Obama’s anti-gay, recloseted gospel singer, says anti-gay stuff.

Shocking, really. Pam was on this last week, asking why the hell Obama would be touring with Donnie McClurkin, as an ex-gay homophobe. Potentially an appeal to connect with people of faith, but why make a move that so clearly loses you more votes than you could potentially gain?
And then shockingly, in the final parts of his performance, Donnie goes all gay hate, god can cure you gays, I was cured, on us. Not exactly surprising.
Americablog writes,

Obama’s anti-gay religious right activist used the opportunity Obama gave him last night to preach his hate to thousands of African-Americans. That’s just great. And the white preacher who Obama picked to help explain to the audience that gays aren’t minions of Satan? CNN reports that he said nothing at all – just a short little prayer, then he left. As for Obama, he did a taped introduction in which he praised McClurkin, the religious right activist, as one of his favorites. That’s nice, because the way to help combat homophobia in the black community is to make sure the gay-basher is first endorsed by someone as high-ranking as Obama, who then chooses to say nothing about the gay-bashing.
So, in the end, Obama let his “best” and “favorite” artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign. For them, creating a “dialogue” means the gay-basher gets to spread his bigotry to thousands while the candidate and the token gay STFU.

Yep, I am going to have to agree with that. Also, it is not like he is gaining any votes from this. As someone mentions in comments at Pam’s, the folks that dig McClurkin, are probably not going to vote for him anyway. He had a way better shot with the LGBQT voters. This is political suicide.

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

23 Comments

  1. raginfem
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Obama! HILLARY’S supposed to be the one who panders relentlessly to both sides of every issue, not you!
    Oh, wait…that’s what basically every mainstream politician does. This is why I’m a fan of fringe guys like Dennis Kucinich…

  2. Vervain
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Obama actually had a shot at getting my vote.
    Had. Past tense.

  3. Xana
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Yuck. He’s now officially on my “No” list.

  4. Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Well, that settles it. I’ll be voting Edwards. I was leaning that way, anyhow.

  5. Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I’m going to try and reserve judgment until we see how Obama responds to this. This happened what, last night?
    Articles prior to today make it sound like Obama’s campaign simply screwed up and didn’t dig deep enough. It was initially unaware of the singers ex-gay bullshit, and it was now presented something in the past the guy had moved away from. It’s possible that they didn’t want to draw attention to it by dropping a popular performer from the tour.
    While Americablog is theorizing that Obama gave the gay basher free reign and suppressed the gay friendly preacher, it’s also possible they told the singer to leave the gay bashing out of it, and as it was the end of the show the gay friendly preacher didn’t have the opportunity to rebut.
    How Obama responds to this high-jacking is very important, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obama is too smart not to realize throwing in with the ex-gay movement is political suicide, it almost has to be an administrative screw up. Which is still bad and the campaign may not recover, but it’s a significant difference.

  6. Sappho
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I agree with the benefit of the doubt, absolutely. (Except reduced for politicians.)
    In this case, although I don’t know that much about the facts, I really can’t see how any pro-gay-rights candidate would ever do sich a thing. So whether or not Obama thinks he agrees with McClurkin, he has very obviously denigrated gay rights as an important political agenda.
    “Update: About 6:40 pm [Monday], the Obama campaign issued a written statement from the candidate saying that he “strongly disagree(s)â€? with McClurkin’s views. Still, a spokesman said McClurkin would remain part of the concert line-up.”
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/obama_tours_with_anti-gay_mcclurkin/

  7. Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Ah, “cured” gays. Such confused bisexuals… This isn’t enough to make me not vote for him over, say, McCain or Romney, but it’s disconcerting. Hopefully this doesn’t mean he’ll legislate marriage– if he does, I could never vote for him.

  8. Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Aww, man. I was really hoping Obama would repudiate and boot this guy.

  9. Posted October 30, 2007 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Not a good week for Obama, but I’ve always been concerned he was a bit too fluffy and vague when it came to substantive issues. Of the front three, IMO Edwards is the only one who’ll make a difference.
    However (OT I admit) but it’s a bit rich of Americablog to carry on about gays being thrown off the bus by Obama, when he’s been busy crowing about how clever he is to support throwing the transgendered off the ENDA bus. How does it feel, John ? Jus’ sayin’.

  10. TheSoyMilkConspiracy
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been over Obama since I saw him speak at Planned Parenthood’s conference this summer. He’s really, really got to give this whole religious thing a rest. You know, some people are actually atheists. And they vote.

  11. m d
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    I attended an Obama fund raiser and had been talking him up at every opportunity but this seems like politics as usual.
    Edwards is the only candidate so far who hasn’t sold out the gays. Does anyone know of any reasons it’s not ok to vote for him?

  12. Posted October 30, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know why Obama is bringing so much religion into his campaign either. I don’t think most religious Democrats would not vote for him if he didn’t bring religion into his campaign, because people on the left judge a person’s spirtuality based on what they do and stand for, not how many churches they hit on the campaign trail. I just hope that Obama kicks this anti-gay zealot off his campaign trail and issues an apology.
    And for those who say they’re not going to vote for Obama now, what happens if he becomes the Democratic nominee? Are you going to stay home on Election Day? Are you going to vote Republican? I highly doubt it. Sure, he’s not my favorite, but it’s not like Kucinich is going to win any time soon. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Besides, Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. We’re you all thinking, “Well, I can stand him being against homosexuals when it comes to civil liberties, but if I find out he supports a so-called ex-gay preacher, there will be hell to pay!”

  13. Posted October 30, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    FEMily: I imagine people that won’t vote for Obama and instead looking towards, say, Kucinich, aren’t going to vote for him in the primaries. They’re much closer than the 2008 election.
    Furthermore, Obama has previously had a very good record on gay rights. While he does not support gay marriage, he is against amendments banning it and has said it should be up to the individual states. He also supports civil unions. Personally, I see not being personally for it, but not taking political action against it as necessary politicking for a moderate stance

  14. ed
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I’ll be voting Edwards

    .
    On the youtube debate, Edwards came out and said that he personally believed gay marriage was wrong, but that he “wouldn’t let his personal beliefs affect his policy.” Frankly, all of the nominees are trying to get the homophobe vote except for Kucinich. However, I personally get the opinion that Kucinich’s liberalism is shallow and strictly political.
    Does anyone honestly think any of the nominees are going to improve the state of gender relations in the country? I’m extremely doubtful.

  15. Kimmy
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    If y’all will pardon a little self-promotion, SoyMilkConspiracy, you might like some of this stuff: Kimmy’s Atheist Shops: Atheist Voter.

  16. ekishou
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    I was really disappointed to read about this because I had a lot of respect for Obama after reading “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream”.
    He wasn’t my first choice candidate (that spot is reserved for Dennis Kucinich), but I liked him a lot anyway.
    I’m planning to vote for Kucinich in the primary and then I’ll (hold my nose if necessary) and vote for whoever gets the democratic nomination, whether it’s Obama, Clinton, or Edwards – not that it’ll do much good since I live in an unequivocal red state that is probably guaranteed to go in the opposite direction of what I want.
    As much as I dislike and oppose Obama’s decision in this matter, he’s still a heckuva lot better than Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, and the rest of the GOP candidates.

  17. Marissa
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Uhg. This is so dissapointing for me. I am still lost on how it is ok to run on a policy of hatred towards some minority group, but I guess that

  18. Marissa
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Uhg. This is so dissapointing for me. I am still lost on how it is ok to run on a policy of hatred towards a minority group, but I guess that’s just me apparently.
    It seems so weird to think that I will be voting for Edwards, a white male, when there FINALLY is a woman AND a black man running for office and being taken seriously.

  19. Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    I imagine people that won’t vote for Obama and instead looking towards, say, Kucinich, aren’t going to vote for him in the primaries. They’re much closer than the 2008 election.
    Furthermore, Obama has previously had a very good record on gay rights. While he does not support gay marriage, he is against amendments banning it and has said it should be up to the individual states. He also supports civil unions. Personally, I see not being personally for it, but not taking political action against it as necessary politicking for a moderate stance

    That wasn’t the question I asked. Actually, I wasn’t looking for answers because I already know them. Those who say they’re not going to vote for Obama are going to vote for him if he’s the nominee. They’re outraged now, but if it’s Obama vs. Romeny or Giuliani or anyone else, they’ll be like “McClurkin who?” Bottom line, I think it’s kind of silly to say that you’re not going to vote for someone when they’re vote is a) probably going vote for a candidate with a similar stance on gay rights, or b) going to support Obama if he’s the nominee.

  20. m d
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    FEMily:
    I feel like your post has the same sort of attitude as the Democratic candidates:
    “We can do whatever we want to appeal to moderates, conservatives, and republicans because we know our base has no one else to vote for and is terrified of third party candidates after the Gore/Nader fiasco helped put Bush in office.”
    It’s insulting to know they care so little for their diehard supporters.

  21. ekishou
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    I’m not going to say “McClurkin who?” if I have to vote for Obama in the general election.
    I am very disappointed and upset about this whole situation and I would like to say that I refuse to vote for him at all, but the fact remains that given a choice between a democratic candidate and a republican one, well…I’d vote for a box of rocks before I’d vote for any of the republican candidates.
    If there was a viable third-party candidate I liked with even the faintest shot at winning, I’d certainly consider that option as well, but that doesn’t seem likely.
    The whole thing just bothers me.

  22. Sappho
    Posted November 1, 2007 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    “We can do whatever we want to appeal to moderates, conservatives, and republicans because we know our base has no one else to vote for and is terrified of third party candidates after the Gore/Nader fiasco helped put Bush in office.”
    Yeah, I would say that pretty well sums up this entire campaign. We have three leading candidates that are all essentially the same, so the only way they try to differentiate from each other is to appeal to different groups of conservatives – hawks, religious zealots, or libertarians. Disgusting.
    Obama / McClurkin – really disgusting. Plus he keeps touting about how he didn’t vote for the Iraq war (because he wasn’t there) and yet like everyone else he’s voted to fund it two or three times now. I had a higher opinion of him until recently.
    Which leads me back to where I started. If nothing else, I would like a woman in the oval office.

  23. GamesOnline
    Posted October 28, 2009 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    I agree with the benefit of the doubt, absolutely.games

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

192 queries. 0.788 seconds