"Obama Should Repudiate and Cancel His Gay Bash Tour, and Do It Now"

[Bluebear]

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. The Grammy winning black gospel singer's last effort on the political scene was his song and shill for Bush's reelection at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Obama has hitched his string to McClurkin's high flying gay bash kite in part out of religious belief (he purports to be somewhat of an evangelical), in bigger part because he's falling further and further behind Hillary Clinton with the black vote in South Carolina and everywhere else, and in the biggest part of all because he hopes that what worked for Bush's reelection will work for him...
Enter McClurkin. He's black, he's popular, and gospel plays big with blacks in South Carolina, especially black evangelicals, and many of them openly and even more of them quietly loathe gays.

Bush masterfully tapped that homophobic sentiment in 2000 in part with McClurkin and even more masterfully in 2004 again with McClurkin and the top gun mega black preachers in Ohio and Florida. He tapped it so masterfully that Bush's naked pander to gay bashing with the GOP spawned anti-gay marriage initiative in Ohio did much to win over a big chunk of black evangelical leaning voter to Bush...
This lesson isn't lost on Obama. Desperate to snatch back some of the political ground with black voters that are slipping away from him and to Hillary; Bush's black evangelical card seems like the perfect play. Obama wouldn't dare go down the knock gay path, and risk drawing the inevitable heat for it, if he didn't think as Bush that anti-gay sentiment is still wide and deep among many blacks.

And that's what makes Obama's ala Bush pander to anti-gay mania even more shameless and reprehensible. From the moment that he tossed his hat in the presidential ring, Obama has done everything he could to sell himself to voters, as the Man on the White Horse, a fresh new face on the scene, with new ideas, and the candidate that's not afraid to boldly challenge Bush and the GOP on everything from the Iraq war to health care.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudiate-an_b_69244.html

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. IF this is true, ( I said *IF*) doesn't it weaken....

>>>Bush masterfully tapped that homophobic sentiment in 2000 in part with McClurkin and even more masterfully in 2004 again with McClurkin and the top gun mega black preachers in Ohio and Florida. He tapped it so masterfully that Bush's naked pander to gay bashing with the GOP spawned anti-gay marriage initiative in Ohio did much to win over a big chunk of black evangelical leaning voter to Bush...>>>


the argument... made with great force on the GLBT forum, and elsewhere,.... that GLBT issues did NOT drag the Kerry ticket down in 'O4?

And doesn't it strengthen the arguments of those who contend that it's smart... and potentially beneficial... for our side ( GLBTers and supporters)for a progressive candidate to defuse this as an issue by ( I hate this phrase) "reaching out."

For the record: McClurkin is to us what Farrakhan is to Jews ( worse, really; I don't remember F. calling Jews "child killers", although plenty of other religious demagoogues have done so down thru the annals of Christianity)and I'm glad Obama's getting ripped for not dropping McClurkin.

But I've seen GLBTers advance the argument that GOP exploitation of gay issues and it's ability to exploit them effectively against the DEMs and Kerry in 04 was a fallacy. I believe it's NOT a fallacy, there having been a number of published post-election reports of black churches and geographical areas in Ohio and Fla esp. that were targeted by GOP operatives for special attention.... utilizing the anti-gay m.o.

It's either a fact or it's not a fact that GLBT issues 'draggged down the ticket'. If it's mythology, lets expose it as such and be done with it. But if its not, then lets get clarity about that and make our political judgements with this reality in mind.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Whether the "defense of marriage" strategy was effective aside, it was

the republican strategy.

And Donnie McClurkin was part of it... even if only in the role of "useful idiot."

That's what makes this thing so crazy. If someone doesn't want to cancel him for being a homophobe then cancel him for being a god-damned Bush flak from the most divisive presidential campaign since 1860.

Surely Democrats can see that. Or maybe not...

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. I think there's a vast difference between "gays drag down the ticket"

and "homophobia sells."

Yes, you will get more scum to vote for you if you cater to their hatred. That being said, do Blacks drag down the ticket? Do Jews drag down the ticket? What else should we pander to?

[Karenina]

4. Earl is LIVID.

:hide:

I don't blame him. I'd also NEVER want him mad at me.

The best case scenario, as Obama WILL NOT jettison him at this late date, would be Donnie showing up with a sore throat forcing him to cancel. :evilgrin: I'll be interested to see what protests materialize at the venue and hope for the best.

From Pam Spaulding about adding Rev. Andy Sidden:

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.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. The question remains: Why Does McClurkin Support Obama?

Does he know something we don't?

[bigdarryl]

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.

[emilyg]

9. "the gays"?????

[Clintonista2]

10. Run for the hills! The gays are coming! The gays are coming!

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

12. Help! The gays! The gays!

[NMMNG]

13. The Gays are going for Hillary?

Why didn't anybody inform me? I'm always the last to know. This definitely wasn't included in my copy of The Agenda. :cry:

[JackBeck]

25. delete

[JackBeck]

26. Most of us prefer being referred to as "the LGBT community".

There are other letters added to the end of that, but let's start out nice and slow.

And since when has a decision been made about who I am supporting? Did I miss the general meeting?

[Major Hogwash]

7. I don't think Bluebear knows what he's talking about.

Cancel his "gay bash" tour!

What tripe!

[jonnyblitz]

8. that phrase was coined by somebody other than Bluebear.

many of us refer to this weekend's hatefest as that.

[Bluebear]

11. I think it was in "quotation marks", signalling a piece by another author.

See link to "Huffington Post".

[geek tragedy]

14. Week old column by a Hill Shill.

He's not cancelling the tour, and anyone up in arms about this is gonna vote Hillary anyways, so no point in caving at this point.

[Bluebear]

15. You are completely full of baloney.

I certainly would vote for Obama before Hillary in the New Hampshire primary, but as you said, there's no point "caving" to the gays at this point.

[geek tragedy]

17. Do you really think that he's putting on a tour

where gay-bashing will be the theme?

I submit that anyone who really thought his campaign chose McClurkin as an attempt to validate hatred of LGBT folks wouldn't ever consider voting for him.

[Bluebear]

18. No, someone, like me, won't consider voting for him after not disinviting McClurkin immediately.

I thought it was an inept campaign staffer that hired him, I thought in my gut that Obama would do the right thing and get rid of the gay-bashing singer, but Obama thought that evangelical black votes in South Carolina are more important than gay votes in New Hampshire, so be it.

[geek tragedy]

21. So, I was right.

Reality is that if you and others have written him off as a candidate, he has no reason to respond to your requests/demands.

[Bluebear]

22. I thought you weren't going to comment on it anymore?

And no, you aren't right, the concert is tonight. There's still time. And I called Obama New Hampshire to tell them so.

[geek tragedy]

23. I'm not going to talk about his LGBT record or try

to persuade people that they should vote for him based on this.

You said yourself you wouldn't consider voting for him because he didn't immediately disinvite the guy.

So, go vote for Hillary. Or Kucinich.

[Bluebear]

24. Actually, Edwards probably, thanks for asking.

[jonnyblitz]

16. yeah I am a HUGE Hillary fan.

you have us all figured out!! :crazy:

keep digging....

[Bluebear]

19. You're one of "they gays" as mentioned upthread, evidently. nt

[geek tragedy]

20. Hillary or Obama is what it's going to come down to.

I can't imagine the people calling Obama a cynical gay-basher voting for him. I guess Kucinich as a protest vote is a possibility.

[goodgd_yall]

27. The last sentence is the reason this is particularly reprehensible to me

It's Obama's shtick to proclaim he's got new ideas. The impression is that he's a liberal (or is it progressive?) candidate. And despite his actions, we are supposed to still believe this. I find the hypocrisy and the willingness to dismiss the LGBT community as not important enough to not offend a deal breaker for me. And I was, up to now, still considering supporting him.