Salon: More Obama campaign miscalculations

[Bluebear]

....The Barack Obama campaign's continued miscalculations on the Donnie McClurkin mess keep the e-mails flooding into my in box, so that I must follow up on my earlier post. So here you go ...

The Obama campaign, in an effort to shore up support in the LGBT community after inviting recloseted, antigay, Grammy-winning gospel singer McClurkin, seems to be completely off the P.R. rails today. The "Embrace the Change" concerts in South Carolina this weekend are supposed to woo a slice of the religious black vote. The camp recruited the Rev. Andy Sidden, pastor of Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, S.C., an openly gay minister, to deliver a message of tolerance to the black audiences at the concerts, there to see a few luminaries of the gospel world. The problem is that Sidden is white. Not that there's anything wrong with that in the abstract. (In fact, when I saw his picture I actually thought he was a light-skinned black man; I've got family members lighter than he is, so I never gave it a second thought.) I'm convinced that Sidden will share a message that is sensitive and entirely appropriate, but given this situation, it's mind-boggling that the campaign would select a white pastor to address homophobia in the religious black community. We're talking Politics 101...

My response was that of course I believe in church-state separation. Unfortunately the right (and some on the left, albeit with less malice) tries to have it both ways. And as far as the right goes, it has chosen to cross the line by trying to deny civil rights to LGBTs, citing religious reasons as a basis for doing so.

The problem with the top-tier Democratic candidates is that they have voluntarily sought the religious vote by citing their religious beliefs as a reason to deny civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Not only that, the Democratic Party has spent a lot of time, energy and money trying to find out how to court the religious (specifically evangelical) vote. Religion holds no place in the campaign, or in government, other than to support the right of people to practice and exercise it.

Obama has been a friend to the LGBT community (other than his lack of support for civil marriage for gays and lesbians). That doesn't let him off the hook for being surrounded by complete ineptitude on this issue with McClurkin.

I'm only pointing out that once he opened the Pandora's box of personal religious convictions, Obama -- or any candidate -- cannot then step back and pretend he holds no responsibility for crossing that line when the going gets tough.

Mitt Romney certainly vacillates in the same way regarding his Mormonism.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/26/obama_mistakes/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[Karenina]

1. And the beat goes on!

:popcorn:

[terrya]

2. I wish the candidates would stop injecting so much talk of religion...

into the campaign. I'm sorry, flame away, but I have always thought religion and a candidate's religious beliefs are private. As we've seen the past 7 years, with that immoral man in the White House, espousing religious beliefs don't necessarily translate into whether a candidate is a moral person. Bush pours God onto everything....and yet, we've seen unfortunately all too well how THAT has played out.

Last week on George Stephanopolous' little show, he interviewed Joe Biden. And almost right away, Georgie asked Senator Biden about his faith. We're not electing a "Preacher-in-Chief". We're electing a President. And the measure of a man (or woman) who asks us to elect them President of the United States doesn't exclusively relate to how much faith they have in God, or how often they go to church or whatever. I suppose that's one good thing about how horribly long our political campaigns are...we get a chance to throughly decide what kind of people these candidates are...and again, George W. Bush practically is bestest buddies with God...and again, we've unfortunately seen how well THAT has worked out.

And well...Senator Obama is seeing a big downside for opening up his religious convictions....and finding out that there are some nasty, bigoted people who are also, as they say, on the side of God.

And Senator...the time is running out. But you can STILL make this right. Dump the people who represent bigotry from this event. Do the right thing.

[Karenina]

3. Separation of Church and State is a very fine principle.

[cuke]

5. That only applies to the govt, not individuals

even if the individual is a govt official or worker.

I don't have a problem with a candidate making religious remarks on the campaign provided that it's limited appropriately, meaning too much of it concerns me too. It has the whiff of pandering for votes, and pandering to the religious is something to be concerned about. If a candidate feels they have to do so much religious pandering in order to win the election, what will they do once in office to help reassure their re-election?

In politics, you have to dance with the ones who brought you.

[Myrina]

4. Agreed 100%

... I have always thought religion and a candidate's religious beliefs are private. As we've seen the past 7 years, with that immoral man in the White House, espousing religious beliefs don't necessarily translate into whether a candidate is a moral person. Bush pours God onto everything ... and yet, we've seen unfortunately all too well how THAT has played out. ... We're not electing a "Preacher-in-Chief".


:applause:

[MethuenProgressive]

10. "complete ineptitude on this issue with McClurkin" Maybe it is on purpose?

I think Obama might *want* to pander to the anti-gay church crowd.

[NMMNG]

24. I rather suspect that myself

Could it possibly be an accident that 5 people involved with the concert are definite homophobes?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. Bluebear, I've noticed that all of your OPs in the last few days have been about this subject

I think we get the point.

[JackBeck]

7. Seeing as though there are posters on here that thought this story would go away

I think BB or anyone else has the right to post every story that breaks on this topic.

[terrya]

8. Is there a point when someone has to mute their outrage?

Seriously?

We all have something that we are angered over...and we want others to understand that anger or outrage.

Hell, in GD, remember the scores of threads about John Edwards' haircut? This is something more pertinent to GLBT people (and particularly to GLBT supporters of Senator Obama) than a haircut.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. I agree but why is there far less outrage over Sen. Clinton and Harold Mayberry?

Once it was revealed that the frontrunner has her own issues with homophobic preachers (who have very similar views to McClurkin), you'd think that the dialogue would shift from being a nonstop Obama bash-a-thon to being about the more general issue of candidates pandering to religious fundamentalists. Personally, I wish all of our candidates would can it with the 'faith' stuff.

But no, that wasn't the case. Many of the same people who are angrily calling for Obama's head over McClurkin are strangely dismissive about Mayberry. It's different, supposedly, because Mayberry isn't performing onstage, or raising money (neither is McClurkin). Or because you can't help who endorses you! (You don't have to issue a press release about it and display it proudly on your website either.)

I just find it incredibly unfair to single out one candidate's blunder while giving the other a free pass.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. because the two

aren't even close to equivalent.

Clinton isn't featuring Mayberry at a fundraiser. Mayberry is not known primarily for his views on gay rights.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Mayberry's views were public enough for people to find them easily

Nice try, though. Far as I'm concerned bigots are bigots. They may differ in degree, but not in kind. YMMV.

But seriously, don't you think the Clinton campaign should issue a statement condemning Mayberry's views on gay people?

Don't you think they should at least remove the PRESS RELEASE they wrote CELEBRATING the bigot's endorsement off the website?

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Clinton is not using Mayberry

as a fundraiser.

There's really no equivalence, as much as some people would like to claim there is.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. So you can proudly accept a bigot's endorsement so long as he doesn't raise funds?

Whatever.

Besides, how do you know Mayberry hasn't raised money for her? You think no checks ever get passed around at those 'interfaith events'?

[Karenina]

23. This from Pam Spaulding:

"The last thing a crowd of black folks who have a problem with homosexuality needs is: 1) to be "told" by the Obama campaign that a message about tolerance must be delivered from a white voice of faith, and 2) to have their beliefs confirmed that being gay is "a white man's perversion." Coming from a white pastor under these circumstances, can only be seen as paternalistic and patronizing; the shields of defensiveness will go up, the message will be ignored."

Obama stepped on a third rail.

Mayberry is a homophobe, true. Donnie is a self-hating gay man using religion to cover the fact that he's STILL GAY (ask Clay) and using his talents to foment DISCRIMINATION and emotional violence against LGBT people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Whereas Mayberry is (ostensibly) not a closet gay and only compared gays to theives

Which, I guess, isn't fomenting discrimination and violence against GLBT people because theives are so...well-liked in the community?

Good to know that there are so many people helping us navigate the increasingly complex parameters that define what is, and isn't, unacceptable for politicians to do regarding to how they pander to religious bigots. But at least there is consistency, in that all roads lead to the same conclusion: Obama Bad. Hillary Okay.

And I frankly don't see what Pam's quote has to do with the comparison between Mayberry and McClurkin.

[Karenina]

34. "Clinton did it too" will not suffice

as much as it points up a double standard. Mayberry is not ok. She's really NOT ok and I fear for the American people.

Pam's quote highlights a stunning lack of perception and "inclusion" on Obama's part. He's spinning a LOT of plates. One just flew off its stick and splintered into tiny pieces on impact.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. I agree, it doesn't suffice.

That's not my intention. I'm not saying "let's ignore Obama because Clinton did the same thing". I'm saying let's hold ALL of our candidates accountable for their associations.

[Karenina]

36. That's a tough one.

[NMMNG]

26. Obama tried to get Mayberry

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/an_endorsement.html

But Clinton offered him more so she won out. It's only because of the $$$ that Obama doesn't have Mayberry. He seems to have a real affinity for those homophobes, it seems.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. And Clinton seems to be willing to pay more for them. nt

[NMMNG]

30. The point is that Obama tried

So he's no innocent here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. Never said he was. My point is that while Obama tried, Clinton succeeded

Which makes her just as guilty.

[Bluebear]

9. Yes, I realize you'd love the subject to go away, but more pertinent articles keep appearing

You do want to stay abreast of the situation, don't you?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Well shouldn't we also stay abreast of the Sen. Clinton - Harold Mayberry situation too?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857

He has publicly compared homosexuality to theivery. When is she going to make an announcement?

Just kidding! IOKIYAHRC.

[Bluebear]

12. I invite you to start any thread about her you choose, I wasn't considering voting for her.

Sorry, Mark Penn cinched her for me. Obama I had hopes for.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. But a lot of people are choosing her so this singular focus on Obama for this is unfair

When Obama isn't the only one who associates with bigots. And when people have posted OPs or responses about it they get flamed and accused of throwing out red herrings. Because apparently, it's only bad if your homophobe sings on a stage. Getting endorsements and then proudly displaying them on your website is far less problematic for some reason.

[Bluebear]

14. Were you OK with these Obama posts, or am I just to post happy news for him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=192914
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=154879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=414751

Of course, I am just a racist Hillary voter. :silly:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. I realize you say you are not a Clinton supporter

Those are real nice OPs you posted, several months ago.

However, in the last few days you (and a few others who are known Clinton supporters) have focused exclusively on the McClurkin issue, while ignoring Clinton's associations. It's not just unfair; it's misleading. People who are going to stop or reconsider supporting Obama over this shouldn't consider supporting Clinton either, should they?

[IndianaJones]

18. why not simply start threads regarding Clinton? nt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Others have started them and they flamed or die

Look at the response I already got in this subthread minimizing the Mayberry association. I anticipate any thread I start will meet a similar fate. I'll work on one that addresses the general issue of pandering to the Christian vote. Because I think that's what the whole problem is. That's why the Eleanor Roosevelt quote is in my sig line. This is yet another example of why she was right.

[jonnyblitz]

25. a few of us weren't pleased with the info about Hillary and

her DC prayer group that was featured in a MOther Jones article awhile back. We complained and got jumped on by Hillary supporters ("anti-religious, damn fundamentalist atheists",etc,etc). supporters of a particular candidate SPIN in support of their candidate despite it being obvious to the rest of us and the candidate spinners being obviously inconsistent and often contradictory. the Obama thing is current and there is no reason to IGNORE it just because Hillary had similar issues that were also discussed when THEY first came up but NOW not being discussed along with this Obama mess. It's just a ploy to divert attention.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Very true about the prayer groups

But the Mayberry revelation is recent. I'm not suggesting that Obama's actions should be ignored. Not in the least. What I do have a problem with is people demanding Obama's head for the inclusion of McClurkin in the concert while minimizing Clinton's troublesome associations. There is some basis to the argument that it's a diversion. There is no validity, however, in the arguments that Mayberry is somehow 'different' because he's not performing on a stage, or raising money, or she can' help who endorses her, or the myriad other lame excuses Clinton supporters are using. Those are also nothing but diversions.

[Bluebear]

28. The discussion exists because Obama has/had a window to do the right thing, now.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. I sincerely hope he does

I wish he would cancel the whole damn show, since apparently McClurkin isn't the only performer on the lineup with disturbing views. :(