I’ll give Obama credit. It took him less than a day to issue a statement on his association with Donnie McClurkin.
In a statement, Obama said he believes gays and lesbians are “our brothers and sisters” and should be afforded the same respect, dignity and rights granted all other citizens.
“I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country,” Obama said. “I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”
The statement did not say whether McClurkin will still perform on the tour.
Well, there are a couple of things to be said about this.
This sounds a lot like trying to eat your cake and have it too. (I never understood the phrase when I heard it stated the other way around. I always thought “Well, you have to have your cake in order to eat it. You can’t eat it if you don’t have it.) Obama is trying, and most likely unsuccessfully, to reconcile two incompatible situations, because he believes it will benefit him.
One gay activist involved with the Obama campaign said the situation puts the candidate in a bind, since he risks offending evangelicals in South Carolina if he cancels McClurkin’s appearance but could alienate gay supporters if the performance proceeds as planned.
“This story is quickly turning into a disaster for Barack,” said the supporter who is active on gay and lesbian issues. “He’s screwed if he goes through with the trip with Donnie McClurkin….But he’s also screwed in South Carolina if he dumps McClurkin. I hope that the staffer who set this up has already been fired.”
There’s something in Obama’s statement that’s clear if you read between the lines, but first you have to have right context, which Earl Ofari Hutchison sums up pretty well.
…Desperate to snatch back some of the political ground with black voters that are slipping away from him and to Hillary; Bush’s black evangelical card seems like the perfect play. Obama wouldn’t dare go down the knock gay path, and risk drawing the inevitable heat for it, if he didn’t think as Bush that anti-gay sentiment is still wide and deep among many blacks.
And that’s what makes Obama’s ala Bush pander to anti-gay mania even more shameless and reprehensible. From the moment that he tossed his hat in the presidential ring, Obama has done everything he could to sell himself to voters, as the Man on the White Horse, a fresh new face on the scene, with new ideas, and the candidate that’s not afraid to boldly challenge Bush and the GOP on everything from the Iraq war to health care.
He’s also sold himself as a healer and consensus builder. Legions have bought his pitch, and have shelled out millions to bankroll his campaign. But healing and consensus building does not mean sucking up to someone that publicly boasts that he’s in “a war” against gays, and that the aim of his war is to “cure” them. That’s what McClurkin has said. Polls show that more Americans than ever say that they support civil rights for gays, and a torrent of gay themed TV shows present non-stereotypical depictions of gays. But this increased tolerance has not dissipated the hostility that far too many blacks, especially hard core Bible thumping blacks, feel toward gays.
Ofari’s column was, of course, written before Obama’s statement. Reading the latter in the context of the former makes one thing clear. If McClurkin stays on the tour — and he has to stay on the tour if Obama doesn’t want to risk the ire of black and evangelical voters — then Obama has made his choice, and his choice is the McClurkins of the world.
How he can reconcile that with a “standing together for equal rights” and a belief that gays and lesbians should be “afforded the same respect and dignity” as every other citizen is beyond me. How he thinks the McClurkin’s of the world will allow his to advocate for equal rights and still have their support and the power it can potentially give him, is beyond me. How he managed to get into this situation, without anyone on his campaign realizing the shit-storm that would ensue –and that it would be easier to not include McClurkin from the beginning than to uninvite him after the fact — is beyond me.
How, having made this choice, he can continue to call himself a “healer” or a “uniter” is beyond me, unless he is a “uniter” in the same league as George W. Bush and merely wears a different uniform, is beyond me. But then again, perhaps I am the only one who sees a fine line between optimism and naivete.
There’s almost no real way to have your cake and eat it too, or eat your came and have it too. Except for one. All I’ll say on the matter is that the recipe for a shit sandwich is basically the same. But just because you put crap between to pieces of bread doesn’t make it a sandwich. And just because you put icing and a candle on it doesn’t make it cake, and doesn’t mean you should expect me to eat it.
But there ya go. This is one of our Democratic front runners. We’ve got another one who thinks that only PART of DOMA needs to be repealed, and the best the other one can do is trot his wife out to voice sentiments that sound good but have no bearing on his positions as a candidate or policies should he actually take office.
And the other candidates, the only ones who support full equality are not “serious,” not “viable,” and not “electable.” Meanwhile we have netrootser who can only say in response to Obama’s statement with relief, because now they can get back to the real, important issues of the day.
So be it. Wake me up when the primaries are over.
On the other hand, don’t. I’ll vote absentee just so I can stay in bed on election day.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m voting, and most likely whomever the Democratic nominee is will get my vote. I don’t consider myself a single issue voter, but I’m not getting from the progressive coalition, “community” or “movement” that if I “show up” on student loans, global warming, taxes, education, choice, the environment, separation of church and state, the war in Iraq and any number of other issues, that someone will finally “show up” on the issues that are near and dear to me.
For the past few years, on just about anything concerning gay issues what I’ve heard from progressives is “yes, but not now.” For the past few years I’ve watched candidates court evangelicals to the point where they get themselves contorted into the kind of knots that Obama’s in right now. And I’ve heard progressives say, “If that’s what we have to do to win, so be it” and “We’ll get to those other issues later.” And when I suggest that courting the voters they’re courting makes that unlikely, because those voters may not let them return to those issues and keep their support, and thus the power that goes along with it, making for a more conservative Democratic party, what I hear from progressives is “That’s your job, to keep that from happening.
Well, I’ve been doing that job, as all have. I’ve been doing it for more than 20 years, given how long I’ve been out and an activist. I’ll continue doing it, because I can see not doing it. Along the way I’ve volunteered for candidates, organized volunteers, raised funds, made donations, knocked on doors, phonebanked, and passed out literature.
But at the same time I’m hearing all of the above. Just yesterday I peeking in on a popular progressive blog (the orange one) that I rarely visit anymore, and one of the most popular posts was regarding Obama’s most recent debacle. The gist of it was “Now that he’s made his statement, can we get back to the important issues of the day,” in one sentence accepting Obama’s statement and his continued association with McClurkin and dismissing any concerns people might have had as “unimportant.”
Perhaps I’m tired. Tired of being taken for granted. Tired of “showing up” for every other issue that adds up to the greater good and tired of waiting for the greater good to finally include me and my family. Waiting while watching a party and movement drift in the opposite direction, while being told that it’s my job to pull against that, and without any help from leadership — and at a moment when we’re closer to a tipping point that we have been in the last 20 years or so — feels like a little too much. What’s left on the backburner for too long either boils over or burns up eventually.
So, that’s the reason for my earlier statement. After the primary, there isn’t likely to be a candidate I can support with any degree of enthusiasm, or get exciting about working for. At least not a presidential candidate. If there’s one on the state or local level, then I’ll be happy to do whatever I can. But for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or any combination of the three? In a general election when they’ll likely run more to the right because they think they have to in order to win?
Why should I be enthused or excited about supporting them in that?
I can vote with one hand and hold my nose with the other. Should I do more?
I guess I see this more as yet another instance of Obama’s amateur status than a reflection of his attitudes. He doesn’t seem to foresee the blowback his actions and statements will create. One day he’s being super-cautious on FISA, the next he’s taking off the flag pin. I’ve come to view him as a smart and decent person who keeps being torn between his own instincts and the advisors who are supposed to be guiding him through the unknown depths of national politics. He’s learning on the job, and that’s hard to pull off in the national spotlight.
Do you really think he’d turn against gay rights as president? I don’t. It just doesn’t seem like it’s in his nature. He’s not at the top of my list anymore, but I still think there’s a real chance that he could grow into a great president. And a chance that he wouldn’t. Depending on what happened in the general campaign, I could probably vote for him without holding my nose — which is not true of all of them.
It doesn’t matter what’s in his nature. It matters what the voters he’s courting today will let him do tomorrow and still keep their support and the power that it can get for him. He may not turn against gay rights, but he’s not going to lead on the issue either. Not if it’s going to lose him support somewhere else.
What’s in his heart doesn’t matter unless it finds its way into policy, because the only people it will impact are those who are close to him.
I never considered myself a single issue voter but tried to go with someone who seemed closest to all my ideals.
But I’ve lost patience with politicians ignoring fellow Americans who are gay or worse pretend they will advance equal rights for them and then throw them under the bus as it were. I’m sick and gdamn tired of friends of mine being treated as second class citizens(or worse)-if they’re not for equality, the basic building block of our supposed democracy then what will they stand and fight for?
Telling people to wait, just wait for their equality becomes more obscene every day.