Sorry, Obama is Engaging in Dog Whistle Politics Against Gays to Secure the Conservative Evangelical Black Vote

It turns out that not only did Donnie McClurkin sing, but he also unleashed an "I'm a former gay tirade in the last half hour of his set. CNN has reported it, saying that McClurkin said that, "he has been 'vilified' and declaring that 'God delivered me from homosexuality.'"

As to the white gay preacher that they included, they buried him:

Sidden is the white, gay pastor added to the concert bill as a last minute compromise by the Obama campaign. Sidden's appearance was notably brief and anti-climactic: He said a short prayer to the auditorium at the very beginning of the program, when the arena was only about half full, and then he left.

The New York times subtly suggests that this was dog whistle politics, i.e. that he was trying to tell the largely socially conservative audience that he was uncomfortable with gays without alerting anyone else:

Still, canceling Mr. McClurkin’s appearance might have created more problems. Mr. McClurkin’s support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama’s support for gay rights.

The campaign has tried to turn the situation into a demonstration of the candidate’s big-tent acceptance. It did bring together some supporters from the gay community and the black religious community who wrote a joint letter a few days ago saying that Mr. McClurkin’s statements had been “deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially gay Americans.”

At the same time, it said, “a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs” and “their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters.” It lauded Mr. Obama “who speaks truth in love to both sides.”

I would agree. The Obama Campaign's response is nearly identical to that of creationists, and the ACLU arguing for the right of Nazis to march in Skokie.

The ACLU was right, but they were talking about demonstrations, not literally on a campaign's stage.

As Matt Stoller so eloquently put it, Progressive Campaigns to Do Not Gay Bash.

I'm probably not as angry as John Aravosis about this, after all, I'm straight^*, but I am convinced that this was deliberate, and sophisticated message of bigotry to the Socially conservative black Evangelicals in South Carolina.

^*Or maybe I haven't met Mr. Right...Whatever.

Obama Should Not Be Hanging Out With Homophobic Bigots

Barack Obama is doing a gospel music tour called the "Embrace the Change" tour with three dates in South Carolina.

I understand that this is a part of his message of inclusiveness, but review the highlighted portion:

As religious conservatives gather in Washington this weekend for the “Values Voters Summit,” Senator Barack Obama’s campaign announced its latest effort to attract people of faith to the campaign: a gospel concert tour.

All three of the dates of the “Embrace the Change” tour are in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama is locked in battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for black voters.

Gospel acts including Mary Mary, Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Byron Cage and the Mighty Clouds of Joy are scheduled to appear.

It seems innocuous enough, until you dig into the statements and actions of Donnie McClurkin in this 2004 article:

Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle "the curse of homosexuality," said yesterday he'll perform as scheduled at the Republican National Convention on Thursday, despite controversy over his view that sexuality can be changed by religious intervention.

He is also claiming that he was "made gay" by being raped by an uncle.

Unless McClurkin has recanted these views, he is a messenger of bigotry and hypocrisy, and no Democratic candidate should have him sing as a part of their political campaign.

Obama Uses 'Phant Framing on Social Security

Barack Obama has chosen the meme that social security is in crisis as his first line of attack against Hillary Clinton. The fact that we have "only 40 years" or so to fix it is something that we need to act upon RIGHT NOW DAMMIT!!!!

I have to go with Chris Bowers' analysis:

Obama made it clear he would not run as either a partisan Democrat or a partisan progressive from the start.
Back on Sunday, playing on the whole "what happened to the Obama of 2004" theme, the Carpetbagger Report notes we should have seen that Obama was not going to run as a partisan from the start

......

We should have seen that Obama wouldn't run as either an ideological or Democratic partisan from the start. His 2004 convention speech made that perfectly clear. We should also have seen that a bruised and battered Democratic activist base, after years of defeat, being called traitors, and inability to get Republican to compromise on anything at all, wasn't exactly willing to just throw their hands up in the air and say to Republicans:

.....

That wasn't going to happen, even though it would have helped Obama if it had. Democrats, especially the under 50 progressive creative class portion of the party, don't just want conservatives to finally stop attacking them so everyone can finally all hold hands. Instead, for once, they actually want to win. Unfortunately for Obama, he offered them milquetoast unity instead.

Now, in reaction to being pushed by the progressive base on McClurkin, Atrios notes the many ways that Obama lashes out against progressives:

Aside from the adoption of right wing frames, this kind of statement is incredibly insulting to both the LGBT community who are apparently "hermetically sealed from the faith community" and to the "faith community" which is apparently defined as nothing more than a bunch of anti-gay bigots. Not to mention the Democratic Party, which apparently includes no actual religious people.

It's really just insulting to everyone, with a touch of "shut the hell up I know best."

This isn't new. Obama has done this before. In fact, during 2006, he repeatedly engaged in the long-standing practice of chastising progressives for not being nice to people of faith:

.....

Obama has long criticized the left for being hostile to Americans of faith whenever he was pushed on this topic. In fact, he often made such criticisms without even being pushed. As such, there was no reason to expect that his reaction to criticism of choosing McClurkin, or really his reaction to any progressive criticism, would be any different. If Democrats and progressives criticized anything in his campaign that had to do with faith, those same Democrats and progressives would simply be told that they aren't properly reaching out to people of faith. At the same time, he has consistently failed to offer progressives and Democrats any red meat, no matter what Republicans would do or say. This is a clear pattern for Obama. We should have seen it coming.

(emphasis mine)

Obama is well spoken, but for whatever reason, and my guess would be his loss to Bobby Rush early in his career, it is clear that he holds liberals in disdain, and it is clear that he wants to be considered one of Washington, DC's "very serious people".

The problem is that Washington, DC's "very serious people" are always wrong. They were wrong on Iraq, they were wrong on social security, they are wrong on Iran and tax cuts, and they continue to be wrong when they say that the adults will take charge in the Bush White House.

Keith Boykin Calls Out Obama

Keith Boykin, former senior Clinton Staffer and out black man, calls it "Not A Smart Move". I agree.

In response to his putting closeted homophobe Donnie McClurkin, Barack Obama is going to have Rev. Andy Sidden, a WHITE South Carolina pastor who is openly gay, speak at the event.

What is going on here is simple. Obama has to make a decision, and he appears to be constitutionally unable to. He could kick Donnie McClurkin off the events, and in so doing piss off the homophobic contingent (which is significant) of the black clergy in South Carolina, or he can keep him on, and enrage the gay community.

As appears typical for him, he is trying to fix this with half measures. He is unwilling to take a stand, because both choices offend people with whom he wants good relations.

This is a recurring theme with him. He is unwilling fish or cut bait. He wants to please EVERYONE. It is a sign of weakness that could hurt him in the campaign, and completely cripple him were he elected president.

He needs to show people that he can be an SOB, because that is much of the job of POTUS.

Obama Comes Out for DOMA

Americablog. has the scoop.

Basically, an Obama DoJ appointee made motions in a court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, and while I guess that there is an obligation for them to defend statute, the filing invoked pedophilia, called gays freeloaders, and generally invoked every bigoted right-wing talking point out there.

On the stump, he condemned DOMA.

Even better, today is the 42nd anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.

I would not hold my breath on a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I told you so after the whole Donnie McClurkin thing.

Obama is Dog Whistle Gay Bashing

Normally, I'm not a big fan of protest theatrics, to my mind, Code Pink frequently does more harm than good to the cause, but I have to approve of ACT-UP's chaining themselves to the Capitol Rotunda today.

What's going on here is that during the campaign, Barack Obama promised to lift the ban on funding needle exchange programs, which:

• Do not encourage drug use.
• Reduce AIDS transmission.
• Reduce the cost to society.
• Provide an entry point with addicts for counseling.

The problem is that the White House submitted a budget to Congress still contained the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs.

So this wasn't even a matter of his not fighting for the program, it's a matter of him submitting language reauthorizing a program that he explicitly campaigned against in his budget.

A president's budget is purely advisory. Congress can, and does, amend it, or ignore it, as they see fit, but he is unwilling to even leave out a bit of language authorizing a program he claims to oppose.

I'm with John Aravosis's take on this

1. The candidate promised to lift the ban.
2. The White House Web site reaffirmed the president's commitment to lifting the ban.
3. The White House Web site no longer reaffirms his commitment to lifting the ban.
4. The president now refuses to lift the ban.
5. The president actually affirmatively makes things worse by administratively supporting [and] defending the ban.
6. The spokesman reiterates the president's support for lifting the ban, some day, once Congress gets around to it.

There is a pattern to all this, whether it's his sucking up to homophobic screeds "reformed homosexual" Donnie McClurkin, using legal arguments equating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest, refusing to take administrative actions to even modestly impede the anti-gay witch hunt in the military, and now affirmatively submitting anti-gay legislation to Congress.

Either there is some real homophobia here, or there has been a political calculus made that appealing to homophobia is a political win, because the opposition wants gay people dead.

At best, it's no different than the prosecutors in and around Baltimore who will routinely demand more severe sentences in plea bargains for black defendants, because they know that they have a better chance to convict a black man, even in front of a black jury.

I believe that this action has been taken because it can be seen as a gay issue, not in spite of it.

This is dog-whistle gay bashing, and it is quite deliberate.

Well, Dr. Krugman, this Liberal Never Trusted Obama

I figured that he would throw progressives and liberals under the bus since the entire Donnie McClurkin affair, when Obama deliberately threw gays under a bus to win the South Carolina primary.

He's done it with:

• Rapid withdrawal from Iraq.
• Releasing torture photos.
• His support of "fair trade".
• Stupid tax cuts in the stimulus package.
  
• Pursuing war crimes by Bush and His Evil Minions^™
• Bailing out the banks.
• Gays, particularly with Don't Ask Don't Tell.
• The use of civilian courts to try terrorists.
• Closing Guantanamo (with an assist from craven Congressmen).
• Ra
  

So now, Paul Krugman notices that progressives have finally drawn a line in the sand on the public option:

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.

Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

Gee, you think?

I've been saying this for over a year.

I Just Had a Minor Epiphany

We were having a discussion of politics at the Stellar Parthenon BBS, and JR noted that his wife was a big fan of Corey Booker until he voted against drug re-importation from Canada, and now he is politically dead to her.

This developed into a discussion of what I call the, "political event horizon," that point where a politician you are vaguely positive towards does something so hacktacular that that you wash your hands of them.

In the course of discussion, I realized that my two major downgrades of major Democratic Party figures from vaguely promising to weasels, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were both about the same thing:  Throwing the LGBT community under the bus.

In Clinton's case, it was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and in the case of Barack Obama, it was his embrace of homophobe Donny McClurkin in late 2007 to appeal to socially conservative South Carolina primary voters.

LGBT rights are a moral stance, and when people throw them over for ephemeral political benefit, it says something profound about their profound lack of ethics.

Obama Throws Gays Under the Bus.....Again

Over a year ago, I called out Barack Obama for throwing gays under the bus with his gospel concert in South Carolina, when he let an anti-gay bigot (who's also ... you know gay ... but all better now really ... no ... really ... he's all better now...) take the stage ... scratch that take over the stage...

Well, I'm not stunned and amazed: He handled the McClurkin contraversy in the way most calculated to be hurtful, and now he
is having bigot Christo-Fascist^* Rick Warren to give inaugural invocation.

The PFAW president describes himself as 'Profoundly Disappointed' by this development, and Atrios gives Obama the coveted Wanker of the Day award.


The good folks at Right Wing Watch have the scoop on just what this man has done and said, which includes:

• Coming out vociferiously in support of Prop 8 stripping the right to marry from gays in California.
  • This also includes him lying like a dog, and saying that this would allow pastors to be arrested for sermons
• Declaring that marriage, abortion rights (anti), and stem cell research were "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters.
• Has said that the difference himself and James Dobson is a just tone.
• He has compared abortion to the Holocaust.
• Declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

I'm a bit disappointed, but I am far from surprised, I expected some sort of backhand to "te gay" as a demonstration of "bipartisanship."

My gay friend who thinks that Obama sh%$s ice cream though....I don't know how he'll rationalize this.

If you are expecting a move on Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military before the 2010 elections, you are sorely mistaken.

^*I could also use the term "Talibaptist"....Your thoughts on which works better?

Barack Obama: Hating te Gay Since 2007*

Yes, the group most likely to be thrown under a bus by Barack Obama, the LGBT community, just got thrown under the bus again going through back-flips to defy a Federal Judge's order on this:

Because she is a federal employee, Golinski’s benefits are overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, which effectively serves as the human resources department for about 1.9 million federal workers nationwide. Golinski’s insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, declined to provide health benefits for her legal spouse, Amy Cunninghis, but ninth circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski said that violated the court's guarantee of equal employment opportunity and that same-sex spouses were entitled to benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

OPM attorneys consulted with the Department of Justice on this case, and the key to the case, according to the OPM official, was that Kozinski was presiding over an administrative proceeding that’s an internal employee grievance procedure — he was not serving in his official capacity as a ninth circuit judge.

I suppose that he's better for Gays than the Christo-Fascist right, which was actively working for a death penalty for gays in Uganda until Rachael Maddow outed their murderous efforts, and that he figures that the LGBT community knows that it has no where else to go, but such a calculus is repugnant, immoral, and evil.

Let me quote Joseph Nye Welch:

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I support Howard Dean for President in 2012…………………Hell I support anyone who opposes Barack Obama in the primaries^† in 2012.

^*The Donnie McClurkin episode.
^†This offer does not apply to Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, or Paris Glendenning. Note that side effects of an endorsement from Matthew Saroff can include:

• Losing elections
• Voting irregularities
  
• An extremely hostile press corps
• Embarrassing Youtube clips
  

Do not operate a political campaign under the influence of a Matthew Saroff endorsement, and avoid heavy consumption of alcohol.

Better Now Than in The General Obama-Rezko Edition

More Obama-Rezko stuff; this time it's the fact that the Obama campaign has not returned all the Rezko related donations.

Truth be told, I don't find this particularly meaningful from a policy or corruption position, but I do see it as significant from from a political perspective.

As I've said before, one of my concerns about Obama (ignoring the whole gay baiting McClurkin thing) is that he has never been in a serious campaign against a Republican.

He has always run in a dead girl/live boy* safe Democratic district, except for his Senate campaign, which was against Alan Keys, who is so obviously seriously mentally ill that it counts as the same thing.

What he is getting now is less than one one thousandth of what the Republicans would throw at him in the general election, and the his response, and that of his campaign, has generally been pretty good.

Besides, getting this cleared up in the primary, is better than waiting for the general.

^*Edwin Edwards, when discovering that he would be facing David Duke in the Louisiana governor's race, said that the the only way that he would lose were if he were, "caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy".

Obama Delegate Purge in California

Well, we've had some shenanigans in delegate selection in California, where there are more candidates for Obama delegates than there were spaces.

Theoretically, the actual delegates are chosen at caucus, but the campaigns can, and do strike names from the list before the caucuses.

Originally, the Obama struck some 950 potential delegates off the list out about 1700 (about 55%), as opposed to about 40 out of about 1000 (4%) for the Clinton campaign, including Marcy Winograd, who sits on the Executive committee of the CA Dems, and contested the primary against hawk Jane Harman.

Apparently, their justification was that they were concerned about Clinton poaching their delegates (the Bitch made me do it defense), but of note is the fact that the people remaining were the bundlers and their girlfriends, so it was payback for the morally repugnant policy of bundling donations, one which the Obama campaign says that they do not need because of their massive small donor base.

It's payback to the big donors.

Of note, once this all hit the fan, the Obama campaign backtracked, but it's both stupid and sleazy.

Just another group of supporters to be thrown under the bus, as Obama is now signaling over "Don't ask Don't Tell", where he's nominally opposed, but won't consider the position of candidates for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which means that we will see a military man lobbying against this, just like Colin Powell did, which sounds an awful lot like the dog whistle gay bashing that he did with Donnie McClurkin.

Oh, well, I guess that I'll be holding my nose when I pull the lever (metaphorically speaking, it will be either Diebold or Optiscan in November) for him.

My expectations are now low enough that I don't think that I will be disappointed.

Obama Knifes Gays Again

Not surprising, when he replaced the Gay friendly DNC chair (Howard Dean ) with yet another bible thumper (Tim Kaine)bible.

As I have said before, Barack Obama and His Stupid Minions^™ are desperately afraid of offending homophobic bigots.

Well, the DNC was claiming that they sent those emails to folks in Maine, asking for support for Corzine in NJ, without any mention of the Hate Referendum in Maine by accident, but John Aravosis got a copy of an email sent to donors which proves that to be a lie.

Ironically enough, the email was from Andrew Tobias, who is the author of The Best Little Boy in the World, who later got involved in the comments section of the above thread, and blamed John for, "turning people against support of the Democrats," ignoring Obama's record on such things.

I think that it is absolutely clear now, between Donnie McClurkin, his reversals on DADT, inviting homophobes to offer prayers at the inauguration, and, of course, the disgraceful DOMA briefs that Barack Obama will do whatever is possible to avoid basic civil rights for gays.

I don't know if it's because he wants everyone to like him, and so does not want to offend anti-gay bigots (homophobia-phobia), or if he is homophobic himself.

It does not matter. There is a pattern here, and it's not going to change.

Excerpt of email after the fold.