Has there been an upsurge of McClurkin Threads at DU since Obama's wins of Feb 9-12? If so why?

[cloudythescribbler]

[K Gardner]

1. Yes. In fact, I think we should rename the forum GD:McLurkin. I think

the why is obvious as well.

[Renew Deal]

4. There's two types of people talking about this.

The people that genuinely care (which are few and I don't mean that in a bad way), and the people looking to kick a political football (which are many). Most people pushing this couldn't give two shits about human rights. They are just using people with true feelings for suckers.

[Beausoir]

7. And you have proof of your theory?

Or is it just more pro-Obama horseshit?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Renew Deal]

17. Yes

But I don't want to call people out too much. The person that opened the scab on this one is a perfect example.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

19. If these were genuine attacks and not just political plays

they would be equally directed against Clinton and her support of DOMA and DADT.

[hiaasenrocks]

25. Exactly. It's all bullshit.

[Strelnikov_]

35. Seconded n/t

[KittyWampus]

51. It's the SELECTIVE Outrage. I will not disparage the hurt people feel over that incident

but note many of same people don't spread the "love" to Clinton's own pandering to homophobic black ministers.

[Duncan Grant]

53. While I'm not Senator Clinton's greatest supporter, I will disagree.

Obama was asked by LGBT people to disassociate his campaign from Donnie McClurkin many days before this huge GOTV event in South Carolina. Obama refused.

I think I'd be happy if Obama held a similarly huge GOTV event exclusively for LGBT people in Columbia, SC. And when the right-wing Christian fundies freak out, Obama will have an opportunity to offer real leadership on LGBT issues.

[cloudythescribbler]

59. I believe (could be wrong) it was FIVE days, and the event was already publicized

Obama (insufficiently, in my view, but ...) then scheduled a gay pastor to appear at the event, felt by many on DU to be an unsatisfactory response.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

61. I will concede that point.

Obama made a statement outlining his strong disagreement with McClurkin's views, but he should have disinvited him from those events.

I would love to see a debate between Clinton and Obama either entirely or partially focused on LGBT issues. I don't honestly believe either candidate is anti-gay, and it would allow them both to clear the air a little.

[terrya]

70. I agree with everything you said.

The Human Rights Campaign virutally begged Barack Obama not to do this. And as you said, Obama refused.

And the second part of your post is perfect. Thank you.

[TexasObserver]

64. Ding! Ding! Ding! Stop calling folks, we have a winner.

[cloudythescribbler]

57. As for proof of the recent upsurge, here's a sample of at least SOME:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4601799

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4604284

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4603802


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4591271

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4598527

and at least two more since I first posted the poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4604284

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4604855

and some threads on the issue from obama supporters or others complaining about too many:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4599205

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4598557

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4598466

[Beausoir]

2. We are not going to go away. We are not going to get over it.

What Obama did to the GLBT community was despicable. You know it, he knows it. It will not be forgotten.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. Yes, and who knows why? I'm glad to see a poll on this.

I normally skip the other threads on McClurkin and related issues because it is becoming tiresome. I wish there was a way to hide/ignore threads based on keywords/issues.

[Barack_America]

5. More urgent now...because she needs all the help she can get. n/t

[Beausoir]

6. You may view GLBT bashing as politics as usual, but we do not.

Obama hired a gay basher in order to garner votes. He has no decency.

[Barack_America]

8. *cough*You might want to see who's on Hillary's payroll*cough*

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/11/hillarys-donnie.html

[Beausoir]

10. Another lame attempt to divert. We are talking about Obama's hiring a gay basher

in order to pander for some votes.

You can try and twist it all you want, but we will never forget. Get it? It's NOT going away. What Obama did is NOT going away.

You can twist and squirm all you want. But we will never forget.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. OK, so you'll never forget. What exactly do you plan to do about this?

[Beausoir]

12. I voice my opposition to Obama's throwing the GLBT community under the bus...to everyone I can.

I will never support him. I will never forget what he did. And I pray to god he does not get the nomination. I will work to make as many people as I can aware of what Obama did.

[hiaasenrocks]

15. And if he gets the nomination.....?

[Beausoir]

21. Will I vote for him? Like Michele Obama said..I'll have to think about that. Think about his tone.

[maddiejoan]

16. Sit my queer ass at home

in my Brooklyn apartment on election day if Obama is the nominee.

[hiaasenrocks]

18. +1 for McCain. Anybody else?

[maddiejoan]

20. NY State

will go Blue anyway.

Why should I dirty myself voting for a candidate I don't trust to help my best interests?

[hiaasenrocks]

22. I live in SC, a state that will likely go red.

Should I stay home?

[maddiejoan]

23. If I lived in SC

I wouldn't stay home.

I'll go to the polls in NY State if Obama is the nominee.

Then I'll vote downticket only and write in Dennis Kucinich for President.

[hiaasenrocks]

26. I guess these secure red or blue states aren't so secure after all.

[maddiejoan]

29. If Obama

makes a declarative statement against the "ex-gay" movement and says in clear english (of which we know he is capable) that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

If Obama calls the torture of gay youth in these "conversion by Jesus" camps for the child abuse that it is --

then I'd be able to vote for him.

The Gentleman from Illinois opened up this can of worms when he legitimized McClurkin's and Rev Caldwell's voices on this, now he can try and put the worms back in the can.

By bringing back the LGBT rights debate to "Homosexualty is a sin" versus "Homosexuality is not a sin", Obama has turned the dial on the debate back to pre-1968.

[hiaasenrocks]

32. I see what you're saying.

I just don't think he has an electoral problem at this point. That's where I'm coming from. Obviously we are going to disagree on this. I recognize that. We just have different opinions.

[maddiejoan]

Why not go for broke then?

He should just campaign on the platform that "Gays can be cured by Jesus" and we should embrace them as they work for that change to happen!

He'd be rolling in votes then!

[hiaasenrocks]

37. Because it's not necessary to make this issue

a major part of any campaign, either way, regardless of position. I'm not aware of any presidential nominee or general election winner of either party who benefited or was harmed by highlighting this issue in a positive or negative way.

[maddiejoan]

39. Obama crossed that line

THAT's the point.

[hiaasenrocks]

40. Crossed what line?

[maddiejoan]

43. He brought religious anti-gay sentiment

into what should be a secular campaign debate.

He legitimized the point of view that "Homosexuality is a sin"

It doesn't matter if he disagrees with it. It's not a policy difference.

That's the problem --he has elevated religious bigotry to an equal stance with civil rights.

He crossed the line in order to pander to that vote.

[hiaasenrocks]

46. OK. We keep saying the same things here.

I understand your personal opinion as you state it.

I'm simply coming from the standpoint that this issue hasn't (and won't) hurt Obama's campaign.

I guess we're done!

[maddiejoan]

49. Guess so

Your belief is that the LGBT community doesn't count, and that it's okay for "Homosexuality is a sin" to be considered just a different POV.

Gotcha.

So does Obama. So you are in good company.

[hiaasenrocks]

50. People do have different views, that's very true.

So at least we can agree on that.

[miceelf]

45. Well

He shouldnt' do that because he doesn't believe it. Any more than Hillary's working with anti-gay ministers proves what she really believes.

[maddiejoan]

47. When Hillary has one

MC a gospel tour for her campaign where they get up and proclaim that Homosexuality is a sin.

get back to me.

[KittyWampus]

52. And YOUR girl gets a free pass? You out yourself as a Selective Outrage Hypocrite. BTW, I live in

NY also and know what a lackluster Senator Hillary is and will not be pulling the lever for her, should she manage to overcome her incompetence and actually pull out a win.


Tell you what, your opinion will hold some integrity when you acknowledge and repudiate Hillary's own pandering to black homophobes.

And I"ll be keen on seeing how you then manage to rationalize it.

[miceelf]

54. No, see

it's DIFFERENT, because the black homophobes she campaigns with don't SING.

That's an important distinction, apparently.

[maddiejoan]

63. Here's the difference

Obama will throw us under the bus. Hillary will allow us to continue riding in the back of the bus.

Happy?

Your argument about Obama versus Hillary is akin to an argument of the evils of segregation versus the evils of affirmative action.

Hillary doesn't get a free pass. She's more of the same.

Obama is worse.

[cloudythescribbler]

65. this is pure conjecture -- and unfounded in Obama's platform or overall record-

[maddiejoan]

66. Why?

He ALREADY did throw us under the bus.

[WillyT]

77. And What, If Any, Is Hillary Clinton's Position On...

"the torture of gay youth in these "conversion by Jesus" camps"?

Is there some Clinton Campaign literature on this? Because I haven't heard ANY politician bring this up.

:shrug:

[calmblueocean]

24. Given that we can't go back in time, help me understand what you'd like to see going forward.

I guess that's what I'm not sure of. Given that Obama has spoken out rebuking McClurkin's remarks, is no longer using him, has spoken out in church to gay-hostile audiences in favor of gay acceptance, would you at least admit that he's on the right path?

Or no? Would you just rather have McCain, and know that you've stood up and made your point in a profound way?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from and what you'd like to see happen from here.

[miceelf]

44. Okay, but

Why is it okay when Clinton does it. Agree it's wrong. But if it's wrong for Obama, why is it okay for Clinton?

[K Gardner]

13. Interesting. I'm not surprised we hear nothing about this. Selective reasoning.

[CTLawGuy]

75. didn't you get the memo

that Hillary gets an automatic free pass?

nope, no politics going on at all here...

[billyoc]

9. Ah, thank you, I didn't know what the hell a mclurkin was. nt

[Stephanie]

14. I thnik Obama needs to have a GLBTQ town meeting to discuss this

I think he needs to air this out and take questions in a large public meeting. This issue is just festering.

[calmblueocean]

27. This is an interesting notion. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Would a town meeting where GLBT advocates could address their concerns to him publicly and directly make a difference going forward?

[shaniqua6392]

41. He will never do this.

He only had McClurkin with him to achieve the goal of winning over the African American Christians who are against homosexuality, and there are a lot of them that he did win over. It was done to create a mutual understanding between Obama and this part of the population that he will do whatever it takes to make sure gay marriage never happens. That is my opinion on the whole thing. That is why I can not vote for him. I will be staying home this year unless I see some mention of civil rights for our fellow Americans.

[theHandpuppet]

72. Bingo!!!

And if folks think he'll suddenly stop that kind of political pandering during the general election -- or even afterwards -- they are bring willfully delusional.

[hiaasenrocks]

28. That might be a huge tactical mistake.

And at this point, it's all tactics. That's just the reality, like it or not.

I apply the same view to debates in general, by the way. He's doing fine as it is; no sense in deliberately changing tactics/strategies right now.

[Stephanie]

30. I don't think it would be a mistake

Because I think he would handle it well and likely settle this matter, reach a truce.

[hiaasenrocks]

31. Again, I'm coming from a strategy standpoint.

All this would likely do is highlight the issue even more. From a strategic standpoint, considering that he's doing well as it is, he shouldn't gamble on doing that.

It's not as though he's having trouble with the base like McCain is over on the right-wing.

[Umbram]

33. I think it would be a good idea

but, I rather doubt it would have any impact on many here at DU.

I'm sure he would slip up on one sentence somewhere in a two hour long discussion and that would be all the proof necessary for some here that Obama is homophobic.

Same goes for Hillary, if she came out against some prior policy position that is unpopular here her detractors would ignore it and find another reason to trash her.

There are enough political footballs and people are far enough entrenched in their rational or irrational justifications as to why they support their candidates that there isn't much that can be said or done to open the average GD:P'ers mind. That said - the general public is another matter altogether.

[hiaasenrocks]

48. He would be ambushed.

As expressed by EmperorHasNoClothes in post #19 and Kristi1696 in post #5.

Therefore, it would be a strategic mistake to do what was suggested.

[terrya]

34. How about another forum for GLBT issues....

with Hillary Clinton?

Same sort of thing as the Presidential Forum a few months back. On the Logo channel.

Just the 2 of them. Answering any questions about GLBT issues. I'm sure the McClurkin issue would come up. And it would give both candidates the chance to reject any future endorsements from people representing "ex-gay" groups.

[Stephanie]

36. Sure, why not?

Let's clear the air all around.

[hiaasenrocks]

38. For what strategic purpose?

I say no, and it's summed up in my post #37.

[Barack_America]

42. Basically what you have here is a lot of people channeling their feelings.....

...about the ex-gay movement in to one person, one event and one candidate. While conveniently forgetting that the *other* candidate also has unfortunate associations with people regarding GLBT acceptance and equality. And also ignoring the fact that these associations do not represent the views or previous voting histories of either candidate on GLBT issues.

[rug]

55. The closer he gets to winning the nomination, and the Presidency, the more scruitiny he warrants.

[cloudythescribbler]

60. This (so far only) attempt to explain the TIMING of the upsurge on DU is less than convincing ...

[MethuenProgressive]

56. I see you have 23 ObamaBots voting in the poll so far...

:puke:

[MethuenProgressive]

58. I vote other. Most of the McClurkin threads are by ObamaBots crying about McClurkin threads,

I Hope Donnie can Cure you.

[cloudythescribbler]

62. No, I have posted above a list of quite a few McClurkin threads, and ...

they are NOT mostly from Obama supporters but critics of Obama, including some people known to have expressed opposition to Obama on the Obama episode before. There are indeed a couple of threads complaining about it as a "false issue" or that it is "crowding out other issues on the DU board" (which I admit, as an argument, is a stretch).

It isn't that McClurkin threads are 'crowding out' anything, but what is curious is -- WHY THE UPSURGE NOW? It appears to be essentially a generic sort of ammunition against Obama, while his gains have made spin after spin bite the dust (eg that Latinos won't vote for him). So some folk are returning to McClurkin as a kind of "old faithful" issue. (a working hypothesis)

[Chovexani]

67. Sorry to disappoint

We uppity queers won't shut up.

[cloudythescribbler]

68. I'm myself bi, & have no desire to see issue(s) silenced; but this particular TIMING issue smells...

a little suspicious -- like some of the folk raising it in a new resurgence now, especially, are really using it as a vehicle for their own agenda. Several other posters on this thread have made similar suggestions, none of which have been remotely adequately addressed.

BTW -- what IS the reason for the upsurge (documented in a posting of mine above) in threads on this at DU SINCE Obama won a string of victories Feb 9-Feb 12? Whenever (as in the case of Judi Bari) a position is maintained of being utterly unable to comprehend a simple issue of concern raised about a given line of critique -- I become MORE rather than less wary.

[IndianaGreen]

69. Hillary's internet operation includes spamming websites with their propaganda

and we will see a lot of these people go away once Obama becomes our nominee.

[Cameron27]

71. Do you have proof of that?

I'd counter that I've seen more Obama newbies spamming websites than Clinton's.

[theHandpuppet]

74. Riiiiiiight......

Check out many of the names on those GLBT threads: Mondo Joe, Sapphocrat, Buffy the Fundie Slayer, QC, many others, even me -- we've been around this forum for YEARS. Maybe you just never noticed because you don't give a rat's ass about these issues. Well we've been here a long time and we're not about to go away because you just now noticed that GLBT rights ARE an issue in a Democratic campaign.

[sueragingroz]

73. it's more urgent now because he could win the nomination...

[CTLawGuy]

76. I wouldn't worry

Obama will make up those 15 lost votes somehow.

[Sapphocrat]

78. No -- you just haven't been listening until recently. n/t