere in the Democratic primaries by associating himself with a Republican nut associated with the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. (McClurkin says he's a Democrat, but people say a lot of things.) Beyond the injury McClurkin does to people with his crusading for intolerance and injustice, he actively supported George W. Bush's war on "the curse of homosexuality." This was, you'll recall, in a 2004 republican campaign that had the strategy of getting "defense of marriage" propositions on the ballot in swing states, like Ohio.

In 2004 the Human Rights Campaign (which I think is the largest gay human rights organization) wrote a public letter to George W. Bush demanding that Bush remove McClurkin from the Republican National Convention entertainment line-up. http://www.hrc.org/issues/2031.htm

Today the HRC is calling on Senator Obama to do nothing more than what they asked of Bush in 2004. Surely we have higher standards than Bush does. This is not about people piling on Obama or supporting other candidates. Though few of us had ever heard of McClurkin before now, the gay human rights movement has been consistent in its denunciation of McClurkin. Within the Democratic gay political community he's a known commodity.

This isn't about McClurkin's right to his views or whether some African-Americans are homophobic or any of these weighty but ultimately peripheral issues... this is about whether a Democrat wants to seek support through associating himself with the worst sort of Republican hate-sleaze. I don't even think Obama needs to denounce McClurkin or shame him... just don't associate the campaign with him.

So please just cancel it and move on. Senator Obama is a beloved figure, and with reason. I have no idea why he cannot see that this is an issue without two sides... that he is not associating himself with religion, but rather he is associating himself with Bush and the worst the Republican party has to offer. Seen that way, I am sure everyone will agree it's a no-brainer.

that he'd be an idiot to cancel the concert.

He has two bad choices.

He has such a bright future... I sincerely do not want him to become a net-roots punching bag. He inspires people and that is always valuable.

I always had the impression that Obama had the high ground on the 'internets' rather like Dean did.

You've been on this board for awhile and seen what has been posted. No one gets a pass here.

about tied in terms of the snark and shit that's tossed.

I'm not suggesting you give anyone a pass, though. Where do you get that from what I posted???

All I am talking about is what I have OBSERVED.

I'll bet, if you did a line-for-line search of this forum, and others, that Senator Clinton would be the recipient of the greatest measure of internet shit. That's just my sense of it.

That's all I'm saying. It appears that people disregard the garbage about the other candidates because it doesn't equal the same amount that Clinton receives,

not the tour.

He will never reach the same popularity among blacks if he cancels the concert or asks this McClurkin to not perform. On the other hand, if the vicious response on this board is any indication, he has already lost a huge amount of support from the gay community.

Same thing happened to Bill & Hillary with gays in the military.

I wholeheartedly agree. There's no other option.

at the big fund raiser Oprah had for Obama and Obama asked him to join in their campaign.

Do you know if McClurkin was there as an entertainer or a donor?

Maybe Obama could blame Oprah for this mess.

That's surprising & doesn't speak well of her sentiments or judgment. I wonder if it's true.

He's been hanging out with democrats recently, so I doubt he's been open about his shilling for republicans and their war on gays.

It's a campaign issue, and I wish it was not rubbing off on Obama the man.

Major rookie mistake--unless they KNEW, and were triangulating the gay issue with the Holy Rollers in South Carolina.

If this was a strategy--and frankly, it is looking like one--it comes off as craven.

His staff gave him bad advice, and shame on them for so doing. And shame on him for taking it. The old "Integrity is like virginity, you only lose it once" maxim comes to mind...

Of course, he CAN recover from this if he moves quickly. And maybe it won't be the end of the world, short-shrifting ten percent of the population, the vast majority of whom are Democrats. Maybe it will blow over.

I do think it's a bad decision he's made, though.

like he's saying now, as well as just recently singing for a large group of democrats, and performing on Oprah, without controversy, why would they have suspected him of being such an outspoken bigot?

Jeesh, everybody googles everybody nowadays. As I posted in another thread, Obama's people need to be especially careful with the fundie and not-so-fundie Christian electorate, that is, who is going to be associated with Obama, because there is plenty of GLBT bigotry out there among them. Stupidly, they have allowed a high profile bigot through.

What would it have turned up before this issue exploded? If he but it wouldn't necessarily turn up his most obnoxious and bigoted statements which I first saw in blog posts after the controversy erupted.

It's one thing for someone to have a personal belief, informed by their religion, in which you think homosexuality is a sin or choice, so long as you completely reject the government enshrining those beliefs in law and are against discrimination. It's another thing to go shilling for republicans in the middle of their war on gays, or kissing the ass of the 700 club.

And once you know that, it's a no-brainer to dig a little deeper, just to be safe.

I doubt things like the HRC letter to Bush were too many google pages deep. It would have been cited in a lot of blog entries at the time, so by the way google ranks sites it couldn't have been to hidden.

I remember the controversy in 2004, so it must have gotten a little play. (I did not remember the guy's name at all, but I remembered the controversy.)

I don't have a star so I can't search DU. Has anyone searched for "McClurkin" in DU posts? I'll bet that at least the HRC letter was cited here by somebody.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Donnie+McClurkin%22+-Obama

There is not a lot of information on his inflammatory statements.

"Donnie McClurkin" controversy -Obama

and the first entry is:

"Hell up in Hopeville: Gospel's Donnie McClurkin takes on his gay critics" Published 11.18.04

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17637

I think what we have learned is that it is good to google people's names along with "controversy" I will keep that in mind.

for the GOP at the NYC convention in 2004.

It wasn't a little dust-up, either, it was a HUGE deal. I remember it, I just didn't remember the clown's name!

I don't know that the guy performed ON Oprah (the tv show, that is) but he did appear at that garden party-fundraiser she had. But then, anyone who was anyone at all from the greater Chicago area and well beyond was at that shindig.

I'll say one thing, though--it doesn't matter WHO the person is--you do a background check. Even if you THINK you know all about them, you can't "think." You have to KNOW. And once you have knowledge, you can either proceed or not. But if you do go forward, you aren't hit with any surprises.

This imbroglio caught Obama's campaign flat-footed. They plainly DIDN'T KNOW. They didn't anticipate that this might happen. That's pretty apparent from the hastily-written "non-apology" explanation that was issued by the campaign.

I came to feel that from the get go he had been willing to try and thread this needle and was calculating the gains over the losses.

The truth is, we don't yet know how this will turn out. Keeping McClurkin on the program may turn out to be a numbers win for him.

I am sure the Obama campaign is closely watching the shit storm and are aware it is mostly an internet phenomenon.

and Obama may well have had very little gay support to lose... I don't know, but he would.

So it might have short term benefits.

But I think of Obama supporters outside the south as primarily white, educated idealists... just the people who would be turned off by this.

(And it's an issue that moves ahead every year. By 2016 the country might be 55% for gay marriage, and Obama won't be relishing this incident when he runs then.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3639785&mesg_id=3639890

The articles were talking about the same damn polling, but the Republicans er, The Politico said that gay endorsements are BAAAAAAAAD and take away votes from other groups, while those wily fellers at that Froggish Reuters said it makes no damn difference, pretty much.

Someone from his crew may have looked at those Quinniepac numbers and made a judgment....!

It did hit TV last night. I saw it on the cables before the fires totally took over the news cycle. In fact, these fires may be the gift that keeps on giving for Obama. They're taking this issue out of the news cycle, or at least depressing it down to much less coverage than it otherwise would be getting.

Major rookie mistake there. Shame on 4 of our current candidates (Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd) for taking their staff's advice back then. Sen. Clinton could have recovered by it 5 years later by, you know, LEARNING from it like the others did but noooo. She went on to give them a blank check to attack Iran.

And don't tell me it's a false comparison. If we're talking about judgement here then everything is up for discussion. Which would you rather have, a President who makes a poor choice in a gospel singer or one who continues to make poor choices about war?

Please understand that I'm not minimizing McClurkin. The man is atrocious and I'm with everyone who thinks Obama should cut him out of the lineup, consequences be damned. But let's put things in perspective when we're talking about strategy, and integrity.

start a thread of your own.

This isn't about other candidates. It's about a particular candidate, a specific event, and a specific issue. And you know it.

Your aggressive, insistent attempts to hijack the threads of others who are discussing this issue is noted. And not in a good way, either. You might benefit from a perusal of the DU rules. There's a link at the bottom of the page.

But when I searched his name on the Human Rights Campaign website the 2004 press release jumped up, and I was like "Why is anyone even arguing about this?"

If such a high profile Dem constituency organization has been campaigning against this guy for YEARS the whole "maybe nobody knew" thing falls apart.

I was suspicious of this story as opposition research and reserved comment for a while, but I came to realize that thousands of gay activists knew exactly who this guy is. It isn't ginned up outrage... they would have looked at the "Embrace the Change" line-up and said, "Donnie McClurkin? Are you shitting me?"

I don't know everybody on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hit list, but if any candidate (including my two favorites) advertised a fund-raiser with somebody the SPLC had on their hit list it would be a no-brainer to me... you don't buck the SPLC or the HRC in a democratic primary. It's basic stuff.

will 'change' the gay people who want to be changed, or so he says...

Article below re: Donnie and Oprah...

but since the Obama campaign has had several days to do the right thing, I'll dub the concert series "Embrace the Cure"

And old Closet McLurkin says 'sexuality is a matter of choice!! And, yo, you gay folk--if you ASK him, he'll 'change' you! What a sport!!

Hand this fool a shovel, he's only digging the hole deeper...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-1024mcclurkinoct24,1,4690186.story
Gospel singer says he is not anti-gay
By Kelley L. Carter | Tribune staff reporter
6:09 AM CDT, October 24, 2007
Gospel music superstar Donnie McClurkin says he was surprised to wake up Tuesday morning to a media firestorm.

The 47-year-old Grammy Award-winning musician is scheduled to perform this weekend at Sen. Barack Obama's three-day concert series in South Carolina. But in the wake of accusations by a gay-rights group that McClurkin falsely asserts that homosexuality is a choice, bloggers are calling for the Democratic presidential candidate to cancel the singer's Sunday night appearance, saying McClurkin's views are anti-gay and incite hate.

McClurkin told The Associated Press on Monday that "sexuality, everything is a matter of choice." But on Tuesday he told the Tribune that his ideals, and most importantly his ministry, were severely misconstrued.

I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I," McClurkin said in an exclusive interview with the Tribune. "Most of the things that were said were totally out of context and then other things weren't true....Of course some agents have twisted it as though he were embracing a racist or a Nazi, and that is anything but true."

McClurkin and Obama first connected last month in California at an Oprah Winfrey fundraiser..."I believe in his stance. I believe in his platform and his agenda. So when they asked me if I would be a part of it, there was no problem," said McClurkin, who has performed at both parties' conventions and identifies himself as a Democrat. "We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on the main thing: that there needs to be change and I believe he is the candidate to bring it."

For years, McClurkin has talked from the pulpit about how he was raped by a male family member as a child. It was that act, he has said, that sent him into living as a gay man for the better part of 20 years. He now says he is straight and that his ministry is open to those who say they no longer want to live as a gay person. What he doesn't do, he says, is crusade against homosexuality.

"There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."

wherein he says Obama's staff set up the interview with a friendly newspaper reporter and McClurkin was coached for this interview by the Obama team?

At this point it's just Americablog's supisition, but if it were confirmed that would be the end of the campaign.

A slip-up is one thing. Being part of a media effort to rehabilitate the views of a known RW nutcase would be way outside acceptable Dem party practice.

But I would need solid eveidence.


"What's even more offensive than McClurkin trying to mislead the Chicago Trib about his past (and present) is the fact that Obama's campaign clearly put him up to this interview with the Trib. Trust me, there is NO WAY this guy opened his mouth to the Chicago Trib about this matter without the Obama people setting the entire interview up, or at least approving of the entire thing. Obama is now trying to feed you misinformation about his top surrogates and their anti-gay campaigns. Nice, Senator. It was bad enough that you embraced an anti-gay bigot and put him on stage as your representative, but now you're trying to polish his image in the media and lie about who he really is."

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-supporter-im-not-in-mood-to-play.html

You're basing your assumption on the author's assumption.

This asshole singing isn't worth offending so many people.

he should do the right thing, and, as I've said on a couple of other threads, get a bad case of laryngitis.

Then Obama can substitute someone else, preferably with a less contentious profile.

It could be he's looking at internal polling, and is believing the numbers that his OWN team is crunching for him (and they have a vested interest--keeping their jobs--in not being wrong, so they don't want to back down and admit that they erred...a bit problematic, that).

The clock is ticking and his campaign is running out of wiggle room on this issue. They need to move BEFORE the weekend, and sooner than the Friday dump.

I didn't look it up, but that's my recollection

This episode tells me about Obama is that he's not ready for prime time. Sadly, I must also conclude that he has few principles, and he'll do anything to win a vote. I was a big supporter and sent $100 to his Senate run.

this isn't really about Obama having campaign organizers in SC with bad views... it is about the fact that his campaign didn't have the sort of experienced gay-rights activist types near the top who would have known McClurkin's name on sight.

That poor SOB must be pretty miserable right now, if he or she even exists.

I read where he has a staff member with that specific job.

I can not imagine that he does not have a gay outreach adviser but maybe not.

a staffer doing religious outreach AND GLBT issues!

It's a question of votes for Obama- will he gain more votes by betraying the GLBT community and siding with the RW nutjobs, or is it the other way around? Obama has made his decision.

You would think, if Obama had any judgment, he would have wanted to ensure he wasn't involving GLBT bashers in his campaign. Dealing with certain christian communities is going down a slippery slope. (Unitarians, Episcopalians, UCC, and a few outlaw Catholic Churches would have been a better stumping arenas, IMO).

I think he's getting less than great news about NH and Iowa.

I will say this--his media in NH isn't helping him at all. His NH ad SUCKS. SUCKS!

He's standing in someone's living room with a bunch of goofy looking people all gathered round, some curled up at his feet, just about, like Jesus and the disciples.

There's the stock old guy with the beard, there's the glassy eyed housewives who are looking at him like he's a chocolate cupcake with extra fudge icing, and a few other central casting types (no, or almost no, dusky folk, though), and Obama is reciting very inspiring words in a choppy, UNINSPIRING voice.

It's .... horrible. It has that 'jerky camera' thing going on, and the production values just suck. If I were forced to find something good about the ad, I would say "The lighting isn't bad at all!"

Nothing against him--he's got the speeches and the crowds to do some GREAT ads...but this effort stinks on ice. I have to wonder if Rove isn't paying his media team under the table.

one he's using here in Iowa, where he brags about something like "I'm telling people what they NEED to hear, not just what they want to hear!", and talking about how he told Detroit they needed to boost CAFE standards, and things of that nature...

Especially with the absolute EMBARASSMENT OF RICHES that is Obama on the stump--he's nothing short of BRILLIANT. Hell, you get a few crowd shots, a few speech clips, a few bars of rousing music and scenes of screaming, cheering crowds, and you wanna toss the guy on your shoulders and march him down the street shouting "Huzzah!!!" like a dorky forties-era movie.

But this ad? It...BITES.

So why even bother.

I don't understand why the guy can't sing at an event supporting a candidate who is strongly supportive of gay rights.

I think you can't see the forest from the tree.