Obama Denounces Anti-Gay Supporter But Does Not Pull Him From Obama Event

Frankly, this is a very bizarre reaction from Obama:

About 6:40 pm today, the Obama campaign issued a written statement from the candidate saying that he "strongly disagree(s)" with McClurkin's views. Still, a spokesman said McClurkin would remain part of the concert line-up.

(Emphasis supplied.) This was a baby that could not be divided. Obama's reaction simply does not work.

All year I have stated that Obama's political team is awful. This is confirmation of my judgment.

< The Most Trusted To Offend | The Santa Ana Winds >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Actions speak louder than words (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mjames on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    And by his inaction, Obama shows where he stands on the issue. And he's to blame for his crummy political team.

    This is what is wrong with America. (none / 0) (#19)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Obama Got it Right and Wrong on Gay Bashing

    Sen. Obama should say "I Strongly disagree with the Rev. McClurkin on gay issues, but I am praying with him to remove the hate and fear from his heart. I will continue to reach out to him for his support on matters of much greater substance and importance, such as ending the war, and replacing the lawless maladministration which is seeking to start another war in Iran."

    No more litmus tests. No more "You can't talk to them." Or have you forgotten that is how Bush got us here in the first place? Give up the politics of division and get back to the politics of unity.

    Or watch America burn.
    posted 10/23/2007 at 10:53:03


    Talking to him is NOT the issue (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    Having him represent the campaign is.

    This is the red line for me (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    He isn't getting my vote in the primary. Full stop.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:45:29 PM EST
    Personally, I think he is lost already.

    Even if I didn't care about this issue (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    I'd probably discount him for his incompetent media strategy.

    Bye Bye Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by Key on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    It's not this issue that makes me say goodbye to the guy, it's a lot of things.....

    But it can all be summed up with this:

    He wants people to come together, people from all sides of the political and social spectrum.  He insists on including those people who do not want to be included, who go against the things democratic minded people tend to believe.

    He embraces the religious, cultural, and political right in a foolish attempt to build bridges - bridges the right will cross so they can stomp all over people they don't agree with.

    He was raised non-religious (none / 0) (#8)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:51:10 AM EST
    Obama was raised non-religious. I frankly suspect he became Christian mainly because it would help him politically. I mean, he seems to me like a phony. He can't just stop being that phony all at once, so this playing both sides seems the most natural and least risky move for Obama. It's only stupid politically if Obama were ready to lead on anything, instead of give speeches meant to lure people.

    Why (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:15:28 AM EST
    Why does Obama even bother with this crowd? The arrogantly named "value voters," whose only "values" are: against gay, against abortion, against other religions, against Democrats, against everyone not "valued" like them, is not really religious; they are hateful Republicans who hide behind God the way Bush hides behind national security.

    Preaching to the maliciously converted will yield nothing but ridicule.

    Obama and the bigotry (none / 0) (#7)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:40:33 AM EST
    Obama is just doing what he does best: pandering to the other party's base, while trying to stay cool about it.

    Two possible outcomes. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:21:13 AM EST
    1. Trainwreck.

    2. Obama's powers of persuasion are indeed prodigious, McClurkin is convinced that open respect for the civil rights of gays is an essential step on the road to Black empowerment, announces a change of heart at the first tour stop, and we all lived happily ever after.

    The damage was done once the guy was booked. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:59:31 AM EST
    Throwing him under the bus would be a hugely disastrous mistake, in political terms.  Just a matter of choosing the least bad option.  

    Nope (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:46:43 AM EST
    The guy could "voluntarily" choose to not be a "distraction."

    That would be a pretty graceful way (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    to deal with it.

    He could. But, if he chooses (none / 0) (#25)
    by Geekesque on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    not to, their hands are kinda tied.

    Note that a lot of people paid just to see this guy.

    As I said, Obama's stuck with following the least bad choice.


    If we are ever gonna tackle.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    real problems, the jesus patrol and the heathens are gonna have to find some common ground and work together on the big stuff...namely war/occupation, foreign policy, health care, criminal justice reform.

    There is plenty to criticize Obama for, I too think he's a phoney, but I salute him for not automatically excluding someone from an event because their opinion on homosexuality differs from the party line.

    Your salute is nice for you (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    But the politics is awful for Obama.

    I disagree with your salute btw.


    Would you be as critical of Rudy G.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    for refusing to throw an ACLU member out of an event?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    Obviously I would praise him.

    See the point? The ACLU is good.

    Anti-gay bigotry is bad.

    Your point is lost on me.


    The problem is (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:57:56 AM EST
      such a huge number of points are lost on you because of such a narrow and  simple minded attitude, well illustrated by:

    See the point? The ACLU is good.

    Anti-gay bigotry is bad.

    Your point is lost on me

      "Us good, them bad," sure makes compartmentalization easy but it tends to prevent thinking and and of course any sort of insight. If you ever desire to do more than attract other people of the same ilk, you might want to open that mind a little.


    Your moral relativism (none / 0) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    is indeed praiseworthy.

    Um (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    Are you really having a hard time saying the ACLU is good and anti-gay bigotry is bad?

    I'll say it.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    I believe the ACLU is a wonderful organization, and anti-gay bigotry is disgusting.

    Doesn't mean I won't talk to a bigot, listen to a bigot, or work with a bigot to solve a common problem.  


    And you end with a straw man (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    Who is saying do not talk? No one is saying that in fact.

    The issue is should you have an anti-gay bigot REPRESENT you?

    Honestly, the lack of intellectual honesty being exhibited by some in this thread is astounding. Includng yourself.


    Not exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:03:55 PM EST
     What I am saying is that by STARTING FROM THE CONCLUSION that people with whom you agree are good, worthy and always worth a listen and that peopl with whom you disagree are bad, unworthy not worth a listen you reveal a closed mind and render yourself incapable of understanding.

      All you know about McLurkin is that he is Christian man with homosexual feelings that made him unhappy and that he says he found happiness through God and seeks to proselytize other gays to find what he found. Why can't you be happy for him if he found happiness even if it is through means you could not find happiness. Why do you feel he can't be a "good" or a "real" Democrat just because he doesn't like being gay and thinks he can helps others who he assumes also do not like it? do you suggest he is the ONLY person with such conflicts? Do you think all the people with such conflicts are necessarily bad people who need to be shunned? Are only those gay people who think the way you believe gay people are supposed to act acceptable?

      Is he expressing even one one millionth of the hatred and intolerance you express simply by his labeling being gay a curse?

      You don't believe being gay is "a curse" and he does. That alone causes you to condemn HIM. He merely believes people are afflicted and says nothing condemning THEM. Moreover he is gay and at the least it would seem nice to allow him to feel about himself as he chooses, but you seem to want to deny him that.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    I start from the conclusion that anti-gay bigtory is bad.

    I understand Obama does too.

    Apparently you do not.

    I also start from the conclusion that the ACLU does great work.

    I understand Obama does too.

    You apparently do not.

    Your description of McClurkin's views is silly imo. Hitler started from the view that Jews were cursed and afflicted.

    Uh oh, Godwin . . .


    No you start from the conclusion (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    that because he disagrees with you HE IS A BIGOT.

      the discussion is over and you are right and he is wrong because you proclaim him a bigot without making any effort to understand the fill nature of his beliefs or how he came to hold those he beliefs. He's a bigot and he's bad-- end of discussion now let's run him out of town.


    Heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:36:41 PM EST

    My gawd, the apologists for bigotry are all out in force in this thread.

    Continue exposing yourself. It makes your ramblings all the more understandable.


    BTW (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    You need to criticize Obama too:

    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 added.

    That's nice, Senator. You strongly disagree with the bigot who thinks I need to be cured, and who has declared "war" on me and my people, but you're going to put the guy on stage with you anyway in order to make a few bucks. Nice. I wonder what Obama would say if Hillary invited David Duke to speak at an event but then said, not to worry, she really loves black people - kisses!

    No Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:46:02 PM EST
      merely says he strongly disagrees with him. YOU are the one who characterized his comments as a denunciation. It's not the disagreement that is objectionable. It's the conclusion that the disagreement makes him a bad person who must be shunned.



    Why does he disagree with him? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    Does he JUST disagree with the DOJ employee he wants fired? (BTW, this link is a set up. Live up to my expectations please.)

    Obama's TEAM, not necessarily him, screwed the pooch here.

    Which is what I said in my post.

    It is my view that McClurkin is an anti-gay bigot. A lot of people, especially gay people, agree with me.

    You think that, like David Duke, he is merely disagreeing with me.

    For you, gay bigotry is just a difference of opinion. Do you hold the same view of David Duke's opinions?


    How on Earth (none / 0) (#57)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:53:25 PM EST
      do you equate McLurkin with Duke -- not to mention hitler as you tried earlier?

     Have you no shame let alone scruples?


    How do I equate Duke with him? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    The Hitler reference was facetious.

    But the Duke reference is not.

    David Duke denies being a bigot too.

    How on Earth do you not see how what McClurkin is saying is equivalent to what David Duke says?

    How on Earth could you possibly tell gay people that they do not recognize anti-gay bigotry when they see it?

    How dare you tell them that?

    Are you totally lost to any decency?


    Yes, (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    How on Earth do you not see how what McClurkin is saying is equivalent to what David Duke says?
    because in BTD's bizarro Bill O'Reilly world, 1% = 100%.

    1% (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    Why don;t you actually read what McClurkin has said and what David Duke has said?

    Or are you just an ad hominem machine?

    Do you really know so little about this? Are you so eager to flaunt your ignorance?


    OK (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    in BTD's bizarro Bill O'Reilly world, a lightning bug = lighting.

    You've lost. Take a powder. Tomorrow's another day.


    Nice quoting and linkage there (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    The apologists' for bigots on parade.

    Continue to expose yourselves.


    I admit I don't know much about... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    this gospel-singer cat, except that he's a gospel singer who thinks gay people can be "cured".  That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, just another member of the knucklehead club.  Is he even against equal rights for gays?  

    One things for sure, you'll never find some common ground with him by kicking him out of the room.  Maybe he's a potential ally in the arenas of health care, just economic policy, or the occupation of Iraq. Lets ask him...oh yeah, too late, you deemed him unworthy to associate with.

    I'm a knucklehead who thinks sun block causes skin cancer. According to your logic, you better tell Jeralyn to boot me from Talkleft because I have a knuckleheaded belief. I'm not worthy to discuss the future of America.

    You sound like the bizarro Bill O'Reilly.  


    The Bizarro Bill O'Reilly (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    as in the opposite of Bill O'Reilly.

    Yes. Thank you very much.


    Opposite.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    yes, but so exactly the opposite that you're practically the same.

    So opposite it is the same (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    That is just silly.

    I know you get encouragement fdor saying things like that from some here.

    But I will point out the obvious. That makes no sense.


    He is saying (none / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    you are the flip side of the same coin. A rigid, narow-minded, intolerant person who condemns others for the sin of thinking or believing differently than do you. You are just opposed in the sense that  you and O'Reilly hate opposite types of people.

    The flip side (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    of the same coin means something different.

    Of course, it is a foolish thing to say. And frankly, it surprises me not that you think it meritorious.

    Your contribitions to this thread are illustrative imo.

    But continue on with the silliness. Of course all the gay persons who are offended know less about it than you do.

    You let them know when it is ok to be offended.

    What utter arrogance some of you possess on this.


    Barack Obama's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    candidacy is just too darned important for a bunch of gay people to be offended by his blunders. How dare they be so myopic?

    Once elected president, the blunders will end and Obama will emerge a fully fledged progressive hero the likes of which the world has never seen.

    Or so it goes.


    You never read Superman comics? (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    If you had, I think you'd get it.

    If it makes you happy, I can call Bill O'Reilly the Bizarro BTD.


    I'll just call you bizarre (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    and leave it at that.

    Go preach to the gay activists on this issue. Clearly you know so much more about it than they do.


    You earn the approbation of the usual silly suspects for your silliness.


    Well said. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    The politics would be even more awful (none / 0) (#26)
    by Geekesque on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    for him if he threw McClurkin under the bus.  

    A lot worse.


    Well said, Kdog (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    You and I think alike in many important respects, although, for reasons both pragmatic and principled, I lack  your staunch anti-establishment beliefs.

    I'm an anti-establishment extremist... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    and the first to admit it.

    But I like to think America needs guys like me to keep establishment guys like you in line:)  


    Hey, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:54:05 AM EST
      I didn't say I was IN the establishment just that I'm not as anti-establishment as are you.

      First, (pragmatically) i don't think it is possible not to have "an establishment" in mass societies. Hierarchies of power are inevitable in any society too large for direct egalitarian power. Second, I think too many people make the mistake of concluding that because we have powerful institutions and the world is f-ed up, that powerful institutions are the reason it is  f-ed up. I believe it is very likely the world would be even more f-ed up if we lacked powerful institutions.

      I see the primary problem as being the specific people at the top of the powerful institutions not the existence of the institutions. I would like different barriers of entry to power and different people in power but recognize it is inevitable some will wield very outsized power reltive to others and also believe that power could be used to improve the world.


    I realize the need for... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    an establishment...I'm crazy but not that crazy.

    I just see our establishment as no longer conforming to the will of the people, the people are being forced to conform to the will of the establishment.  That's a sign of a broken establishment.

    It's easy to blame the current crop of people in charge, but I feel it's bigger than that.  Our establishment has not represented or served the will of the people for quite some time.  As long as I've been alive the establishment has served the establishment, though the faces of the establishment have changed.

    Like most everything in life, a balance must be struck.  We're way out of balance.

    PS..It's also a personality thing I think, I'm the type who shrugged off my house being robbed in 5 minutes, but waiting in line at the DMV ruins my whole day.  I have patience and understanding when it comes to people, but not for bueracracies.


    Institutions and establishment, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    Could it be that the inevitable institutions in power at the top of the hierarchy have grown too large? i.e. Executive branch, US military, Federal gov't, Multinational corps, etc.

    Having establishments in place making a check on institutions growing too large is crucial for a democracy to function effectively. Perhaps, these anti-establishment establishment checks have grwon incompetent as institutional powers have been placed increasingly in fewer hands. If so, then it matters not who is in positions of power if the creed power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then its only the Kdogs of the world that can save us.


    the audacity of obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:43:39 AM EST
    if he toured and spoke using his book as his platform he might have a chance, but this is ridiculous and quite audacious.  

    He is still no different in my mind than the rest of the top candidates and being that there is virtually no difference between them the question becomes who do i not want to vote for.  Hmmm, sounds like every election in the past 25 years.

    Can anybody point me in the direction... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    of some bigoted statements made by this guy?  I can find sexually confused statements, the usual whacky christian statements...but not one instance of him saying gays shouldn't be afforded the same rights as the rest of us, or an instance of him saying gays should be persecuted.

    Besides, he's a freakin' singer, not a policy maker.  I think we'd all be up in arms if a candidate threw Keith Richards out of an event for his opinions on law enforcement.

    He Is A Self Hating Bigot (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    The only reason he was chosen was that he pulls $100, 000 from the collection plate every month. He is not a just some gospel singer, he is a preacher and his message is self hate if you are gay. He talks of a war against gays.

    This guy is going to wind up like father Ritter if he doesn't get help and I don't mean the kind of help that Dobson proscribes.

    Obama f'ed up big time. It is not like this guy is part of the audience, or is one of the many who has pledged support, He is the star attraction at a fundraiser event. His message is hate. Wouldn't be much different if Dobson were the main act singing  christian hymns. When someone a strong a political position like Donnie McClurkin does, when he is on stage singing and representing Obama, he is not just a musician.

    Here is a profile on the guy.


    War On Gays (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    "I can't let off. I didn't call myself -- God called me to do what I do," McClurkin told The Post's Hamil R. Harris. The Grammy winner declared, "If this is a war, we are willing to fight. Not a war of violence, but a war of purpose."



    THanks for the profile (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    I believe Mcklurkin is wrong and his message may be doing more harm than good for individuals struggling with theri sexual identity. But, Mcklurkin says nothing about hating homosexuals. He hates the sin not the sinner. His belief that homosexuality is a sin is also off the mark and might do harm to some individuals, but - from your profile - this is a man who was raped by a man when he was 8 and 13 years old. Talk about trauma. I have no idea if he can be cured of homosexuality, but being a victim of rape surely had an impact on both his struggles with sexuality and his views today.

    I have only sympathy for the man. If he wants to preach the glories of Jesus and how his faith cured him of the demons resulting from being raped as a young boy, I have no hate toward the man. Obama should talk to him. His flock and him are potential allies against the war-mongers and, if he is a man of peace and a ally to the poor, then he should be embraced while still disagreeing with his views on homosexuality.


    Fine (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    But he doesn't belong on stage with mouthing the views of Dobson and Bush be it actively or by reputation.

    When he stands up for (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    the war in Iraq and for the major corporations, I'll be the first one to give him the boot off the stage.

    Does he support the war in Iraq? Does he support Obama? Sounds to me like he might be a democrat with views that fall under the "family values" heading. He is likely anti-choice as well. I'll vehemently disagree with his "family values," but I'd still give him a spot on the stage if he wants to end the war, help the poor, help minorities, tax the rich.

    You got to know your priorities. Its a class thing in the US and the values thing is a means for the Bushies and the Dobsons to attract the southern white votes. The southern black votes ain't goin for it even if they are antichoice and family values. They may be wrong on these issues, but they know who the enemy is and the enemy has a white face and hes sitting in the white house espousing the same values. But, the preachers mom didn't raise no fool. He knows who is friends are even if they disagree with him on abortion and values.

    That is what counts right now.


    Maybe He is Just A Whore (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    For God, or the god that Dobson worships. He was at the Republican National Convention in 2004.

    Donnie McClurkin, Ready to Sing Out Against Gay 'Curse'


    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peaches on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    maybe even a good chance. Suckin' up to politicians to further his own ambitions and agenda.

    I wouldn't put it past him or Obama. Its why I can only take so much politics. I'm a political junkie for the news and the problem solving, but the cast of characters and the prospects for change makes my stomach turn more often than not.

    [shrug] watcha' gonna do?


    Thanks squeaky.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    I perused your links, and my impression of the guy is a man very confused about sexuality. A knucklehead...one of many.

    If Obama invited him to a symposium on gay rights I'd be the first to criticize him.  But Obama invited him to perform a series of gospel concerts.  If Obama invites Snoop Dogg to do a hip-hop concert, is Obama supporting pimping and marijuana use?  Of course not.  He's reaching out to a new audience.  

    Think about it...O'Reilly would shred Obama if he invited Snoop to do a concert, and O'Reilly would be wrong.  BTD shreds Obama for for inviting this cat to do a concert, and BTD is equally wrong.


    Do you understand the purpose of the concert? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    Honestly, go tell John Aravosis and the other multitude of gay activists how "intolerant" they are.

    I dare you to.


    It's a campaign event.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    the purpose is to raise money and get votes from the holy roller contigent.  

    What do you think the purpose is?

    I'd like to believe Obama is trying to build unlikely coalitions to solve real problems, instead of getting bogged down on the wedge issues that will seperate the gay activists from the christian activists forever, and prevent solutions to the problems the gay activists and the christian activists might actually agree on, like the occupation of Iraq.  

    PS...I don't believe that, I believe Obama is as crooked and phoney as Hillary, but I'd love to be wrong.


    Great (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    Is there ANYONE who you think Obama should NOT campaign with?

    The purpose of the concert is (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:48:47 PM EST
     to drum up support for Obama among Christian black people. Do you want to shun all of them too?


    Hence (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    Obama is being represented by this concert.

    Understand the point yet? McClurkin is representing Obama.

    Now see if you can continue to think this one through.

    BTW, nice smear of Christian black people there. OF course they are all gay bigots. That is what appeals to them. Riiiight.


    anti-gay bigots (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    I meant

    You are losing it badly (none / 0) (#64)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:02:57 PM EST
      YOU are thone calling people bigots not me.  I don't see any basis for calling MCLurkin a bigot let alone all Christian blacks. He is a gospel singer and we will assume a lot of christian blacks like his music. Some of them probably agree with his views and some probably don't. both groups probably include good and bad people abut I would never call someone good or bad simply because of their personal views about homosexuality. Now, if people condemn PEOPLE who are homosexual and advocate hatred and intolrance that is one thing, but if people simply sincerely believe someting people are doing is wrong and it is their sacred duty to change them, I'm not going to call them bigots people even if I disagree.

      Resorting to epithets and derogarory labels to dehumanize people with whom you disagree is classic bigotty and it is YOU doing it.


    You lost it months ago (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    I call McClurkin an anti-gay bigot.

    You surmised that having McClurkin was necessary to appeal to Christian blacks. Presumably because of his bigoted views about gays.

    You wrote what you wrote. If I were you I would retract it. Is that what you intend?


    You are not even making (none / 0) (#70)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:18:02 PM EST
     a tiny bit of sense anymore. I didn't say anything about anthing or anyone being "necessary" to appeal to Christian blacks. I said the gospel concert's purpose was to do so. First, that being its purpose does not make the concert necessary to do so. Secondly, I will assume that if there is a concert one particular performer is not "necessary."

      I have challenged YOUR denuciation of this man as a bigot because no one has provided any information to justify that label. Even the link intended to illustrate his "bigot bona fides" fails entirely to do so. It seems to suggest he is motivated by LOVE for people he believes (wrongly no doubt in many cases) to be troubled and in need of help. He is not trying to harm or exclude anyone. That would be you.

      At worst he is offending some people who feel any deviation from their narrow views is intolerable. In a free society it should not be intolerable. I hate to tell you this but being a gay activist is not synonymous with being tolerant; it's merely synonymous with being a gay activist and they can be and some are as intolerant as the people who are intolerant of them.

      It's sort of like you and O'Reilly I guess; extemists never recoignize in themselves the traits they denounce in others.

    No one has provided what? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    Are you saying you never clicked any links provided in the posts?

    Seriously, you are now admitting speaking from total ignorance.

    You just engaged in defense of an anti-gay bigot without knowing what he has said?

    Well, I am done with you until you have actually read some of the material linked to.

    What a stunning admission to make. All this apology for bigotry without even knowing what was said. stunning.


    You might want to read Decon's comment (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    a little more closely.

    Keep making a fool of your self (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:06:08 PM EST
    "I have challenged YOUR denuciation of this man as a bigot because no one has provided any information to justify that label"

    That he did not dig through the links in the 2 posts on this subject is obvious. that he knows nothing about McClurkin is obvious.

    I suggest you stop exposing yourself.


    When you are losing an argument (none / 0) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:15:29 AM EST
     you simply start playing the obtuse card. You play it well but as you seem to have an overwhelming need to have your views respected it is probably counter-productive in the big picture.

      Read this carefully: Yes i have read the links provided here (and a few other links) and I see nothing in any of them to justify your virulent hatred for this man, your demand he be excluded  or to justify call him a bigot.

      I think he is probably mistaken in projecting his personal conflicts (which seem understandable if one accepts that he was abused as a child) on to others and I disagree with his belief gays need to be (orcan be) "cured." That doesn't mean that I can't allow for the very strong possibility that despite his own confusion and likely false assumptions that he is decent person motivated by a genuine desire to deliver what he perceives to be help. It's one thing to call him misguided and disagree with him. It's entirely a different thing to engage in the intolerant, exclusionary tactics you demand.


    Gays Don't Exist (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    Gays don't exist. It is a choice because they were raped as children. That is McClurkin's position. Whoever thinks that is not a self hating bigoted position needs help.
    And does he agree with the President that the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman?

    "I sure do," McClurkin said. "Because that's what I had - a mom and a dad." McClurkin sure isn't afraid of controversy.

    He's quoted on the Christian Broadcasting Network's Web site as harshing homosexuals: "I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children."

    McClurkin's publicist, Erma Byrd, insisted yesterday that the incendiary comment has been taken out of context.

    Kill our kids? When he was on the down low, was he killing kids?

    Out of context?

    Just another homophobe/closet case for Hatefest, 2004.

    Steve Gilliard

    In an interview with www.FamilyChristian.com McClurkin said, "Homosexuality has really ravished our children. It started in my generation. I was touched by it and I struggled with it and all that for years and there was nobody to deal with it. I started dealing with it in my sermons and even when we do our concerts."


    Donnie believes this is the era for the mega-church. He says that if the churches can get together and unite, then Christians can have a major voice against the homosexual agenda. "There is not enough being said. Thank God for The 700 Club - no fanfare intended......

    They would pray with me, talk with me, and a few of them--Sister Kitty Braizley in particular--would even teach me how to carry myself like a man. When I wanted to sing soprano, they'd say things like, "Get some bass in your voice!" or, "Men don't sing soprano!" Sister Braizley even taught me how to walk. If I held my hand up in a feminine way, she'd hit it and say: "Put your hands at your side. Men don't hold their hands like that!"

    ...They were thrust into homosexuality by neglect, abuse and molestation....

    ....There are many more things that need to be done to break the curse of homosexuality.

    John Avarosis