Obama's Big Gay and Black Problem

Thursday, 29 November 2007, 1:24 pm
Column: Black Agenda Report
www.blackagendareport.com



There's a point in a campaign that's behind in the polls when desperation sets in. That's the time when trailing candidates try to throw the haymaker punch hoping for a knockout blow on the frontrunner. We are not at that point in this campaign season, but it's getting close.

It's no surprise that part of Barack Obama's South Carolina primary strategy aims at black church-going voters. The church is the most organized part of the black community and churchgoers are reliable voters. In addition, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's hiring of local high-priced preacher-politician-businessman Darrell Jackson and her husband Bill's clout with blacks puts additional pressure on Obama. The Illinois senator has to cut into Clinton's black support as well as establishing his own African American base.

If Obama doesn't win South Carolina with its large African American voter base the race may be over for him. His poll numbers in South Carolina have been up and down. Right now Clinton appears to have the overall lead in the state as well as with black voters. Clinton also has the edge with black women who regularly vote at a higher rate than black men...

Oddly, Obama threw a premature haymaker but it wasn't aimed at Clinton. The target was the GLBT community. Obama's wild swing involved having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign on his "Embrace the Courage" gospel music tour in South Carolina. The gay bashing headliners included Reverends Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Pentecostal pastor of Brooklyn mega-church, the Love Fellowship Tabernacle and Mary Mary (a sister act duo).

The Mary Mary sisters compare gays to murderers and prostitutes. In an interview with Vibe magazine, one of the singers said, "They have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else - just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute."

McClurkin's previous political involvement was performing for George Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Now he's singing for Obama. And, while stumping for the candidate McClurkin didn't just "get on stage, sing, and shut up" as some in the Obama campaign hoped he would do. He sermonized: "God delivered me from homosexuality" - as though one could simply "pray the gay away." The predominately black crowd inside the Township Auditorium in Columbia clapped their approval of McClurkin's message. Meanwhile a small, predominately white group of gay rights supporters picketed outside the venue.

"McClurkin sermonized: ‘God delivered me from homosexuality' - as though one could simply ‘pray the gay away.'"

Obama justifies his embrace of the evangelicals saying he's "reaching out to people he doesn't agree with." Responding to a controversy he should - or did - have anticipated, Obama mentioned the black community's "problem with homophobia." Yet after the tour when asked why the campaign would seemingly reject gay voters for far-right leaning blacks a campaign insider replied, "We got what we needed to get out of it."

Maybe Obama hoped the McClurkin alliance would introduce him to McClurkin's black and white Southern evangelical base. Or, that courting evangelicals will work for him as it did for Bush. Maybe his "40 Days of Faith and Family" South Carolina campaign theme and his early radio buys on gospel radio in the state are not just nuanced campaigning to a particular constituency group. Maybe, the evangelical niche is all he hopes to get...

America may one day elect a woman or black as president. As to whether or not Obama or Clinton can break into the white men's club is not a short answer question. In the meantime, the most important questions for us revolve around what will a candidate do or say to win office. Are they consistent in their message and actions? Do they pander from group to group? Do they pit one group of people against another group? At this point the answers for Obama appear to be no, yes and yes. Hopefully, in the days before the primary vote we can get better answers or at the very least, a bit of consistency as opposed to acts of desperation.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00439.htm

Kevin Alexander Gray is a civil rights organizer in South Carolina. He is also a contributing editor to Black News in South Carolina. Gray served as 1988 South Carolina coordinator for the Presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson and as 1992 southern political director for Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's presidential bid. He can be contacted at kagamba@bellsouth.net

The guy is smart. He can't be so tone deaf to the black community not to know what these folks stand for. Maybe this Obama and the Obama on the 700 club playing the God card is what he really believes.

I am saying that if a Republican gets an antigay religious freek job like Pat Robertson to work with his campaign, there is no doubt that he is putting out an antigay message. I think the same logic should be applied to Obama. He wants to put on an antigay mask for the black religous community. If he is going to wear that mask, then that is what he is.

Obama, the anti-gay Democrat for President.

The more I learn about Obama, the less I like him as a candidate. It would have been better to stay ignorant and not think about these things.

He's a politician as are Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden, et cetera...They all play these games... Some play the game more artfully and less transparently... The only thing that irks me about this board is the boosters of candidates who come here with the " my candidate's virginal and your candidate is defiled" bullshit...

my best interests. I am not interested in holding my nose and voting. I look at their policies and decide which one looks like he or she most closly matches my interets.

The candidate wars occuring here, where supporters meet in order to eviscerate their oponent with any means no matter how underhanded are next to useless to me. Most threads disintegrate to boos and hisses and inuendo without any real discussion about the merits of a candidate.

But I've only been posting here a short time. I probably haven't grown a thick enough skin.

no one is paying attention to this online tempest in a teapot

prefer, I am sure.

Sometimes, it just may be those with the loudest voices and the most doctrinaire attitudes.

Its especially appalling coming from a black man.

Indeed. I hope he's satisfied with the results, whatever they turn out to be.

This was first published on Nov 21st, NOT today !



I know you're trying to rekindle the strawman gay argument, but you should at least be honest about it.:evilfrown:

Sorry but us uppity queers haven't forgotten, and we're not trying to stir shit up that, as far as we're concerned, keeps getting shoved in our face every time Obama speaks about inclusion.

But as we know, NOBODY is talking about this outside of DU. :sarcasm:

:P

:silly:

After all he's a friend of Dorothy!

it's not like it expired or anything...there is no "shelf life" on shit like this.

What is "ignored" saying? That this is "old news"?

but thanks for playing...

The only one who does is considered "fringe". :(

And a hack job by a Clinton partisan at worst.

Bigotry is bigotry.

Period.

Nice try at excuse making...

He's doing the right thing for the Democratic Party and for gays.

Many understand that today; all will understand his wisdom in time.

Obama is combating bigotry by forming relationships, and he is wise to do so.

Chauncey Gardiner, is that you?

If this is the right think, then no fucking thank you.

This one's MO is to only dig up cheerleading cliches for Obama. As to a "Clinton hack at worst", when he first joined up he was a Clinton supporter.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3323372
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3296512
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3267324

It's completely misguided. The writer can't see the forest from the trees.

Let's you and me combat bigotry by forming some relationships with Stormfront, the KKK and the Skinheads. I'll bet Prussian Blue is available for a concert tour. :sarcasm:

We must reach out to everybody, besides, they will only be singing one song! :sarcasm:

There are three "supporters" of one particular candidate on this board who have the same writing pattern and rely almost exclusively on homilies, bromides, cliches, and other one liners to deflect criticism from their candidate... I wonder if they are the same person...

Paid Obama operative, no doubt

:kick: and recommend

The argument that Obama was homophobic because some entertainers at an outreach event are ignorant was a stretch to begin with. And that was about 30 threads ago.

If it's Bluebear, it's McClurkin time.

k&r

Have a good life.

you've written what? A 100 threads about this?

or more on any issue or person. I've posted in total, something like 8 or 9 threads on JE. Quite a difference- if you can count.

I took you off ignore this year and it was a mistake, it will be better for both of us not to run into each other here anymore. I am putting you on ignore and suggest you return the favor. Adios.

:evilgrin:

When it comes to tireless repetitive personality assassination, you're top of the list.

This is important. Anyone who thinks that the bigoted, abusive treatment handed gays in this instance is just inconsequential has extreme ethical problems. Those who would hold their own oppressed status as above reproach and worthy of having the right to marginalize others for tactical gain are at odds with the covenant of civilization.

It's especially bad for someone like Obama, who portrays himself as inclusive, to disinclude and prey upon primitive fear and superstition for personal gain. Those who minimize this are either oblivious, unfeeling, or expecting some kind of aristocracy of privilege akin to what conservatives consider is their due.

You don't like what I post about, so you take this little tack. I have posted substantive criticism about various candidates. Your characterization of what I've posted is simply your perspective.

I damn well know how important this is, and I don't need a self-serving lecture from self-important you. This happens to be an issue close to my heart, and one I've worked on for years. Anyone accusing someone of something without a shred of evidence, might look at their own ethical problems. I've said nothing that could possibly lead you to believe that I don't care about issues of equality for the GBLT community.

I don't approve of what Obama did. But the author of the OP has literally posted dozens and dozens of threads about it. That doesn't help.

I'm disgusted by self-righteousness used as a weapon against someone you don't like.

It's incredibly dishonest. And ugly.

The sheer hypocrisy of granting oneself the right to rail endlessly at others and shout down those who would use the same tactics is breathtaking. If one gave a tinker's cuss about gay rights, one should be deeply offended by Obama's actions, not just in some kind of for-the-record state of disapproval.

Are you not the person who openly reveled in "cherry-picking" John Edwards' Senate voting record? (It's a very honorable progressive record without the distortion.) What right do you claim to justify this? That was you, wasn't it? After such open and joyous deliberate distortion, upon what grounds do you claim to set a pedestal of moral superiority?

It is very disturbing how so many Obama supporters have simply swept this under their mental carpet and fluffed any rejoinders as "obsessive" or untoward. The implication is that continuing to bring this up is somehow unfair, since it's already been pronounced as "over". For many, it's NOT over, and the self-congratulatory proclamation that it is betrays an extreme selfishness and snotty belief in privilege.

After the deplorable tactical abuse of the Obama campaign on this, they've "gotten what they want"; it's the ethical duty of those of us not operating with convenient "morals" to give them what they deserve. If someone is truly disapproving of what Obama has done here, then that person should understand the focus that certain others have on it. Otherwise, it just sounds like the extreme selfishness of putting one's own agenda over that of a persecuted minority.

The very idea of hearing outraged personal insults from someone who supports the use of extreme bigotry (regardless of disapproving of it) is disgusting. He benefitted from it and those who don't hold him responsible are simply wrong. The word is wrong, as in "bad", "immoral", "selfish" and "dishonest".

"The very idea of hearing outraged personal insults from someone who supports the use of extreme bigotry (regardless of disapproving of it) is disgusting. He benefitted from it and those who don't hold him responsible are simply wrong. The word is wrong, as in "bad", "immoral", "selfish" and "dishonest".


I would never accuse someone of "supporting extreme bigotry" without having concrete evidence that they did. YOU have NO evidence of any kind.

Do you know what that makes you?

Imagine.

...just so you know.

Here's a screed he served up in Feb --- http://www.counterpunch.com/gray02102007.html

This doesn't *necessarily* refute the contents of his claims in this editorial but it clearly offers some "historical background."

The twisted logic of an Obama supporter

preach on!