Obama has been dealing with racism and bigotry all his life.

So far in this campaign, he has dealt with vile bombardments of "Barack the Magic Negro" and false MSM stories (reads: smears) about being schooled in a madrassa. He has had to sit still while others "accidentally" mispronounce his name. His middle name is used as red meat.

How has he handled all that? Maturely. Graciously. Because that's how he rolls. He has a heart and strong record of advocating equal treatment under the law.

I understand the LGBT community has a legitimate beef about the gospel series Obama is sponsoring. Obama has responded. It is his belief that inclusiveness in the black church-going community is the best way to apply peer pressure to those reluctant to walk the walk of acceptance.

If you don't agree with this philosophy, fine: Don't vote for him. But take care in choosing your vile epithets because so far some of you are behaving no better than that you claim to be railing against.

He should know better.

...Know better than (at least most of) his critics.

LGBTer's and the "gay/not-gay nightingale" and others holding a similar view, I'd agree with you.

He was invited to sing at a party to promote Obama's candidacy. And that's what's happened here.

He should have known better.

didn't erase his skin color.

. . .even though I'm not mixed, I'm extremely light skinned and as I kid I got it from both sides as well.

knows all too well. The favorite term in our town is "OREO". Obama's advice to our 9 year old was to "try not to let the words get to you. Just continue to be yourself, be true to yourself." Tough advice for anyone these days but Obama is a hero to this youngster, and if O' can do it, so can he.

I can hardly believe the racist remarks being dished up here in response to somebody else's bigotry.

And I was there...

Nice story.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/08/news/story02.html

Let Obama handle this "maturely and graciously" by not supporting and sponsoring bigotry.

Yep, feel sorry that any child has to undergo that.

But I would hope that things like that would sensitize him to it happening to other people. Apparently he can't quite live up to his "walk the walk" all the way.

And please note: No vile epithets or any other names. Just a lot of disappointment in his actions. If his belief was inclusiveness why did it take some very angry people to get him to follow through?

. . .but I will not stand for continued bigotry against him.

Thank you very much for keeping it real!:applause: :kick:

I don't care that Obama has dealt with bigotry. I don't care that Obama isn't homophobic.

Giving the stage to a bigot under the guise of "inclusiveness" is not the right way to deal with this blunder.

Not all points of view are valid and no amount of "tolerance" or "inclusiveness" can make hate a legitimate point of view.

This is a monumental blunder-in-progress.

What a shock: finding bigotry, close-mindedness and conservatism in RELIGION of all places.

He was trying to pull a slick trick and play to the cheap seats, hoping to play the race card WHILE playing the religion card and get a truckload of votes wholesale. Kablam! He won't back down, which is itself a problem, but the possible motivations for it can't really bear scrutiny.

Any version of an excuse for not dumping this schmuck is bad.

Obama should've checked the backgrounds of the people he hires. And when this latest story broke, Obama probably should've dumped him as soon as he could.

He was so into the possibility of pandering to bigots that his staff didn't properly vet featured performers.

Obama's not auditioning to be Geraldo, he's auditioning to be the candidate of the party that (I thought) still believed in civil rights.

The idea was inclusiveness, and a bit of pandering for votes on the side. There I said it. We want those Christians to vote our way; they have specifically implied they are up for grabs. The candidate is sincere and so am I ; you can't get new votes from new places unless you're willing to at least dialog with those folks. The decision was made to avoid being accused of backing down to one group over another. Imagine the howls from certain camps if they had done just that.

I have maintained and still maintain that the real story here is not Obama. The real story is the light that is currently shining on Black homophobia and the underlying rationalizations that are currently being made for it. I have never hurled any invective at Obama and never will at any candidate regardless of whatever position they take on an issue. But if as you say, a large part of this was a political calculation, it failed miserably on a number of fronts.

"Imagine the howls from certain camps if they had just done that"

Imagine the bridge building that really could have been done if they hadn't put themselves in this position to begin with.

same problem. Ought to make him more tolerable of people and a better man.

the stances he takes. No matter how unpopular. He has been dealing with issues all of his life.

will never be stopped by being on the giving end of bigotry and hatred.

Obama is not endorsing Mcclurkins views about sexuality- OR his views concerning homosexuality.


How will we live in this nation if we intend to cut ourselves off from anyone who holds beliefs and live lives that many of us do not agree with?

If Obama were considering putting Mcclurkin on his ticket, or in his cabinet - that would be different- but this country of ours is made up of people with many different beliefs- we have got to find a way to live together in peace-

I'm not an Obama supporter- and -I do believe in equal rights for all.

peace~

thank you

for every person of color.

For every glbt person, as well.

Also, remember the incessant, "is Obama black enough?" He gets it from all sides.

what you're proposing doesn't call for flame wars or divisive innuendo; how can that possibly benefit DU and its freeper sockpuppets?

Geese, Kitty get with the program fer chrissakes.

Deflecting racism and bigotry from both sides of the aisle is surreal for any candidate.

And if somebody could please explain to me why Rush Limbaugh is still on the air after making that racist remark - I'll eat my fuckin' hat!

Notice that Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson don't picket Limbaugh's offices!!

That was pretty bad.

couldn't have said it better myself!!:yourock:

:shrug:

And how does one apply peer pressure with homophobes who pander to the exact bigotries that one is allegedly trying to squelch?

And I quote: When a candidate speaks at a Synagogue, does that mean she supports slaughtering Palestinians?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3653552&mesg_id=3653577

Then there's this tripe about "The Gays"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3652664&mesg_id=3653448


6. BULL the gays are going for Hillary anyway so whats the point plus....
if he did that the African American community would be livid.

and we all know how nicely that behavior has paid off for you so far

Considering the fact that most of us GBLT supporters have been remarkably consistent in our criticisms of not only homophobia, but racism and generalizations of religious groups. Not to mention that you accuse some of us of belligerence, when it pales in comparison to the belligerence displayed by some Obama supporters.

Seriously, I would like to know.

You get compassion and empathy, and you fold it up and put it in your pocket. And then you continue the harangue ad nauseam.

Obama is a strong advocate of equal rights under the law. He has a good LGBT record. Mr. McClurkin is singing in one venue, entertaining, not proselytizing.

I already told you I don't care who you support. I have also stood by while a handful of DU'ers have piled-on a decent man. And I'm done. You are gratuitously piling on now, and I'm getting goddamn sick and tired of being called a bigot and racist here at DU. Makes me feel like spitting in some faces, but then I regroup and realize most people don't behave like this and certainly don't expect to get away with it indefinitely.

Its obvious that you simply lost your decency on this issue. As I said damned near a week ago, I had more of a problem with HOW Obama and McCloset were being defended than that they were being defended at all. The fact is that generalizations against gays, blacks, the religious, the so called "anti-religious" etc. were lobbed by some Obama supporters first, and we condemned those for what they are, and were able to avoid those generalizations ourselves. And here you are, castigating us for vile epitaphs? That's called hypocrisy.

Because I look at people as just people - not gay people and straight people, not black people and white people, not rich people or poor people, etc.

I hold all people accountable for a same level of civilized behavior. And I'm done sitting by while you and yours lob epithets of "racist" and "bigot" when things don't go your way.

You have your answer from Obama: Take it or leave it. I must say I am at that point where I couldn't care less anymore.

If you can't criticize an Obama supporter for some vile shit they have said, then you have no room to talk.

I walk the walk, and I'll be damned if you are going to suppress my right to speak.

Do you yourself support the idea of equal marriage irrespective of sexual orientation?

Please let your candidate know what you think, because for a lot of progressive Democrats, equal marriage (using that very word) is a deal-breaker. Why alienate gay voters needlessly, especially in such a politically polarized nation where every vote counts?

soo much and still we want MORE MORE MORE!!!11 I don't blame you for wanting to spit in my/ our face. I guess i got to damn uppity for my britches sitting here at the front of the bus. I feel so ashamed. :cry:

yeah, go ahead, spit on me. i stepped over the line. I am just an ungrateful faggot. i should appreciate all that you and your generous kind have given me. :eyes:

Sorry if you got that impression. You had my full compassion and empathy. But you abused it with this nonstop trash-a-thon, but you probably never thought of the other person's standing in the world, did you? It's all about you. Screw everyone else. I thought you were sincere and I'm sorry you proved me wrong.

You know, I wrote an OP here that, while not quite an apology, hinted that I was too strong on some Obama supporters, but I was wrong, I wasn't strong enough, no more, never doubt my sincerity, this issue is intimately personal to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3640165

"I gave you my empathy and you abused it by not shutting up when I was tired of listening to you"

Sigh. People don't magically shut up just because we are tired of listening to them.

You don't have to "stand by and listen."

Use the ignore feature. That's what it's there for. It's a good thing.

I felt the way you do. I wanted to spit in the face of every Obama supporter here, so I put the 15 most obnoxious Obama boosters on ignore and half the bitterness vanished right away. And at no cost... they weren't going to persuade me and I wasn't going to persuade them.

So use it. Start with me. I didn't put you on the list because you weren't as full of rage as the others, but now you are, and that's understandable. So I'll add you to the list.

Its the "agree to disagree" button.

I hope we all feel less angry someday soon.

Sorry, those two sentiments in the same post just rang funny together :)

Such a positive message.:wtf:

indeed

Oh, and trying to destroy a decent man's campaign over this is peaceful? Hmmmmm. Well, I hope you will feel good about it when you take your ball and go home.

Be sure to take the epithets of "racist" and "bigot" with you to use as ammunition when you don't get your way again because hearing that really makes it all worthwhile for those of us trying to effect equal rights for everyone, including you - but not just you. You don't get that though, do you? There are a lot of people suffering all kinds of inequities in the world.

From Miss "Truth Hurts a Lot", so there's plenty of careless epithet throwing going on all around.

...because your two-faced candidate who professed to care about GLBT people went and specifically chose a virulently anti-gay performer to MC his concert, and, while denouncing his views, let him spend half an hour talking about how God can "cure" homosexuality. Oh, and no response from Obama so far. Yes, I'm very sorry that people are picking on Obama because of that. He really didn't do a thing to deserve that kind of scorn or ridicule. He's a total saint, really. It doesn't matter what he DOES about GLBT issues, it only matters what he SAYS. I'm quite sure that his stellar voting record on issues affecting the gay community will continue, as long as it's politically expedient for him, and won't cost him any fundie votes.

Again, on behalf of the gay community, I'm really sorry to have given your hypocritical, pandering, two-faced jerk of a candidate such a hard time.

Does that answer your question?

being used for the AA people of faith. Are they a monolithic group, and are they feeling alienated from the Democratic Party? Are we losing the AA Christian faithful from the Democratic Party itself, or is it just that Obama isn't picking up enough of their votes himself?

Imagine casting a wide net for votes during a presidential election. The audacity, the unmitigated gall.

:eyes:

Are the AA Christian faithful alienated from the Democratic Party? Why the term inclusiveness if they're already included? I don't know the answer and I wasn't baiting.

In this case, a handful of people sorely in need of some schoolin' when it comes to understanding and being open to all people. In a church community, preaching the gospel of love, peace, and inclusiveness has had an amazing effect in a peer pressure kind of way. Rather than sorting through those that fall short of what we would consider open-minded and tossing them out, Obama believes, I believe, in doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds.

So I guess the bigot vote is more important.

but I don't think the percentage is higher in the AA Christian community, or that they'd leave en masse because of the party's stance on homosexuality. What I think, and what's a fact is what I'm questioning.

edited to say what I think is true is the large number of bigots in the general population.

I'm sorry Obama's policy of inclusiveness doesn't invoke the fractious atmosphere that some people seem to get off on here.

But that's just me....

The rest of us are just people trying to put the world back on its axis. You may have noticed America is upside down in a ditch on fire. You'll have to pardon some of us who are a bit traumatized by the status quo to lose a whole lot of sleep over some ruffled feathers, because that's what this sustained outrage is.

You think that the outrage about Obama giving a stage to a bigot and refusing to back down is ruffled feathers?

Would it be ruffled feathers if Chris Dodd gave a stage to David Duke? And then instead of firing Duke and apologizing, he hires Sam Jackson to join them both as if that would make it all better?

I mean seriously. Ruffled feathers!? How the fuck can you believe that Obama's for inclusiveness if he's constantly throwing people that bigots don't like under the bus?

Obama can continue pandering to bigots all he wants. You can continue to support that idiotic tack all you want. I will never ever vote for someone who panders to bigots so shamelessly.

He can talk the talk about bringing America together all he wants, but his walk is so far from his talk, I can't believe he's still fooling anyone anymore.

Ruffled feathers indeed....

since the start of this whole fiasco. I find it even more revealing that they have yet to clearly condemn bigots such as McCloset and the other homophobes on the tour. Maybe they agree with the homophobes, if not on a political level, on a personal level.

Perhaps this was Obama's chance to show that he won't take orders from uppity fags.

I'm wondering how you are liking the racist remarks made here about Obama in response to somebody else's bigotry. Does that balance this out in some perverse way?

Do you like the Obama cultist's statement that all Jews want to "slaughter Palestinians"? It's one of the ugliest things I have ever seen posted here.

"It is his belief that inclusiveness in the black church-going community is the best way to apply peer pressure to those reluctant to walk the walk of acceptance."

Interesting quote.

Funny how Obama had issues with Imus compared to what McClurkin had to say.

pick a thread

If you are not sufficiently offended, or think the vitriol over the issue has gone too far, you're calling those who are offended "uppity gays" or whatever.

Nobody would ever throw fuel on this fire just for the sake of politics, because this is politics and that doesn't happen, and to suggest or imply this may be happening is inexcusable.

Homophobes have no business supporting or voting for progressive democrats, because by even talking to them you are pandering. Never mind that it is the homophobes who have to put aside their bigotry to support our candidates.

If you disagree with any of the above, you're a bigot.

It reminds me of almost every major thread dealing with Israel/Palestine.

I find it absolutely unreal. I've talked to so many people about this because I am genuinely puzzled by it. I find it an attempt at controlling through suppression ironically coming from the very people complaining about oppression. The people in my world have all kinds of opinions, but we respect each other enough to disagree graciously. I'm just not getting this "it's my way or the highway" attitude with no sense of reciprocity whatsoever. Quite frankly, it just makes me feel like packing them a lunch and waving goodbye because I am so over this nonsense.

what a undemocratic way to conduct ourselves. :sarcasm:

I don't think he's a terrible person. He's just wrong.

He'll get my vote if he's the nominee...probably not my vote in the primary though.

What makes this whole thing really hard for me is that I can actually understand the anger people are feeling towards my candidate. They feel hurt and betrayed by McClurkin being included. However, I still truly believe that Obama is a good man who supports equality and fairness for all people. He has been clear that he doesn't agree with the gospel singer's prejudiced views. I hope that everybody reading this realizes that I wouldn't support Obama if I thought for a second that he was prejudiced.

I don't doubt that he has experienced racism and bigotry- I lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago that he does. But he went to Harvard law school and became a University of Chicago law school professor and a politician. He's had enormous opportunities and taken advantage of them. Waiting for a cab or being called names have not stopped him from running for president. So the racism and bigotry he's experienced is pretty minor compared to previous generations. He's not getting any sympathy here.

All one has to do is look at the poll numbers of African American in South Carolina. Hillary's trouncing him! Obama has decided who he wants to sleep with and he does so at his own peril. You can kiss his campaign goodbye.

I am a former Obama supporter. I don't even know if I could vote for him in the GE (though I no longer think he has a chance in winning---so the point is moot).

I'm not being sarcastic - I'm very grammer and spelling sensitive and it makes me insane when it's spelt "mute."

I don't necessarily agree with your post here but I do welcome you to DU! No one ever agrees with anyone 100% of the time (if we did, that would be boring). :hi:

thank you for the kind welcome...I have since reconsidered and, without the heat of the moment, have decided that, yes, I would vote for Obama in the GE...I could never NOT vote and allow a repub to get into the White House. We all have more important things to consider, such as America's well being, and are therefore denied the luxury of sitting at home come election day.

:hi:

I wholeheartedly feel that hateful, nasty and vicious posts about any candidate say everything about the poster and nothing about the candidate. I don't care how much someone disagrees with a candidate, lowering themselves to that level is a shameful waste of time and energy.

I've never ever found a candidate that I agree with 100%, even Al Gore (although he was certainly the closest I've ever come). Actually, I've never found another person that I agree with 100% and sometimes no matter how much I dislike someone's particular action I still have to weigh that against all their other actions. And, in this case, while I think McClurkin was a bad decision, I don't feel that Obama is in anyway anti-GLBT.

Barack Obama but he has seriously, perhaps fatally wounded his relationship with the gay community in the party. Strange as it may seem, thats pretty significant these days.

I understand but do not agree with his reasoning on including McClurkin. Time will tell if he made a good move. I think not, but we will see.

In the meantime, I have no intention of insulting the man. He drops in my estimation, which means Senators Clinton and Edwards and Governor Richardson rise, but thats just me (and a few million other lgbts). Campaigns are about choices and how we make them.

And so it goes....

That's strange. Sure doesn't square with my experiences here on the South Side.

that defend McClosetCase?

"The concert was to be the highlight of this outreach and while the crowd left excited, it was clear the campaign still regarded the controversy as complicated. Aides gave reporters a three-page memo detailing McClurkin's and Obama's views on gay rights that noted in capital letters "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS," with quotes detailing those statements from the singer."

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


So part of Obama's "inclusiveness" is his agreement that unhappy gays are OK to target for Uncle Donnie's conversion therapy?


If your guy doesn't want to be called a bigot, he probably shouldn't be coddling bigots. And, make no mistake about it - Obama is, at this very minute, coddling and supporting bigotry. Disgusting.

;-)

to preach for an hour or say anything about his views on homosexuality.

That's stupid. There's a difference between trying to be inclusive and tolerant and giving some idiot a microphone to insult a good portion of the Democratic base.

I'm sorry to anyone I may have insulted in defending Obama. I honestly thought he was just going to be singing his song and going home.

that he is not exhibiting leadership. He is simply stumping for votes among black fundamentalists out of a sense of desperation, and compromising basic principles of what's right and wrong to do it. If he really wanted to show leadership, he would stand up in front of some of those black churches where homophobia is rampant and simply say "This is wrong, and you of all people should know why" and not count the political cost. He KNOWS that's the right thing to do as well as you and I do, but he won't do it. Until he does, it's pretty hard to distinguish him from any of the other candidates who will say and do anything that they think will get them elected. And yes, he may lose if he does that, but doing the right thing means you don't always get everything you want.

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