Since people are still posting clueless McClurkin apologies...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Here is why McClurkin is not, and was not "just a singer."

He publicly allied himself with the "war on the curse of homosexuality" ("Not a war of violence, but a war of purpose" of course) before playing at the 2004 Republican convention over the protests of the Human Rights Campaign and the National Black Justice Coalition.

All you need to do is read this letter http://www.hrc.org/issues/2031.htm and ask yourself "Gee, I wonder how I felt about Donnie McClurkin when there were DU posts about this in 2004?"

When a class of people's identity is said to be "curable" and that we need a war against that identity, and the vessel for that war is George W. Bush in 2004, then it's way over any line I've heard of. Particularly since McClurkin was preaching this war on homosexuality in the midst of the republican party's project of getting gay marriage referenda on ballots in swing states, like Ohio... a wedge issue that may well have cost Kerry the election.

McClurkin is not the harmless ex-gay eccentric the Obama camp has spun him to be. This guy went on the 700 Club and said "we need to take off the gloves and close that school" referring to the Harvey Milk school in New York. And he has also said on the 700 Club that "homosexuals are killing our children"

If he were just some religious guy who thought god cured him of being gay it would be distasteful, but that is NOT what people are complaining about. This guy has served as an anti-gay ally of the worst Republican fiends... people who would genuinely just as soon put GLBT in camps... for real. McClurkin has a political activist anti-gay history, not just a singing career.

Many on this board supported the HRC call to remove the guy from the Republican convention line-up in 2004, so many folks were genuinely SHOCKED that Obama selected the guy to do the same damn performance at an Obama fundraiser. Actaully, Obama's event was worse, since the guy spoke about his cured staus on stage, not in newpapers or on the 700 club before the performance, as he did in 2004.

If Bush had peddled the inclusion line to defend McClurkin at the RNC convention nobody here would have bought it, so why is it better coming from our own?

It is WORSE coming from our own. The Democratic party is supposed to be a refuge... GLBT don't get gay marriage, but at least they don't get gratuitously spit upon by national democratic candidates... or at least not until recently. (Particularly a candidate given a full week to undo the offense, fully cognizent of McClurkin's history, and declining to.)

[babylonsister]

1. Who do you support now, since you've been so severely disappointed? nt

[ruggerson]

2. Do I detect a little sarcasm in that question?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I never supported Obama, nor have I ever pretended to.

If someone I liked more did exactly this I might not have reacted quite the same way. I might have slinked from DU in embarassment for a good long while, rather than face the music. But I would certainly not have tried to defend it.

At this time I am exceedingly fond of Biden. Hillary doesn't scare me. After those two, Obama might well be my 3rd choice even today. I actually like a lot of things about Obama. (You won't find much Obama trashing from me pre-McClurkin)

And I will vote for Obama without hesitation if he is the nominee.

The purpose of this is not to hurt Obama as a candidate... I do not believe DU even has that kind of real-world influence.

I just don't see how any national Dem can have a fund-rasier featuring someone we were condemning in 2004 when he played for Bush. It just shocks me. Genuinely.

[incapsulated]

4. Nothing should shock you when it comes to DU Primary Season

People will defend their candidate to the death. People who would even agree that their candidate fucked up will become so angry at the constant barrage of attacks, and the use of said fuck-ups by supporters of other candidates, that they will start defending them when they would normally let it go.

Very little of any of this has to do with the real world issues or even the real campaigns.

Example: The Webb Ammendment was generally supported as a Good Thing around here... until Hillary co-signed it. Then no one wanted to touch it and not only that, he suddenly became some sort of a Hillary lapdog, overnight.

This is why I don't take seriously most of the outrage over anything right now. It is very hard to when people are so selective about what they get all up in arms about depending on whether their candidate supports it or not.

I'm not saying there isn't genuine anger and disappointment over Obama with this specific issue. I've tried to explain to Obama supporters that just handwaving it away as nothing but more of the same political games is a bad move because this is a rare instance here where people were genuinely upset and it had nothing to do with the "candidate wars". But all it takes is a few disingenuous pile-on threads by the supporters of another candidate and all reason goes out the window, people become defensive and we are back to round one.

It's all kinda hopeless, really, heh.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. The couple of high profile Clinton supporters piling on gave cover to the Obamabots to

turn a blind eye.

But I swear, this bullshit of several dunces per day posting high-handed bullshit "get over it" posts without having a clue of the particulars really grinds me.

[Cameron27]

13. There's also a determined effort NOT to understand

the anger which is just plain offensive, but from what I can see, you're right about what happens here during the primary season.

[incapsulated]

14. Well, yes, some people are showing their own prejudice

Through their defensiveness over this.

But it's really hard to keep track of who is saying what with all the fighting going on.

I think that Shindler piece that Bluebear posted sums it up best, especially the last part:

No serious gay political leader thinks our community or the Democrats can afford not to engage evangelical blacks or any other voting group reluctant to view the world the way we do. But there are all manner of African-American faith leaders, gay and not, fully supportive of LGBT rights and more agnostic, who could play a wide variety of roles in helping Obama frame a dialogue across these cultural lines.

But to offer up Donnie McClurkin as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, and then suggest that gay Americans unhappy at the prospect of him being a ringleader in Obama's "big tent" are culturally insensitive is flat out wrong. It is clumsy. It is insulting. And it is cynical.

Now, is Obama the first to be clumsy or insulting or cynical? No. But that he was, and toward a group of people who had generally been supportive of him.

[Cameron27]

15. Yep, the anger only got exacerbated

by the lack of any acknowledgment that he did act in a clumsy, insulting and cynical way. The more apologizing, the more threads to counter the apologists. This primary can't be over too soon for me.

[babylonsister]

5. Thanks for your response, and I still don't know who I'm supporting.

I do know who I am not, as you do. They're different choices and that's okay. I've decided I don't agree with any of them and will vote for the person who I trust the most and reflects my values, the one who seems to be the most truthful. That's the best I can do.



:hi:

[incapsulated]

6. That's all anyone can do, really.

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I just want someone who doesn't make me sick, or if that fails, Hillary.

[babylonsister]

9. So there are a bunch of other people. It was Clinton or Obama? That's

shrinking your options.

[incapsulated]

10. lol!

Not bad reasoning.

I tend to defend Hillary more than other candidates simply because she gets the most lame and stupid attacks.

I've defended Obama when he was unfairly singled out for attacks as well.

There are only two candidates who make me sick and fortunately neither really has a chance so I'm good with whoever wins the nomination. I think we can win with most of them, frankly.

[Lucinda]

11. I wish I was shocked.

I really do. If he's the nom I'll vote for him. But I don't think it will get to that point.

[CyberPieHole]

12. Fortunately, BHO's chances of getting the nomination are slim at best...

He has chosen to court religious bigots...no amount of spinning can alter that, in my book.


kick and recommend

[William769]

16. Yep Obama is the candidate of change.

But I'm not going back into the closet.