Obama's New Politics, Exemplified

Barack Obama, the press is supposed to say, is a hope-monger. He mongers hope. In a tight stump speech, it's hard for Obama to describe the content of the hope he sells. It roughly entails a complete transformation of the political system, one where deeply felt values are contested but the act of contesting them does not require one side to assassinate the other.

Borrowing the language of a certain political theorist of leftist repute, there's a dialectical element to it. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the bringing together of political opposites, the breaking of old habits of minds; putting it more capitalistically, Obama, in his campaign bull sessions, sees his campaign as the prelude to a creative destruction of the current political system.

Here's an illustration: this letter, signed by gay and lesbian activists and African American church leaders and released by the Obama campaign yesterday in response to protests over Pastor Donnie McClurkin's inclusion in a series of gospel concerns the Obama is performing in South Carolina. (Hat tip: Huffington Post).

At the same time, while Obama has said that he "strongly disagrees" with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

This expansive vision of tolerance does not comport with the Manichean universe that most partisans inhabit. It might not sit well with his audience.

Obama's campaign is acknowledging -- or stating as a fact -- that there is a fairly substantial degree of homophobia within parts of the black community. (A reality of American life: many people support gay rights unreservedly; many others oppose gay rights unreservedly; most are ambivalent.)

The beauty (or peril) of this letter is that it will enrage partisans. (How DARE Obama not exclude bigots? Would he include racists? Anti-Semites? Or -- Obama thinks black people are homophobes. How ARE he, etc.)

The partisans might be so invested in their sides and the media might be so invested in covering the world through a bifocal that Democratic primary voters may hear only the charges and countercharges and not Obama's argument itself.

That might take a speech.

Comments

"The beauty (or peril) of this letter is that it will enrage partisans. (How DARE Obama not exclude bigots? Would he include racists? Anti-Semites? Or -- Obama thinks black people are homophobes. How ARE he, etc.)"

My theory is that Obama is Joe Lieberman minus the neocon foreign policy.

He's forever seeking optics to distance himself from the Party.

Great general election strategy. Great way to get the VP nod. Lousy way to win a nomination.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 9:23 AM

If tolerance is Obama's goal, he should invite David Duke on his tour.

Lets see how that plays in South Carolina!

Posted by JoeCHI | October 26, 2007 9:36 AM

Obama is being hamstrung right now by the fact that he has to play nice within the Democratic playpen. As long as he has to be civil rather than totally upfront regarding the huge deficiencies in Mrs Clinton's character and track record, the impact of any truth telling is necessarily blunted.

(BTW, any of Clinton's gay supporters should come up with their rationale for why it's acceptable to support the candidate who gave them DOMA and "don't ask/don't tell". My view is that if McClurkin helps build support for a candidate who will act as an agent FOR equality for gays and lesbians, then McClurkin's the one who looks the fool, not Obama.)

I have a feeling that if there was ever a time when a legitimate third-way party could make a case for their existence, this is probably it. We've seen what happens when Republicans have unfettered control, and we've seen that Clinton's branch of the Democratic party is simply talking about more of the same. Obama has demonstrated that there IS support for his effort to revitalize grass roots involvement in the political process, and he carries none of the wacko baggage that has hung around the candidacies of past independent candidates (was there anyone who didn't suspect that Perot really was a crackpot?)

If the less-educated members of the Dem party get their way and nominate Clinton, and the GOP is stuck with the relatively weak field they have now, the time might be right for someone who can run the true centrist campaign. I'd be interested to see what kind of numbers would come up were a pollster to ask voters about a three way race with Rudy G, Clinton, and Obama as an independent. Of the three, he's the least objectionable to those who've been asked; if he doesn't have to be so nice to Clinton, and can go ahead and say flat out "look, the woman is Bush in a skirt - all the arrogance in a different package", it could release a lot of the anger that is building among the electorate. We all know things are bad, and most of us have figured out that the old players and the old parties aren't gonna be the answer - stick us with THESE two losers as the main party candidates, and there'll be serious interest in looking for an alternative.

Posted by Marcus | October 26, 2007 9:52 AM

I thought the letter was great -- although I am one who shares similar desires of respect and reconciliation as Obama. Obviously nothing is going to be good enough for Aravosis et al because their main purpose is no longer just about advocating for the rights of the GLBT community against the ex-gay movement. It seems that this moment is about extracting revenge for a lifetime of slights as well as imagined slights. Read through the comments sections on these blogs and you'll find attacks at levels of visciousness against Obama, blacks, and heterosexuals and people of faith that make McClurkin's crazy comments sound sane. The core issue that began the controversy -- is no longer the issue. The issue is now the utter breakdown of civil discourse in our country. These are ugly times. I do hope with all my heart that Obama can summon the words to address this nation in a way that will begin to heal this rift. Nothing less than a major speech from Obama is called for.

Posted by donna | October 26, 2007 10:28 AM

Ambinder stick to parsing polls and FEC statements, you're punching above your weight on this one. Oh, and check out Ben Smith, he got it right. This is just another lame, principle free, interest group fudge.

Posted by AJ | October 26, 2007 10:37 AM

"Oh, and check out Ben Smith, he got it right."

I agree with you that Ben has the better take on this one.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 10:55 AM

Marcus-

I liked your comment, except that I would hope that all of my fellow Democrats will see Hillary Clinton for the true person she is and go out and show it by caucus or primary vote. Let's not make Barack Obama an independent candidate, let's make him OUR candidate!!!

OBAMA '08

Posted by Patty | October 26, 2007 11:05 AM

Or, it could be that Barack Obama is just a glorified statehouse hack with a nice smile, a campaign about nothing, and an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore thinking that he can run for President with no big league policy or political experience based soley on the premise that he and he alone is the chosen one.

Watching his campaign in action, I'm more inclined to go with the empty suit theory.

Posted by hwc | October 26, 2007 11:25 AM

PS: I mean we know he's special. He told us himself in the two autobiographies he wrote by the time he was in his mid 40s.

I've seen some bigheaded politicians come and go, but Mr. Obama is as full of himself as any that I can ever recall.

Posted by hwc | October 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Why HWC (or is that HRC?)

Thanks for your words of wisdom, but I am going to take the words of another today -"Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud.......You'll just get dirty and the pig will love it."

Posted by Patty | October 26, 2007 11:45 AM

re: hwc

You can always tell when Hillary campaign staff are out there working the blogs...

Posted by karen | October 26, 2007 11:50 AM

This whole outrage is based on the presumption that McClurkin's appeal to African-Americans in South Carolina is his views on homosexuality. African-Americans are bigots and so you get a bigot to appeal to them. Couldn't be that McClurkin's a gospel singer, performing at a gospel concert. Nope--he's being given a platform to spread his message of HATE. Why? Because that resonates with African-Americans.

Here's John Aravosis, in full lather, fully demonstrating my point:

"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul."

Not to mention you have to believe that Obama is playing cynical politics (appealing to the bigotry of African-Americans). Which isn't consistent with who he is or what he stands for:

http://outlineschicago.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

Posted by Keith | October 26, 2007 12:00 PM

Just so none of us are under any delusion, Hillary is pushing this story.

The Clinton campaign, many journalists say, is the fastest and most aggressive at dealing with blogs. Last week, Clinton aides sent journalists a Huffington Post column criticizing her major Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for a planned appearance with a gospel singer who is hostile to gays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502421_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Posted by Keith | October 26, 2007 12:45 PM

I like your take on this issue. I think Obama is doing the right thing to be true to trying to bring the country together, but the extremists always want people to be pitted against one another. Obama is capable of saying I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I have to demonize you. There are a lot of us who like that...we may not be as loud as the folks who love to make the other guy lose as much as they like to win...but we are out there.

Oh, and I have to agree that the Hillary blog posting staff are obvious and generally lame. You can tell they are mimicing the talking points with very little independent thought. They might want to work on making their posts a little less phony. Though it must be tough when when you get your cues on authenticity from Hillary Clinton.

Posted by RKA | October 26, 2007 12:57 PM

If the press and the dumb dems succeed in nominating Clinton Barack as an Independent would be the ticket. Obama/Webb 08

Posted by johnnyraygun | October 26, 2007 1:06 PM

This issue has caused me to do some searching and reflecting, and much of the language from this latest memo seem to have Obama's handwriting all over it. Take a look at and interview http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931, from February 2004 (before he won the primary), Windy City Times (a chicago lgbt newspaper), with an interview with Obama. Notice the consistency between then and now. Most notably.....

".....But ultimately, I think one of the questions that this community has to look at is, who’s not just going to be a good vote, but who’s going to be a passionate advocate on behalf of their issues? Who’s got the capacity to reframe the debate, who’s able to articulate and present these issues in ways that change people’s hearts and minds? That’s something that I have consistently been able to do in the state legislature. I’m not just talking the talk or filling out questionnaires, I’ve walked the walk on every single issue that’s been important to the LGBT community. And oftentimes I’ve delivered. I have never shied away from these issues. It’s that kind of consistency and willingness to fight that is what I think is needed in Washington right now. Particularly because no matter what happens in this next election, there are still going to be forces at work that are promoting intolerance and are resistant to change. One of the skills that I think I have is an ability to translate my passion for equality and justice into a language that a broad audience can relate to and understand, and I think that’s going to make me effective when I get to Washington."

Posted by timinchicago | October 26, 2007 1:19 PM

The sheer vapidity of this whole kerfluffle is just such vintage "media Whoring". We have all the standard oppo phrases (nice work, Pete!) worming their way into partisan vocabularies everywhere online. It's hard to get a point across. A basic point.

Cynical as most partisans have become, due to their privileged inner view which the rabble cannot possibly understand ( they will gladly inform you of their higher calling) when you mention a candidate who expresses the feeling we may still have some HOPE to put things right in this country, and said hope involved participation of everybody, well, that is just such a sound principle that those partisans just recoil in horror.

Conventional politics involves fear and loathing, not necessarily in that order, and many messages to assuage that fear are boiled down to "don't be afraid-nothing will change". So when someone dares to step outside the box and suggest we are all in this together, well damn the torpedoes, this man must be stopped!

Posted by Mike Hickerson | October 26, 2007 2:31 PM

I used to think that Barak Obama was a breath of fresh air; an answer to the same “politics as usual,” that has plagued presidential races during the entirety of my lifetime.

When I first heard him speak, he came across as a smart, principled guy with new ideas and a post-civil rights viewpoint where all people truly do deserve to be treated equally despite their color/gender/creed or sexual orientation.

But that changed. In recent days, Mr. Obama has decided that in order to “win” in South Carolina in the upcoming presidential primary, he needs to give over his stage to a man named Donnie McClurkin. Donnie is one of those idiots who talks about homosexuality as being a choice - like when you go car shopping and you get to choose between a pink or a blue car.

Mr. McClurin’s message includes such past gems as calling homosexuality a “curse” and claiming that gay people are “trying to kill our children.”

I don’t care how religious you claim to be - that ain’t how it works. Holding on tight to a Bible does not give you the right to be stupid with impunity.

Mr. Obama says he does not agree with McClurkin’s views. If that is so, then why has Obama invited McClurkin to appear - with Obama’s blessing - at an official campaign event?

The answer is simple - Barak Obama will say anything to get a vote. Case in point: at a debate on gay issues earlier this year, Obama went out of his way to support gay and lesbian people.

Now in South Carolina, it appears that he is going out of his way to support a notorious anti-gay fundamentalist - while pretending to hold his nose in disgust at McClurkin’s ideas. The only problem is that Obama *invited* McClurkin to appear at his event in the first place.

I used to see Obama as a bright hope in the Democratic Party. Now all I see a pandering idiot who will blatantly tell anyone what he thinks they want to hear in order to get a vote.

That’s hypocrisy. It’s also politics as usual.

The weirdest part is that with this move, Obama is associating himself with such hateful anti-gay vitriol that even the current crop of “I’m more conservative than thou” Republicans won’t touch.

Anybody but Obama.

Posted by David Speakman | October 26, 2007 5:37 PM

I love love love it. Love it. I'm so happy he didn't kick Donnie off the tour, but got some gay dude to join it, and issued a statement saying he disagrees with Donnie. Look people, at the end of the day [or how about the beginning?] the only way we're going to win the culture war is to convert people, not exile them or parade around righteously denouncing people - that's the bill o'reilly way, and I'm sick of it.
I heart Obama, yes, yes yes.

Posted by Phoebe | October 26, 2007 5:37 PM

I love love love it. Love it. I'm so happy he didn't kick Donnie off the tour, but got some gay dude to join it, and issued a statement saying he disagrees with Donnie. Look people, at the end of the day [or how about the beginning?] the only way we're going to win the culture war is to convert people, not exile them or parade around righteously denouncing people - that's the bill o'reilly way, and I'm sick of it.
I heart Obama, yes, yes yes.

Posted by Phoebe | October 26, 2007 5:37 PM

David,

That is the what the concert is all about and everyone knows it. It is about bring this country together. People are trying to make it out of something. Obama has never said anything against GBLT community. His votes on legislation shows it. However, people want to try to hold him accountible for Donnie's words. I disagree with that. If someone is upset they should march on Washington to get their civil rights. Vote people of your community in offices. That is the only way to do it. African Americans never gave up on marching until they received their rights. GBLT. Don't fault someone who has shown he believe in your cause, but work with him to bring about the change you need in your community.

Posted by Cheryl | October 26, 2007 6:47 PM

Also, let's not forget that this guy is a gospel singer, that is, not a policy-maker but a semi-famous entertainer whose job in this tour is singing, not airing his opinions on gay-ness. Or "ex"gay-ness. Or whatever tragically boneheaded thing he thinks. He supports Obama publicly, wants to lend his talents to the cause. Should Obama make some kind of big repudiating gesture of scorn, or use Donnie's admiration for him as a way to publicly talk about the issue - "a teaching moment"? The latter is way, way, way more productive.

Posted by Phoebe | October 26, 2007 7:08 PM

>>>BTW, any of Clinton's gay supporters should come up with their rationale for why it's acceptable to support the candidate who gave them DOMA and "don't ask/don't tell".

Posted by EC | October 26, 2007 7:49 PM

EC:
1. Yes, she and Bill are not the same person, which is why I wish she would clarify her eight years of "experience" in the White House - experience doing what exactly?
2. Ok, has she ever repudiated DADT or DOMA? I think she has not. I don't have a link, but didn't Melissa Etheridge [sp?] grill her about that at the candidate's "gay" debate, and didn't she defend both?

Posted by Phoebe | October 26, 2007 9:01 PM

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/clinton-i-will-roll-back-dadt/

Well, she does pledge to repeal DADT, and her stance on civil unions is more or less on par with the rest of the candidates:

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/08/hillarys_doma_dilemma.php

Its my understanding that DOMA was an attempt to blunt the efforts of social conservatives to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment. I was too young to vote at the time, but looking back at the huge margins (342-67 House, 85-14 Senate), I don't see many options available to Frmr. Pres. Clinton. Sure, he could've vetoed the bill, but he'd also have lost considerable political capital and ultimately be unable to stop the bill, while giving Republicans just that much more ammunition against Democrats. Just the way I see it.

She did chair the 1993 health care reform package, and saw up close in ways people outside the white house don't, what happens when you don't have a clear administrative vision, as well as the 'rookie' mistakes that are almost always inevitable. I don't think that is 'presidential' experience, but it is experience, and one that'd I'd prefer a candidate to have than not.

Posted by EC | October 27, 2007 12:24 AM

It's all very well to insult "the partisans" but the fervor of gay voters for Obama has never been resented up to now, and all our checks were cashed. Gay people have real (and reasonable) political goals, and one is that ranting homophobes not be treated as mainstream by the politicians we support. To tell us now that all our money, organizing, word-spreading is going to buy us is the privilege of being the "thesis" to Donnie McClurkin's "antithesis" is to give us rather rough and surprising news. We don't seek a "synthesis," from Senator Obama, we want equal rights under the law, and if it isn't asking too much, a little respect. Those who say we're too stubborn should ask themselves how much they would "compromise" if somebody wanted to take away their right to marry, to teach, to adopt -- forever.

Posted by ducdebrabant | October 27, 2007 3:35 AM

Obama needs to openly discuss the fact that Hillary Clinton is polarizing and the anger she ignites among republicans will only divide us further. Her victory is contrary to the politics of unity he's always talking about. He needs to say that out loud. He needs to be more direct. He sounds like a pussy. Hillary will be bad for the counrty. Hillary is dangerous.

Posted by X | October 27, 2007 3:57 AM

This "Donnie McClurkin" hot potato has HRC written all over it. Word on the street is you can make $72,000, plus expenses to work for her. This issue is stupid, and has HRC written all over it, it's one of her dirty tactics and when and if she gets in office, America is doomed. This woman is not qualified to be president, no more than Laura Bush is. In fact Laura may be better.

HRC is a copier, cheater and has no individuality, for goodness sakes, she went and made an attempt at copying his "Broadway" debut, by throwing herself a birthday party at a Broadway theater, exactly as a group of fundraiser organized for Barack.

Barack Obama is shrewd, intellectual, cerebral and a heterosexual male with a family. Why should he or anyone care one way or the other if a gospel singer appearing in a concert is gay or straight?
Why should anyone care if he was gay, and now is straight? The singer has made his choice, he has made peace with his God and his issues are his to deal with which nothing to do with Obama.

McClurkins sexual behavior is beyond me, and above Obama. It's like this, gay-lesbian couples should be treated equally by the law. That's it. Folk know that HRC is suspect, for Bill is chasing everything but her skirt, and she is getting desperate.

Posted by scheduler | October 27, 2007 8:17 AM

There is room for everyone in America and the world. Let us not be judgmental. We want a President who is inclusive of all - like Obama.

Rebeka

Posted by Rebeka | October 27, 2007 9:23 AM

Remember the famous evangelical pastor Rick Warren when he invited Obama to his church to speak on HIV/Aids at a conference with 60 others. Many went ape shiza, claiming that Barack was evil and pro abortion. Rick Warren knew better, had courage and allowed him to stay included. All went well, divides were bridged.
Now, the flip side, many on the left appear just as intolerant. Now that a pro-lifer that believes sexuality is a choice is going to be on stage with Barack we hear echoes of last year. Intolerance and hypocricy from both sides is what needs to stop.

We need more Rick Warrens on the conservative side and more Obamas on the progressive side.

Posted by johnnyraygun | October 27, 2007 11:36 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether there's a double standard from the likes of Aravosis. After all, Obama has been much more vocal in denouncing homosexuality, and to all kinds of audiences, than Hillary. Furthermore, Obama is for the full repeal of DOMA and Clinton is not.

Where is Human Rights Campaigns outrage over Hillary's partnerships with (and to my knowledge Obama and McClurkin are not friends), anti-gay preachers like Harold Mayberry and Darell Jackson? How about we talk policy? Jackson, who is being paid $10,000/month by the Clinton campaign for his support, said that his "personal moral position" on gay marriage trumps equal rights. Two of Hillary's SC campaign co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted in to deny LGBT Rights in a recent same-sex marriage vote.

Jackson, Matthews and Short are all members of the SC state government that Obama might have had a better chance courting support from if he hadn't been so outspoken against homophobia and for LGBT rights. So, why has HRC given HRC a pass? Why has Aravosis?

The fact is that Obama is reaching a lot of different audiences. He doesn't compromise on core progressive principles. He's got a track record of representing LGBT issues before all kinds of audiences. He isn't the one triangulating on DOMA. He's the one that's for full repeal. One wonders about the lack of consistency from Human Rights Campaign and bloggers like Aravosis. There are any number of possible explanations. One hopes that Obama is not being singled out for anything but accidental reasons.

Posted by Jeremy | October 27, 2007 12:19 PM

Hillary's supporters are saying things like "her stance on DOMA is more or less in line with the other candidates." That is a lie. She opposes the full repeal of DOMA. Obama is for the full repeal of DOMA.

This is an object lesson in triangulation. Obama has the stronger positions on LGBT rights, but Hillary is trying to win votes by scandal-mongering while keeping a "moderate" position on substantive issues of rights. Progressives who support Clinton must love the look of the underside of a bus.

Posted by Jeremy | October 27, 2007 12:25 PM

ducdebrabant:
You say:
"Gay people have real (and reasonable) political goals, and one is that ranting homophobes not be treated as mainstream by the politicians we support."

It doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not, actually, but homophobia is there for a lot of people, and it does not serve the cause to pretend it doesn't exist.

You also say:
"We don't seek a "synthesis," from Senator Obama, we want equal rights under the law, and if it isn't asking too much, a little respect."

Obama wants equal rights too, and Donnie McClurkin's presence in the room, singing and not ranting, isn't going to deny you them. Obama has made his views public and crystal clear. Shunning those you disagree with on a personal, irrelevant level [it would be very relevant if McClurkin were a policy advisor. Like, you know, Sandy Bergen] achieves nothing but alienating people. One of the big reasons I support Obama is his demonstrated ability to work well with others. Others he disagrees with. And he gets things done. Things I want, things you want. And nothing about this process compromises anybody's integrity in any way or is disrespectful.

Now I'm going to link to what I think explains it very well, which I think johnnieraygun quoted [maybe he wrote it?][hat tip Andrew Sullivan link]:
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/liberal-bloggers-donnie-mcclurkin-and-barack-obamas-rick-warren-moment/

Posted by Phoebe | October 27, 2007 1:12 PM

Im not Gay, sometimes I`m happy and I smile alot, but I wouldn`t classify myself as "gay" . I was real silly as a child, I guess I am goofier than gay. I`m am Bi .I have spoken two languages since I was a small child. I think that speaking two languages is a great benerfit in todays society. Maybe I should become tri. I am not a lesbian. One day I was at a bar and a very sweet lady sat down next to me. We were laughing and talking and having a great time. She said "now David, befor we go any further I would like you to know that I am a lesbian " I said " Oh really , what part of Lesbia are you from ?" She laughed and never answered my question. We had a great time for the rest of the night .Them there lesbians seem like awful nice people. I do have a tempermental "tarnny" though". Sometimes, when I need it most my car really acts up. My tranny misbehaves and acts up ,gets hot and makes awful noises. With a little love and tenderness, a few tears, my tranny seems to come back to life. I need to pay more attention to my tranny. I don`t understand why the gay people, the bi`s or the the people with tranny problems are upset with Barack Obama. He has always stood by us and never tried to keep us at arms length.
I know there are people that don`t understand these issues and Barack Obama has started a great dialogue. My dad taught me that when people who disagree with each other and hate on each other it is mainly because they have not taken the time to get to know the other side or tried to understand them. I am grateful to Mr Obama for having the bravery, in the course of a campaign to stand by his guns and get people to talk. My tranny understands both English and Spanish. Especially the swear words.

Posted by David | October 27, 2007 3:57 PM

Oh my. I just saw a typo in my earlier post. Obama has, of course, been more vocal in denouncing homoPHOBIA.

Posted by Jeremy | October 27, 2007 4:25 PM

Where is the "big tent" compromise between LGBT rights & an "ex gay" religious message? It comes down to single sex marriage, sooner or later, all at once or by steps.

Posted by Asbury Park | October 30, 2007 7:26 PM

[quote]It doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not, actually, but homophobia is there for a lot of people, and it does not serve the cause to pretend it doesn't exist.[/quote]That is the very [i]last[/i] thing I'm doing. But of course, what you mean is that Obama dares not offend the homophobes, but he [i]does[/i] dare offend homosexuals. Clearly he feels the same way. I'll simply look for a candidate who doesn't invite ranting homophobes to share his stage. If I were a Republican, finding such a candidate might be a problem. As I am a Democrat, it isn't.[quote]Obama wants equal rights too, and Donnie McClurkin's presence in the room, singing and not ranting, isn't going to deny you them.[/quote]Actually, no he doesn't, but that's okay. Only one candidate supports full marriage equality, and I'm not supporting him. But Donnie McClurkin's presence, knowing what has gone down, sends a clear signal that Obama won't offend his homophobic supporters by rescinding McClurkin's invitation. As of this writing, McClurkin DID appear with Obama, he did NOT merely sing, and he DID rant. He didn't attack homosexuals, per se, he just whined that he was being victimized by them. The gay preacher Obama added at the last minute delivered an invocation before the hall was full and left. He wasn't introduced as gay, and he never referred to it. Some "synthesis."

Posted by ducdebrabant | December 21, 2007 9:22 PM