Time Mag Columnist: Obama Is "Very Rational-Sounding Sort Of Bigot"

Time Mag Columnist: Obama Is "Very Rational-Sounding Sort Of Bigot"

Rachel Weiner
December 21, 2008

In a Time magazine column, John Cloud writes that gay people should not be surprised that Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration:

About three years ago, a reporter at Fortune asked Rick Warren, the successful pastor whom the President-elect has asked to pray at his Inauguration, about homosexuality. "I'm no homophobic guy," Warren said. His proof? He has dined with gays; he has a church "full of people who are caring for gays who are dying of AIDS"; he believes that "in the hierarchy of evil ... homosexuality is not the worst sin." So gays get to eat -- sometimes even with Rick Warren! Then they get to die of AIDS -- possibly under the care of Rick Warren's congregants. And when they go to hell, they won't be quite as far down in Satan's pit as other evildoers.
...

Rick Warren may occasionally sound more open-minded than Jerry Falwell, another plump Evangelical who once played a prominent role in U.S. politics. But he's not. Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/time-mag-columnist-obama_n_152668.html

Here is part of Cloud's column referenced by Rachel Weiner:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

Or TIME magazine? :eyes:

that should tell you something (but one would need to be open minded and intellectually honest to see that)

no matter how some self-described "progressives" try.

why am I not surprised?:eyes:

IndianaGreen did not author either. When last I looked, only Freepers never, ever questioned what their leaders do. I hope that Obama isn't a bigot, but the Warren thing has me worried that he might think that sort of bigotry passes for "opinion" and not what it really is (as hundreds of others have stated here). It's not being intellectually dishonest to post an editorial from a liberal news source in the editorial forum.

I don't give a rats ass where he dug up this sludge.

they don't see hatred of gays and Lesbians as bigotry.

do you have proof? Links? Where do Freepers call Obama a bigot because he's sharing the stage with a hateful pastor?

I always said that Bush could wrap a white male Christian baby in the American flag, douse him in gasoline and light him on fire in the middle of Times Square on live TV and the Freepers would STILL believe that he could do no wrong. I never want to have to say the same about DUer's relationship with our President.

recently.

I guess those are evil.

And Hitler had a dog! (Bad dog!)

Back on earth, the truth is the truth whether you like it or not.

Sorry - but the SHOE fits in this instance PERFECTLY...

even for "saint obama"...

It's not just LGBTs, women, and Jews, that have been at the receiving end of Warren's activities, but mainline denominations as well. Warren has openly supported the African bishops pushing against gay ordinations, and their schism from the Anglican communion.

Israel has joined a group of United Nations member states calling for the institution's first gay rights declaration, an initiative which has met with resistance by an Arab-backed opposition.

The declaration that was presented Thursday at the UN General Assembly calls for decriminalization of homosexuality.

A Syrian representative read out a statement drafted by the opposition, arguing that the declaration would result in more sex crimes against children.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048330.html

Did I tell you that Rick Warren's beliefs include the one about Jews going to Hell?

Obama pals around with scumbags. That much is undeniable

the whole pals around with scumbags.

By your logic, Obama is a Freeper because he's hanging out with a Freeper. Like always equals like? Are YOU a Freeper because you're against equal rights for Gays and Lesbians?

that's all I need to hear

As for my views I support Obama, a united Country and equal right for all

So I have NOTHING in common with them.

But it appears that Obama may not support equal rights for all.

Bringing up FR has nothing to do with anything.

Rating of 95% with the Human Rights Campaign (based off votes from the 110th congress; a PDF can be found on their website).

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Inviting that gasbag Warren does not invalidate this record.

No, it doesn't.

But it does worry me.

And it does send the wrong message. (That we should reach out to bigotry with our inclusive little hands)

And I agree that it does send the wrong message - I think the message he intended to send was 'we can reach out'. Unfortunately, many are not seeing it that way.

I don't agree with the article in the OP, however. Obama may not support same-sex marriage, but he also does not oppose it. I think he has a somewhat more nuanced position on the matter. He doesn't support it for personal reasons, but also believes that it is not his right to impose that view on others (full disclosure: this is speculation, based upon his stated positions and what I've seen.) John Kerry hold a similar view in regards to abortion.

And, no, the fact that he picked Warren doesn't mean he agrees with everything Warren does. But he surely could have made a better pick.

Anyway, my main concern with Obama -- from the beginning -- is that he wants to get along with everyone.

I'm afraid he'll do what he can to let Bush/Cheney, et al off the hook -- which will keep the history books from ever revealing what they were up to -- and that he'll let aggressive religious bigots continue to push America toward theocracy.

Some of his other picks worried me, too, but this is the one that has capitulation-and-collusion-with-the-true-forces-of-evil (i.e. the right wing) written all over it.

Certainly good that we don't have McCain/Palin (shudder!) to look forward to, but we're in a spot where 'pretty good' isn't even close to good enough.

Hope he can see that ... and soon.

with as many people as he can. It's one of the many, many reasons I voted for him - as far left as I am, I firmly believe that nothing good will come from locking others out. I'm a pragmatist, I admit.

However, while you can attempt to work with everyone, there are some that should be left out, and Warren is one of them. There are inroads to the evangelical community we can use - we did win a portion of that demographic in this election. I know a few who happily voted for him, as they see the Republicans as the modern-day 'moneylenders in the temple' or something along those lines. I forget exactly what; they don't agree with gay marriage, but they are not among those who are vehemently opposed to it either.

I don't think he will let Bush and Cheney off the hook, but I doubt the Occupant's administration will ever be convicted for all of their crimes, no matter who is in office. If we get them on enough, and make sure the blame for what is happening to the country now remains with them and their failed policies, history will not view them kindly.

I'm fine with most of his picks - I've stated before that the White House advisers and staff are the ones who have more influence on the President than the Cabinet, and several progressives have been appointed to such posts (Melody Barnes, Patrick Gaspard, Ellen Moran, etc). LaHood pisses me off, I'm not happy about Vilsack, and I've seen mixed reviews of Salazar, but most of the others I have little to absolutely no problem with.

I think he is seeing it; he is definitely seeing the reaction to Warren (how could he not?). I'm in the 'wait and see' camp, and I remain hopeful and excited. :fistbump:

:fistbump: back at ya!

posting patterns.

"If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions"

cover story about her in Time.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/12/21/john-cloud-obama-basher-ann-coulter-fan/

Time Magazine’s John Cloud has decided to attack Obama over the Rick Warren thing by calling the president-elect a “bigot”. What’s intriguing is that John Cloud can call Obama a name like that but a few years ago spent 6,000 words gushing effusively over an actual bigot, Ann Coulter, in a cover profile for Time.

And people wonder why we lose trust in the media every day.

What happened? Did the rules change? Did McCain win?

more like the Free Republic than the Free Republic

Didn't you read Skinner's Opus on this subject?

It answers your questions.

No, we're not supposed to shut up and go along and get along. It's not "My Messiah, Right or Wrong."

Skinner's Opus is instructive. Read it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/295

I do support gay marriage, my sister is a lesbian. But that doesn't mean I expect/demand the rest of the world to support it.....yet. They will eventually in the not too distant future. My sister says let's get the legalities first and then it'll become mainstream.
I'm not throwing Obama under the bus for some winger preacher to have a few minutes time on a platform. I couldn't tell you who said the prayers at any other inauguration either. It's not an important part of the day. The important part is the "I Barack Hussein Obama" moment.

You can disagree with me all day long, it's still a free country even though bush tried to get that stopped.

Warren should not be giving the invocation!

He's a winger preacher. I'm a liberal.

are taking up all the room....

I simply think Equality for All is non-negotiable. I think getting angry at people who are pissed off about this is stupid. I think getting pissed off at Obama is Democracy at work.

He's the President, he's not The Messiah. People actually CAN say "He's an asshole and a bigot and WRONG on this issue." There's no requirement to kiss his feet. There's no requirement to minimize or mitigate this decision.

People who are telling my gay friends and relatives that this is "not important" and to STFU are dead wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves.

We don't "do" Kings here in the USA. We do, indeed, have the right to criticize. And we should--loudly and often.

Obama opposes equal rights for gays, gives national honors and a national stage to a homophobic bigot who equates gay marriage to pedophilia and has successfully removed rights from the GLBT community, and you interpret the resulting mess as the GLBT community throwing OBAMA under the bus?

Really?

DU has sided up with the anti gay homophobes

They said "Aww, he doesn't mean it. He's just saying that to get elected."

Nudge wink, and all that.

Turns out, that nudging and winking was all bullshit.

He meant it when he said he's opposed to gay marriage. He meant it when he said it's against his RELIGION. He meant it when he said that marriage is a sanctified union between a man and a woman.

I believed him way back when, during the South Carolina primary, when he sent Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell out to corral all those bigoted evangelicals to vote for him. I asked others why they didn't believe it, and they told me to Hope, Change and Believe.

It was this issue that made it impossible for me to support Obama in the primary. It wasn't simply his "attitude," because others quite regrettably shared his No Gay Marriage view, it was the use of Caldwell and McClurkin to round up the gayhating voters--that, I found craven. I thought his approach was, well, vicious and calculating. And it was. And it still is.

which makes Obama's claim about his religion to be a bogus claim at best.

He's looking around for a new church; actively, apparently, and is said to be vetting DC-area churches. Perhaps MLK's AME will be more to his liking (if he goes for historically black churches)--they will not ordain or marry gays, and they believe homosexuality is wrong, a sin, etc., etc., and so forth. If he wants to get hardcore and more diverse, there are plenty of gayhating churches in the metro area.

I think UCC is one of those loose outfits where you don't have to agree in lockstep with your pastors. I suspect that the more you contribute, the less you have to agree.

Obama did make the point that it's against his religion, and he did spout that line of shit about "sanctified union between a man and a woman." It IS interesting, though, that his "deeply held personal view" never matched the church where he attended/donated for twenty years, isn't it....

and people like him, support laws that prevent gay couples from getting a marriage license.

Why should the Christian homophobes dictate to my rabbis who they can, and cannot marry. All we care about is whether both partners are Jewish!

when many of us had voiced concern over the Donnie McClurkin invitation. DU'ers were quick to point out to us LGBT folk "Hey, don't worry...he's just doing it to get the moderate republican vote, he isn't really a homophobe, of course he's on your side but he has to play it cool until he's elected (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Yes, I remember it well.

on edit: typo

another plump Evangelical..." has been in Hell for 586 days! :woohoo:

obama's "words" on GBLT are just that - and not very good ones at that...

that obama is a bigot as far as GBLT go, I have no doubt - we have PROOF of which the OP has documented...

In fact I have not seen any bigotry from Obama, just from those that hate filled DUers that attack him (most of who were former Hillary supporters who bring a whole new meaning to the term sore losers).

You posted something negative about Obama. :eyes:

all of these hurt, shocked and angry responses are ridiculous.

He's never been for gay marriage. Neither has nearly any other likely to get nominated Dem candidate, with maybe one or two exceptions.

He never lied and said he was, he went on Warren's program months ago for cripes sake.

Where was all the outrage then?

Where were all the "bigot" cries then?

And how does anyone think that calling him a bigot does anything to move him closer to supporting gay marriage?

I really think some folks just prefer having something to be morally outraged (and superior) over, as opposed to the hard work of moving an issue along through engagement and talk.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of folks OUTRAGED over this and who think this makes Obama a bigot or unacceptable have an equally to someone else unacceptable or outrageous opinion (and by someone else I mean someone on the left, not the right).

sore loser

and have people support them for it. Not to say that some of them aren't legitimately angry, but there are those who never supported him to begin with, and are now posting every negative thing they can find about him.

This OP is nothing more than an attempt to throw additional fuel into the fire.

Time and the Huffington Post did. The Huffington Post is an avid Obama supporter. I campaigned for Obama and was thrilled that he won, but I'm not one to worship ANY leader without question. That's what Freepers do.

There are two ways to love your President and your Country; like an infant loves it's mother or like an adult loves another adult. The infant can adore it's mother and not care if she's a crack addict or a thief; it doesn't care. It's an infant and it loves blindly. An adult who loves another adult won't like seeing their loved one become a crack addict or a thief because the adult is NOT blind and cares too much about his or her loved one. They will do whatever they can to help the person they love. If Obama is doing something that hurtful to members our our community (this is Democratic Underground, after all, not Obama Underground), then it's up to US to care enough to try to help him see that he's hurting them. It's our duty, because we're adults, not infants.

I read it on HuffPo before it was posted here. And I made a bet with myself that one of the 'usual suspects' would post it here.

I won five bucks from me.

And I do not disagree with you on that; we need to criticize him when we feel criticism is warranted, and boost him when we think he's done something good. However, I do not believe that Obama is a bigot, and the OP has a track record of posting negatively about the President-Elect whenever they can find the opportunity. That is attacking, not criticizing, and with the current tensions on DU, it's throwing fuel on the fire.

Obama is not a bigot. He has an 89% rating from the Human Rights Campaign, voted against the FMA, opposed Prop 8, and supports all GLBT rights except for marriage - including civil unions that provide EQUAL benefits to marriage (which is not perfect, but a damn good step in the right direction). And since he opposed Prop 8 and the FMA, he is against banning gay marriage.

I hate the Warren thing as much as anyone else, but I do not follow the belief that not supporting same-sex marriage makes one a bigot.

The 'Separate but equal' of the 21st Century

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001


So you take a man that praises bigots and then post his Obama smear piece on DU. No class!

a bigot lover having the nerve to call a good and honorable man a bigot. Shameful!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001

Your faux outrage is duly noted!

you would quote the devil himself, if it would help you attack our good and honorable President Elect. WHat is duly noted is your lack of scruples.

Uhh dude -- we don't DO monarchs here. Get off your knees, it's embarrassing to watch. :rofl:

a bigot lover having the nerve to call a good and honorable man a bigot. Shameful!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001

Thank you for your concern about the pain caused by Rick Warren on LGBTs.

:sarcasm:

then again honesty and accuracy are clearly things you don't value very highly.

As for the concern of the pain caused by the successful passage of Prop 8 and similar laws, you have my fullest sympathy.

However hurt and anger can never be an excuse for bad behavior, so that's why you are being taken to task.

This needs to be seen.

This piece is bullshit, and written by an Ann Coulter fanboy.

as a former Georgian, enjoyed the analogy.

hopefully the transition team is reading what a huge # of people think about this Warren pick.

i give it another week before Obama capitulates like he did on Rev. Wright.

if he doesn't.... the inauguration will be the biggest LGBT protest in the history of any presidential inauguration..

I for one will protest the inauguration with all the protest I have left inside me.

there are some interesting things to read there

:puke: