Obama/McClurkin issue: What part of this don't you get? [View All]

[Bake]

This is not that tough a call. The Obama supporters keep defending their man with things like:

1. Obama doesn't agree with McClurkin, so move along, nothing to see ...

2. McClurkin didn't say all that much at the event anyway, so move along, nothing to see ...

That seems to be pretty much the gist of it. But I have to ask two things in response to these "defenses." First, if Obama didn't agree with McClurkin, and maybe it's true that he doesn't, then why in the living hell did he INVITE McClurkin to speak at HIS campaign event? And why did he persist with the invitation in the face of the many, many voices raised in protest to it? Second, even if McClurkin didn't say all that much at the event (which is debatable), is he not on the record many times over with his hateful bullsh*t? Reasonable candidates don't invite David Duke to speak at their events, even if he doesn't say anything offensive AT THE EVENT because of things he has said in the past, that the candidates do not want to be associated with.

Now, if Obama does disagree with McClurkin, and invited him any (in the face of much protest) and gave him HIS stage, there can be only one conclusion: Obama is guilty of pandering to the homophobic elements of the party, the "good evangelical folks" who just can't force themsselves not to hate some loyal Democrats. And frankly, it's the pandering that I have a problem with. Pandering is not leadership. Pandering is not "a new kind of politics." It's just the same old bullshit with a better speechwriter. We should never, ever throw any of our loyal Democrats, our brothers and sisters, under the bus. We're better than that. Or at least I thought we were.

So to my original question: What part of this don't the Obama supporters get?

Bake