Letters to the Editor
-
Glad to see
black homophobes getting called on this more often. It's ridiculous for blacks to agitate (rightly, of course) for civil rights and practice homophobia at the same time. Civil rights are for everyone, not just the ones like you (that's where the problem started in the first place).
-
Ineptitude
I am a supporter of Obama for President, but I fear that your piece gives the campaign too much credit. I seem to recall reading a wire story just a day or two ago which stated that the Obama campaign didn't even know about the singer's anti-gay hangup. Keeping him on the bill is a tactical calculation to keep as much of a lid on the mess as possible. This from the campaign that only recently realized that they need someone to be in charge of rapid response. Luckily we're still early enough--maybe, hopefully--that these kind of gaffes might not hurt too badly. If it's still happening in December, Obama may be in real trouble. Early primary voters are going to be very focussed on electability, and hapless management of routine campaign events and PR does not bode well.
-
McCulkin?
Wish Obama had left the homophobe home alone, but we should still get his name right in the article!
-
Yeah, This is all just a spontaneous uprising. No involvement by another campaign's op team at all.
But while we're pushing our need for ideological purity, I demand Hillary disassociate herself from the guy who brought us DOMA, "don't ask, don't tell" and who refused to approve needle exchange programs.
I also demand that all candidates immediatley denouce, purge, refuse to make any public appearances, or allow their campaings to schedule any events with anyone who believes in gun rights, is opposed to abortion, represents or works for large corporations, support free trade, works for Wal-Mart, doubts the efficacy of affirmative action, or in any way deviated from the orthadoxy of some activist constituiency within the Democratic Party. It is far better to be pure and lose than to win and actually do something about any of those issues.
-
Policy and Personal Morality
While many people here only know Donnie McClurkin for this incident, it is a little totalizing to call him an "antigay gospel singer." McClurkin's beliefs have never led to policy recommendations or violence (no KKK analogies). His belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, and I would challenge anyone to show his beliefs has substantially hurt them. There is a difference between racial violence and people who personally don't think homosexuality is innate.
I would tell Obama, "Don't pander to the homosexuals" also, not because they are equivalent but because any pandering threatens true and honest discussion. Obama has been outspoken in front of all audiences about the inclusion of homosexuals. He also speaks for greater mileage standards in Detroit, rather than simply shunning the automobile industry. He speaks to Wall Street in favor of regulation, rather than just telling them what they want to hear.
While actually listening to people who disagree with you hasn't been tried in politics for a while, maybe it's time for a change.
-
Difference
Listening to someone is a lot different from appearing on a campaign tour with him. And pragmatism is fine and good, in its place, but if the moral line is not drawn at some point then one begins to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I think appearing with a blatant homophobe crosses that line, and I'm disappointed in Obama for doing it. The real lesson, in terms of the Obama campaign itself, is to background-check better to avoid getting in another bind like this.
-
What *do* they say about highways in Hell?
No, seriously. They all lead to Rome? What?
-
What About Plurality?
Where does that come in- when a candidate listens to ALL of his constituents, even if they have different opinions on things. Isn't that what separates Obama from Bush and the rest?
And I think McClurkin's Grammy might merit a mention somewhere in there- Obama didn't pick this guy out of the air. Where's the outrage against the Grammies for honoring such a bigot?
Once again, I can't help but see biased animosity in Salon's reporting.
(Joan, still waiting on that article about Sen. Clinton's deep invovlement with the Telecom industry over the years. Just because she offered waivering support for a filibuster, it doesn't kill the story by a long shot. Or, at least, it shouldn't.)
-
This is a solid loser for Obama
The best VP runningmate for Edwards seems to be losing his grip with reality on this one.
-
The highways in hell
I believe it was a bit of a misquote, or a misreference. I understood the author to be referring to Marx's quip that the road TO hell is paved with good intentions.
-
Edwards and Obama
Now that would be a great ticket.
-
And Once Again, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Gay and Lesbian Exception.
The "gay and lesbian exception" is the rule that people who wouldn't dream of saying things like "let's open up a nice pleasant little 'dialogue' with a racist and see what he has to say" or "let's sit down and have a nice little coffee chat with an anti-semite about his views" suddenly have a short-circuit in their ethical wiring when it comes to dealing similarly with anti-gay bigotry.
We'll see the claim that Obama is "opening up a dialogue" as though he was holding a forum where homophobia was actually going to be debated (which he's not; it's a campaign event with entertainment). Or we'll hear that Obama has had a lot of nice things to say about gay rights (even though like the other candidates-- with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich-- Obama believes in a seperate but equal policy for gay and lesbian rights... and his opposition to same-sex marriage-- which Obama claims is based on his "religion"-- doesn't gibe with the stance of the church he actually belongs to, which supports them).
And words are nice and pretty and all, but actions are where you're judged. I doubt we'd have many people writing letters to defend Obama if he was putting those two creepy blonde neo-Nazi associated teenage girl singers up on stage as "campaign supporters" and saying that he was "opening up a dialogue" or that they weren't going to mention their anti-semitic beliefs while they were on stage. (And, yeah, that scenario would still stand even if those two little hatemongers had somehow won a Grammy, which, believe it or not, doesn't confer any kind of moral status whatsoever. Eminem-- who sang about killing gays and lesbians and "hate F*gs the answer's yes"-- has won at least three of 'em).
But, of course, we're going to be treated once again to the "gay and lesbian exception" by Obama and his defenders about this. (And, by the way, "Hillary does it too" is not only not an excuse, it's pretty much one of the battle cries of the Republican Party.)
Either you stand against anti-gay bigotry or you don't. You can't play both sides of the fence, just like you wouldn't be able to do with tangential promotion of racism or anti-semitism. Too many people have been conditioned to play disingenuous wishy-washy games on gay and lesbian civil rights so they can feel good about themselves at the same time as they leave a lot of gay and lesbian families with eternal second-class status (but, hey, it doesn't affect them,) and some of that stance has come from the DNC branch of the Democratic Party where folks like Obama-- and Clinton-- have been playing this "I'm for gay rights, but also for seperate but equal" frankly immoral balancing act for far too long.