"Any regrets about McClurkin, Sen. Obama?" "I tell you what . . . . "

Q: Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up on stage and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.

A: I tell you what, my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible, and to go into as many places as possible and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence. This goes back to your first question. If you’re segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don’t arise.

The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them and our campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking. And that creates some discomfort because people discover, gosh, within the Democratic Party or within Barack Obama’s campaign or within whatever sets of constituencies there are going to be some different points of view that might even be offensive to some folks. That’s not unique to this issue. I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he’s one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.

And so nobody is going to be perfectly aligned with my views. So what I hope is that people take me for who I am, for what I’ve said and for what I’ve displayed in terms of my commitment to these issues, but understanding that there’s going to be a range of constituencies that I’m reaching out to and working on issues that we have in common, even though I may differ with them on other issues. And that’s true, also, by the way … well, I think that’s going to be true so long as I’m reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=53285&page=3

======

Grand, just what I needed to hear, a fresh justification for "talking" with bigots.

You couldn't of said it better.

Obama is strongly pro-GLBT rights.

A homophobe will not be persuaded to see the common humanity in all people by being ignored or insulted. If homophobes are our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers, then we must use our personal relationship with them to see our side of the story (that GLBT rights are civil rights, etc.).

Isolate them and there will be no progress.

Posters here who say "they must not be tolerated" are very good at spewing rhetoric, but such a position is ineffective as a way to change people. and

he's hardly "strong" about it.


His recent Advocate Interview was a tangled mess of equivocation, that doesn't exactly paint a picture of "strong" anything.

Hillary is only a little bit better herself --but she, at least. doesn't hem and haw about what she intends to do.

Your supposition that we need persuade people that GLBT rights are Civil Rights puzzles me.

I don't see any need whatsoever that anyone needs to be persuaded of anything.

If the bigots don't like it --they don't have to marry anyone of the same-sex.

Conflating what happens with in a personal arena with what happens in a political arena, and arguing that one must win personal battles first is wrong-headed.
I understand what you are saying --but it doesn't require a President, and Obama clearly is not a 'leader'on this issue. Nor does he seem to want to be one.

Along with strong civil union support, with "marriage" being the business of religions and not government?

Alright, do this for me: name another serious presidential candidate who's gone into churches and lectured against homophobia.

And yes, persuasion does need to happen. Not everybody who's not already for gay marriage is a bigot; many are simply underinformed or attached to tradition. They can be swayed.

He doesn't say he WILL

AND he did no 'lecturing' --he parroted back to the congregation exactly what they believe as well.

Don't scorn the Homosexual -- It's all part of the "Love the sinner , hate the sin" line of bullshit.

I give him a C plus at best to Hillary's B minus on LGBT issues

He was pretty clear in his opinion that DADT is a failed and wasteful policy, and that we're losing money and people by kicking gays and lesbians out of the military.

And yes, he did lecture against homophobia. Again: show me another serious presidential candidate who's EVER gone into a church and spoken out against anti-gay bias.

have a link to it?

I'm glad to hear you say that.

Some of the rhetoric around here would have you believe that Obama wants to round up gays and put them in camps... :P

but he left campus.

:P

is your own redemption, and it's good that you recognize your own problem.

For LGBT's, though, our civil rights are the main issue. We don't feel we need to wait on you to give up your destructive attitudes before we attain our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

That is exactly right.

Unmasked!

.

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standing never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas, and bear the consequences." -- Susan B. Anthony

Obama endorsed the tactic.

percentage of voters in the state found homosexuality unacceptable. It was no accident or oversight..it was a planned campaign move.

And clearly heartfelt.

things for the better-those things being the opinions of the bigots.

except for the fact that they have a bigger audience now.

Obama's followers are more tolerant of homophobia than they were before.

Obama gave the bigots an opportunity to preach to the masses. That's not a dialogue.

since he is the person in question, it seems to me that he would be the perfect test of obama's beliefs about "dialogue." btw, giving a homophobe a forum to spew his hatred is not dialogue.

churches, is the first step in the direction of changing hearts and minds. I'm an Obama supporter and I am NOT tolerant of homophobia-never was and never will be. But nice try of using RW tactics of spin.

:hi:

There's a question?

When your enemy refuses to talk with you unless "talking" means giving you a new pointy object between the shoulder blades? Takes two to make peace, if the other side refuses then for all the good will in the world it will not happen. Encouraging ANY kind of bigotry makes the position of ALL who are on the receiving end of serious bigotry suffer.

The Iranians aren't looking to start a war, Donnie McClurkin believes being gay is a disease that needs to be "cured" and the religious reichists Obama is reaching out to would like to see me and mine (Pagans) stamped into the dirt and used for barbecue fuel. I will not seek to negotiate or compromise with someone who only wants my complete and utter destruction, for compromise there cannot under any circumstances be reached.

Do you really think Ahmadinejad thinks gay people are acceptable? He even refuses to acknowledge they EXIST in his country, so that's the LEAST of HIS problems! But at least he's no McClurkin, right? :rofl:

Iran is not a problem with the US atm because of its stance on homosexuality, it is a problem because of the military situation in the Middle East, I wouldn't bother talking with Ahmadinejad about homosexual rights but I would talk about the situation with him with the nuclear program because he doesn't want to start a war with us no matter his rhetoric. Don't play dumb with me and don't try setting up a VERY stupid strawman. Again, apples and oranges.

things that could be seen as dangerous to people in the world. If it's ok to talk to HIM, to "negotiate out of strength," it's ok to talk to McClurkin. Talking is the first step to changing someone's heart and mind.

Because Ahmadinejad is willing to negotiate and has said so himself in interviews and has sent signals as such through Russia and other countries. McClurkin and the Religious Reich do not want to negotiate, they want their boot on the neck of American society and will accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Again, Apples and Oranges, please take down the strawmen and btw:

and you do NOT know that someone like Obama can't change someone like McClurkin's mind. If you want to keep the hatred going, NOT talking is exactly the way to do it. Post all the pics you want-they don't make you right.

I think I will apply that with you.

Just some final thing to leave you with

Obama is MORTAL, he CANNOT solve the world's problems just by saying, "Let us Hope for Change and sing kumbaya and all that"

The level to which you trust he could change things when he is openly pandering to people like McClurkin is almost disturbing.

And I bid you good day, I don't argue with cultists.

McClurkin. His mind CAN be changed. I see you lost this argument since you wish to "bid" me "good day." Yeah-just stick your head in the sand then. :hi:

their priorities. Ahmadenajad- ok. McClurkin and his ilk- no.

When you talk to Ahmadenajad, you are talking to bigotry. I suppose when home grown homophobes get nukes, we are then free to dialog.

At Obama's events, McClurkin did all the talking. I'd love to talk with Donnie, any day, any time, and he can pick the version of the Bible we use as reference. We can meet on his turf or neutral turf, any time at all.
A man in a spotling spewing into a mic is not 'dialouge'. Get your candidate to agree to real dialouge and I'm there, ready to talk.

for his refusal to interview with the Philly gay paper?

:eyes: Do you know his positions on gay issues?

was the fact the editor endorsed Clinton. Which would make him an enemy of Obama in the primary.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

:hi:

Your rabid support of this homophobe is nauseating.

I am not "talking" to anti-gay bigots, I am not "talking" to racist Neanderthals. I have no interest in their point of view.

on edit: for this I took you off ignore, curiosity got the better of me. Shame on me lol!

Pandering to them is yet another. As is giving them YOUR stage to spout their garbage.

Would you like for Obama to give the KKK a spot on his stage too? I didn't think so.

Bake

I can't help you.

can see that his answer is bullshit. He should have simply apologized and gotten past it. He totally fumbled this one. His response to the Wright business was better. He screwed the pooch on this one. It was pandering, plain and simple. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

Bake

obama used a man who uses an active campaign against gay folk, and justifies it here to say we gotta talk.

:eyes:

Now he has the nerve to cluck about it on top of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics
http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/39

When will the hard work of challenging bigots begin, if not through talk?

Obama's views are clear, and McClurkin isn't connected to his campaign in anyway.

There is absolutely no reason for Obama to shun McClurkin and pretend that his issues will be resolved without dialogue.

is using anti-gay bigots to further his capaign. --

by giving them legitimacy and cover.

It's almost like some people don't really want change.

Just like policemen need criminals and doctors need sick people, perhaps single-issue GLBT rights people NEED homophobes?

Just like my prejudiced grandparents changed from speaking out against any of us grandkids from going out with Black people to loving their great-grandchildren. Talking was the first step.

God you're an ass sometimes.

Meanwhile, don't bother replying because you are finally going on ignore, I could give a rat's ass about your anti-gay opinions.

Or no?

:eyes:

tsk, tsk.

:eyes:

or because you hate Obama for his successful campaign against Hillary? Within the paradigm that is the Democratic Party, it seems that you are swimming against the current. Obama will not "disown" people with whom he disagrees, so you should try to understand that. Get this - it's how a Democrat will WIN the White House. "Divide and Conquer" doesn't work for us.

And I certainly don't 'hate Obama for his successful campaign against Hillary'. I remain unenthusiastic for either Obama or Clinton, if that helps.

Then what is it that you're spreading? You do seem to be enthusiastically against Obama. This OP certainly doesn't "help" anybody.

Sorry if you think it's "spreading" it.

McClurkin was wrong to express divisive views rather than just singing. Most of the audience probably had no idea of McClurkin's ex-gay claims. He really is known for his songs! That's it! He's a grammy award winning singer. The crowd was not there to hear a hypocrite rant about being an "ex-gay!" The black community is a little more savvy than that. You're either bi/ gay or you're not.

On the flip side, I sympathize with the personal struggle McClurkin is going through in trying to suppress being gay. I think it's better to show compassion to someone like McClurkin and hope that he one day has the courage to come out of the closet for good.

He can be one of three things:

Repressed Homosexual: In this case, he's not mature enough, or feels safe enough to "come out of the closet" and has to project his issues to the rest of the world.

Repressed Bisexual: In this case he simply rejects the side of him that feels attraction to men, and is a liar to boot, having never been homosexual.

Fucked up Heterosexual: In this case, he's just fucked up, and like the above, a liar to boot.

The fact is that McClurkin, in any of these three cases, is a self promoter, and teaches the very dangerous, and destructive, position that gay people can change their orientation. Even worse, he tells the parents of GLBT kids that there is something wrong with their kids. He deserves derision, not sympathy, save the sympathy for those kids who will be victimized by his fucked up beliefs.

he should just STFU and stop spreading his own f* up thinking to church people. It gives him legitimacy. It's NOT a good thing, at all. And, as I like to remind people, there are young people in those audiences who may be LGB or T and are "struggling" too. They don't need to hear from a self-righteous "ex-gay" telling them that they are bad.

directly the issue of homophopia in the black community was a good thing?

Yes it is about Wright.

What you don't get is that you are trying to put everyone in their nice little boxes and have everyone check off where they stand.

What Senator Obama said in response to your question was if you are trying to bring people together people who have traditionally hated each other - in this case he is talking specifically about the rampant homophobia in parts of the Black community - then its going to get messy. But its better than trying to keep things separate and in a stalemate.


Rev Wright is one of the most outspoken critics of black homophobia. Obama supports confronting black homophobia. Not only that he goes to the most sacred center of the Black community on the most sacred day King's birthday - he calls out the Black community for not embracing gays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

But because he doesn't want to publicly embarrass a self hating gay black man you focus on that.

Most reasonable people would rather have a leader that goes for the bigger issue with the bigger community on the bigger day in the center of the community. But not you. You will use the lack of his wanting to crucify this pathetic self hating gay individual.

You would take the position that his answer has nothing to do with the post. You would rather check the spelling. Knock yourself out keep hate alive. And by all means when Black leaders stand up to homophobia in the black community turn the other way.

I wasn't proofreading. It was just interesting as "crucifiction". Fiction, get it?

But it isn't about Wright, because I never was on the witch hunt for Wrightisms. As to how "Obama supports confronting black homophobia" by headlining a "God delivered me from homosexuality" act, well, color me confused, sorry.

he starts out his rant about loving gays and not hating them and then talks about God saving him from it. Isn't it obvious that this is a person that is gay - not formerly gay and that he still can't love himself. Obama in my mind is acting with compassion by not responding to this gay person who is so conflicted that he cannot accept himself.


Rather than picking on this pathetically sad self hating gay person he goes into the heart of the black community and on MLK's birthday calls them out for not embracing gays. But you refuse to consider that there might be a human dimension in not further drawing publicity to a gay black man who has obvious psychological problems and that taking it head on to the black community in the most visible pulpit is a more courageous and effective act.

And for the record I am the main means of support of my transgendered brother in law who never attended school because he refused to wear male clothes and my niece died of aids. But you keep the McClurkin thing going - get lots of publicity - lets hound the poor fellow until he commits suicide, he obviously hates himself and is a candidate for it.

By the Way did you even listen to the youtube link?

and the smell must be awful

they got nothin' and this proves it, desperation.

maybe you should go back to the "he might be a muslim" thing

actually this sounds like a defense of McCain and HIS gawd awful cohorts...

polishing up that resume' for the Fall?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Plus, it seems to me that the GLBT community should be more understanding about the internal conflicts of McClurkin who is confused and to your chagrin, a member of the GLBT community.

Whatever, whoever you are.

comes to the primary and Hillary. Have you asked or considered whether she regrets DOMA? I know. I know. You just get heartburn when THAT comes up again because you are incapable of responding to it. You can't come up with a justification for the Clintons and DOMA so again, you drag us back to talking about McClurkin as if his appearance at a campaign rally (as a gospel singer not an activist)is on par with the Clintons stripping gays of equal protection for marriage rights.

You have no right to be mad at Obama if you're not seething about the Clintons. We are not fooled.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

By the way, about "dragging" us back to McClurkin, this is a fresh article from TODAY, I'm not just posting something randomly.

Can you answer the criticism or will you continue to run from it?

I voted for Edwards in my state primary and am unenthusiastic about both remaining candidates. The fact is, though, that I can actually talk to Hillary Clinton fans without being called a "hater", but whatever. Enjoy your day.

Oh. And Edwards used to be my candidate too back in 2004. Should I count that?

BTW, I will vote for the nominee too even if Hillary manages to steal it.

"That was not my intent." Or: "No. I have no regrets, and won't be dictated to who and who not to put as headliners at my events."

But "I tell you what..." followed by a lame rehash of the "we have to talk to bigots" thing does not send me. I hope you can at least appreciate that.

You destroy your own credibility with outrageous stories that everyone already knows the facts about. And it is incredible that the bigot you are referring to is GAY!!!!!


Look I can understand why the GLBT community might be upset with McClurkin who is gay. But those GLBT folks who try to use McClurkin as a rallying cry against Obama are overreacting to a ridiculous degree. No one is buying that. And no one will agree that Hillary is a superior choice for GLBT's even though major GLBT organizations, for unexplained political reasons, side with Hillary.

I'm just being straightforward. I've seen this topic come up repeatedly and get shut down just as fast because the truth is obvious and the complaint is overdone. I think Obama will be just as effective as Hillary on GLBT issues. His statements are far clearer than what you normally hear from politicians. I think you know that. And I think he deserves better from the GLBT political organizations who know that he is the likely nominee.

Not ever. The statement by Obama left the door open to welcome all people.

I know others who have tried and not been perfect either. Good people are being sued and attacked publicly for not being perfect.

I have been called a bigot here way too many damn times, and I am so far from that.

Sometime you can push people away by demanding so much they can never meet the goal.

Thanks for your support. Meanwhile, read terrya's response below.

The day I was called a bigot for questioning why Donna Brazile and Leah Daughtry and Howard Dean are being vilified publicly....I realized it does no good to try to communicate with some.

You are calling me bigoted against African Americans?

of approval.

I think you know exactly what I mean.

I'm not spending all day playing "find the hidden meaning" with you.

when you inflame and overuse real and serious issues to attack your candidates opponent when your attack just doesn't measure up to the facts. The result is your issue ends up looking petty and unimportant. The feeling is that you are really more interested in attacking rather than reaching a solution. But such is politics.

You know, bullshit to justify bigotry towards minorities? Just asking.

God, save us your condescension.:rofl:

He's looking at the whole McClurkin thing as a "different point of view" instead of the outrage, the anger that someone who represents a movement that says "gays and lesbians are sick and needs to be cured" represents.

The "ex-gay" movement isn't a "point of view" to me. It's a way to hide (and not too subtly) bigotry and hate...and is emotionally abusive, to boot.

I'm frankly shocked that he still doesn't seem to get it.

Thanks in advance.

And apologies and all sweetness and light. I'm sure Pope Benedict will be also following suit real soon. All will be forgiven and we'll be instantly accepted from the worst of the GLBT community's enemies.

Right, sure, uh-huh.

What about Grandma that thinks it unnatural?

What about cousin Joey that used to be your friend growing up, but was so shcoked that he heard you were gay, he hasn't talked to you since?

Couldn't you make a difference in their lives, in the world by NOT throwing them away for that?

Can't people like that learn and change?

Hiring them to emcee your campaign events is another. I don't think Obama's homophobic, but the McClurkin episode showed exactly what kind of person he is, willing to use bigotry as a tool to get votes. His "I trust women to think prayerfully about abortion" statements are more of the same.

I really don't understand this, during the whole McClurkin incident, there was NO conversation of any meaningful issue. A conversation requires both sides to at least be equally present, that didn't happen.

It wasn't a "misstep" by a campaign worker who didn't "vet" McClurkin enough. What a load of horseshit THAT was.

And goddammit, it isn't just a "point of view". I don't fucking know how I can communicate this any better.

After all, once the conversation begins, who knows? :eyes:

The Fail is getting strong in this thread.

You need to toss out your hate. It doesn't look good on you.

:eyes:

Happy? Or disappointed?

I wasn't necessarily referring to you. Just going based on my own experiences as a gay Obama supporter; I've been accused of 'self-hatred' and worse because of it.

I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee. I don't "hate" him. I just recognize that McClurkin was his own personal strategy, not some "campaign worker who didn't vet McClurkin enough". If Obama sends you, have at it, I'm glad you're enthusiastic for someone.

After all, they are sincere in their beliefs, and even consider them to be a matter of religious faith. If we don't talk to them, how will they ever come to see the error of their ways?

that you will only gain your equality and civil rights through court order and forced compliance.

the point of excluding those people is to marginalize them and to make it clear that their beliefs are unacceptable.


wtf?

and eye for an eye leaves the whole world toothless and blind. open your eyes.

You're beating up on a dead horse that is now a shred of hair with a couple paramecium crawling on it.

Here's Obama's original quote on McClurkin:



More info here on Obama's strong record for LGBT rights:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/140

How is that a "dead horse" to you?

Just get it over with and call me a homophobe...again...ferchrissakes...

:crazy:

What exactly do you want Obama to say about McClurkin that he has not already said? He's apologized, he has shown that he is on your side with LGBT legislation, he's made it an issue that people should be discussing as opposed to throwing gays under the bus...

There is no "Yes, I regret some people were hurt..." or "No, I don't regret it, and nobody tells me who or who not to put on stage", just a lame "I tell you what, let's engage bigots in a conversation". Whatever, zulchzulu, carry on, I'm glad you are so enthusiastic about somebody.

She supports the "lesser" bigotry (DOMA) in an effort (according to her) to combat the "greater" bigotry (federal marriage amendment).

Obama says DOMA is an "abhorrent law" that needs to be repealed.

I'm with Obama on this one.

Also Obama's strategy is an interesting case of a "reverse" wedge issue: he's attempting to trick bigots into voting against their own bigotry.
Votes against bigotry are good, even if the voters are bigots.

The McClurkin situation at least didn't involve actual policy and votes on actual laws.

We disagree on this issue, obviously, but the fact that you quote Obama in his entirety shows you're a basically fair person. I don't know it for a fact, but I deeply believe that Obama is right that the more people talk with one another, the sooner we'll start to kill some of the demons in our society like prejudice and fear of people who are different.

A dialogue is one thing, giving somebody a stage and a spotlight to spew their anti-gay/racist/anti-Jewish/anti-any prejudice is another.

I think I am fair, and I will certainly vote for Obama if he is the nominee. he deeply disappointed me on this issue, however.

:eyes:

:hi:

If McClurkin can get up on stage at an Obama campaign event and talk about his dream of making all gay people straight, what if someone stood up on stage and talked about their dream of making all black people white so we can have a world where everyone is white?

Would that be allowed by the Obama campaign? Would that be considered cool and acceptable because it would "create the opportunity for people to have a conversation"? :eyes:

Because it's important that we talk to bigots, of course.

Of course, I'm sure THAT'S DIFFERENT ...

The McClurkin thing was and is inexcusable. It was pandering. You know it and I know it. Obama should have just apologized for it, instead of trying some half-assed justification of it that forces his supporters to turn off their BRAINS to regurgitate when the subject comes up.

Bake

but a down-to-earth discussion setting realistic expectations. He doesn't presume to know what's best for us. He knows the gay community will lead these issues and doesn't even pretend that he'll be a leader.

This was the best response of the interview:

Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom."

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.


That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.


Matter of fact, non patronizing. Then he defers to the community to lead on our own issues. He gets it. I can't believe it. Great interview. I'm stoked now.

Though it doesn't seem like he's come right out and said it, he's attempting to paint the McClurkin affair as a dialog. It was anything BUT that, IMO. He used a homophobe to pander to homophobes. That was the only dialog, and I think it's pretty disingenuous of Senator Obama to paint it as something it wasn't.

The notion that two groups of people ought to sit down and work out their differences is a noble one to which we should aspire. But, IMO, that can only be possible when both groups have a morally valid position. Bigotry and oppression are not moral. They are wrong, and people who practice them need to be told they are wrong at every opportunity, not invited to sit at the table as if their perspective is somehow valid. The civil rights movement succeeded, not by attempting to reason with bigots, but because their position was moral and just. It gave everyone who participated the moral authority to stand up to bigotry and oppression, point at it, call it what it was, and demand that it stop. If some in the GLBT community is outraged at Senator Obama's suggestion that we sit down with people who think we just need to be cured and that our way of life is an abomination against nature, they should be; the Civil Rights movement of the 1960 showed us how it needs to be done, and it's not the way Mr. Obama is telling us how he wants to do it.

Edited for spelling and changed phrasing...

It makes no sense that he was so laissez-faire about McClurkin's little "talk" when placed in context with what he is saying about his supposed support of the LGBT community. Now, I do think he'll work on behalf of the LGBT community, but I don't think he'll stick his neck out too much. And there was no reason to be so wishy-washy about the McClurkin issue. He just doesn't show much moral courage in regards to LGBT issues, IMO.

You know:

Q: Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up on stage and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.

The question isn't about whether or not African Americans, "church folks," and LGBT community should be addressed separately, or brought together.

The question is about whether you should allow a homophobe to campaign for you, and to engage in antigay rants, regardless of the audience.

The people up there campaigning for you are representing YOU. Do you regret allowing someone who represents you to display homophobia?

Not a "campaign worker who didn't vet McClurkin enough" or whatever horseshit they were trying to peddle.

Would they approve of David Duke speaking for 30 minutes at a Clinton rally? Of course not. That is as vile as what the "unity" candidate did to GLBT folks.

Obama had his chance to stand up to Homophobic Bigotry, and instead he hired it to run a fundraising gospel tour.
Obama's all about the $$.