Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Is Obama Making Appearances With An Anti-Gay Pastor?

Posted by Matt Stoller at 1:00 PM on October 29, 2007.


Matt Stoller: The people Obama listens to for political advice simply don't care about the concerns of progressives.
artist331
Don McClurkin

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Matt Stoller, originally appeared on Open Left

In the whole McClurkin fiasco, one interesting note here is that Obama seems to have built the opposite of the Dean coalition. Dean's very first base group was the gay community that funded his initial campaign, and then he moved to the blogs and the wider white progressive space, but he never really picked up traction among African-Americans. Obama's McClurkin incident has coalesced the blogs and the gay community against him, and he's now fighting Clinton for African-Americans. There's an exception of course in that both Dean and Obama were much stronger among men than women, but the gist of the McClurkin story is that Obama has gelled the latent anti-Obama sentiment among progressives into something solid.

I should be clear. The McClurkin situation is not about gay bashing and it never has been about gay bashing. Obama's not a homophobe, he is probably more comfortable around gay people than any Presidential candidate and he has a great record on LGBT rights. It is a significant incident though, because it's about priorities. It's obvious from the campaign's blundering politics that the people Obama listens to for political advice simply don't care about the concerns of progressives. Here's Obama on the gay-baiting McClurkin controversy.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

So the choice, apparently, is between the LGBT community and the Democratic Party being hermetically sealed from the faith community and inviting gay-bashers to act as surrogates. Ok, fine. At least Obama would take the notion of dialogue seriously, right? Both sides would get their say. And McClurkin is just a singer, not a spokesman.

Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried.

"God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

The article notes that the concert attendees were in strong agreement with McClurkin. Chris thinks this is just a mistake on the Obama campaign, but I find it hard to agree with that analysis. This looks like Obama is giving a wink and a nod to bigots. And that's consistent with campaigns that do not empower progressives at the top level; this concert should have been killed a month ago in meetings of staffers where the progressive got up on the table and screams no. It should have been killed on Monday when that advisor could have talked to Aravosis and asked 'how big a deal is this', and brought that feedback into the campaign. But that advisor doesn't exist, and so the South Carolina consultant who thinks that McLurkin is the route to votes in the state won by default. That may or may not be true about McClurkin's electoral appeal, but no one in the campaign considered how it would knock Obama off message for a week or hurt him with progressive primary voters elsewhere. Obama just didn't empower a person in the campaign at a high level who would understand this.

Obama is just an ambitious politician trying to win a few more votes, and he's certainly gay friendly in his legislative record. But it says something about why a non-movement campaign just cannot beat brand Democrat. It's not about positions and it never has been about positions, it's about constituencies and identity, and prioritizing your values. There are many 'liberals' in Congress who give money to Bush Dog freshmen and pretend their voting record should excuse them for this. That's just not the way this works, and the logical culmination is the McLurkin situation, where a campaign is caught between a rock and a hard place. And it's not an accident, it's a choice. Obama chose to be where he is by his decision to keep the progressive movement at arms length.

I've spoken to a bunch of people around the country who tell me that the air in the Obama world has leaked out in the past month for two specific reasons. Activists and liberals don't think Obama can beat Clinton, but they also no longer see a reason to care. My position has always been that Obama could win if he runs a progressive campaign, but he's just not a progressive. Clinton is brand Democrat who has faced the right-wing smear machine, and she knows just how awful they are. Her strategy will be bad for the general since she is centrist and represents the status quo. In a primary or the general, though, you can't beat something with nothing, and Clinton is at least something.

It's rare that I don't agree with Chris, but I don't think that campaigns are unbeatable by other campaigns in the Presidential election, even at this late date. If Obama had done what Dodd did with the hold most recently it would implicitly create a contrast with Clinton. This contrast wouldn't have to be announced in the New York Times by senior staffers. This contrast wouldn't have drawn quotes from Clinton staffers that they are 'disappointed that Obama is abandoning the politics of hope'. It would be a real contrast. Instead, the contrast is between brand Democrat who is running a smooth and bland campaign as the first female President, and a blundering neophyte who doesn't know where he stands on a concert.

Digg!

Tagged as: mcclurkin, obama, election08, homophobia, religion

Matt Stoller is a political activist/blogger in DC, and was an editor at MyDD from November 2005 until June 2007. He also consults for the Sunlight Foundation, FreePress.net, and Working Assets as well as proactively networking other progressive bloggers/internet activists and progressive professionals.


Race-Baiting Former Senator Jesse Helms Has Died
Conservative Republican railed against "Negro hoodlums", opposed the Voting Rights Act, backed terrorists, and died an unrepentant segregationist.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 4, 2008.
NYC Cops Harass Club Owner Whose CCTV Footage Overturned Drug Conviction
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Post by . July 4, 2008.
Watermelon is the New Viagra
USDA-funded research helps Americans put some pizazz in their picnic baskets this fourth of July.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 3, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Maybe because of math.
Posted by: aka_bozo on Oct 29, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe because somebody on his staff realized that the Democrats only got 50.1% of the vote last time, and that – more than likely – the people that voted Republican LAST time will probably vote Republican next time. This is because people vote based how the psychology of their brains work; NOT on facts and logic.

So, pissing off a few progressives (liberals, socialists, leftist, whatever you are calling yourselves) doesn’t really MATTER that much, because - with your wonderful two party system – the socialists will vote Democratic even if a jackass were running.

What's he got to lose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

redfrog
Posted by: redfrog on Oct 29, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Obama has made it very clear from the start of his campaign that he endorses "seperate but equal" rights for GLBT communities. His reaching out to the intollerant faith sects is no surprise to those of us who have been paying attention. He is not a leader. He is not about creating bridges between opposing viewpoints. He is not the statesman he likes to pose as. He is not even about showing up for controversial votes in the Senate. Oprah doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. Again. Senator Obama is for Obama for President; he is an articulate pol who makes stupid campaign mistakes.

Want consistent courage and liberal/progressive conviction? Vote Dennis Kucinich. He is tall in every way that politically counts and the lies detractors tell about him are easily checked and dismissed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"God delivered me from homosexuality"?
Posted by: Suz on Oct 29, 2007 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From what I've read about this guy recently, his delivery has been lost in the male.

Oops--I meant, "mail."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um. Don't Issues Matter on the Left?
Posted by: Urgelt on Oct 30, 2007 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has, from the start, represented himself as a leader who will talk to *everyone.* He wants to be a uniter.

It's absurd to ask him to scrub his calendar clean of all persons who might offend the Left. That's how the game is played by the right wing ideologues. I don't think it's how American politics should be conducted.

The thing that should matter to the gay community, and to all of us, is his stance on the issues. Will he support civil rights for gays? Will he get us out of Iraq? Does he oppose pre-emptive US acts of war against Iran? Will he deliver universal health care? Will he respect the Bill of Rights? Will he obey the law? Is he sane?

Support him or reject him. But please, do it on matters of substance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So What?
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Oct 30, 2007 10:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am no Obama fanatic (in fact, I'm an Edwards supporter because Obama is not progressive enough for me in my eyes) and I support Marriage Equality for the GLBT community but I have to defend Obama on this one. For Godsakes what's wrong with trying to start a dialogue with everyone about the things (however few they may be) that they might both have in common? By the same token, just because Obama met with this person, it doesn't mean that Obama is now a right-wing homophobe. If anything, Obama should be commended for reaching out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and Obama
Posted by: johnp on Oct 31, 2007 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author says that "There are many liberals in congress who give money to Bush Dog freshmen, and pretend their voting record should excuse them for this." But these unseemly cash contributions, are "part of their record." These contributions are equivalent to votes, and should be made a part of their public record.

You fault Hillary for running a conventional, predicitible, "bland" campaign, but you fail, in the context of your criticism, to point out that, this is likely a campaigning tack that has put her in the lead. To make this often heard criticism of Hillary's campaign, is barely acceptable in the context of her lead against her competitors in the dem party, but in view of her lead, against her opponenets in the republican party, your criticism is ridiculous. What do you want Hillary to do, campagin in such a way that she loses the election, simply to gratify your desire for excitement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]