TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.10.2007
A Question for Andrew Sullivan

Yesterday over at The Stump, Mike drew our attention to what is fast becoming a major problem for the Obama campaign: it's decision to invite the "ex-gay," black, recording artist Donnie McClurkin onto a gospel tour in South Carolina. McClurkin, who performed at the 2004 Republican National Convention, is a Grammy-Award winning singer, popular with southern black evangelicals, an important constituency in the vital primary state of South Carolina. He claims that being raped by male relatives when he was 8 and again at the age of 13 caused him to be gay, but that he eventually overcame his homosexuality "through prayer." Gay rights groups protested. Obama tried to soothe things over, but he ultimately kept McClurkin, who by all accounts gave a rousing performance Sunday night as the event's MC and spent 30 minutes railing against the gay agenda. According to the New York Times, McClurkin finished his set with this little ditty:

“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.

(It ought be noted that in response to the controversy, Obama lamely recruited, at the last minute, a white gay pastor in an attempt to cancel out the damage done by McClurkin). Pam's House Blend has more, as does Debra Dickerson at Mother Jones

McClurkin's homophobia is actually worse than that profferred by right-wing favorites like Lou Sheldon and Pat Robertson. As an "ex-gay," his message is more convincing to credulous audiences because he can claim personal experience with the "homosexual lifestyle" and his ability to overcome it. 

So you can understand why gay rights groups are angry with the Obama campaign. But don't just take it from just me; in a column for the Washington Blade, entitled "The Audacity of Hypocrisy," the black lesbian writer and Reverend Irene Monroe writes: 

In the highly competitive race for black evangelical votes in South Carolina, McClurkin just might give Obama the needed edge. However, that edge will come at a high price. It reveals that Obama is not only a vote-whore, but a candidate who plays the race card as well.

The Obama/McClurkin alliance introduces Obama to McClurkin’s black and white Southern evangelical base, which thinks Obama is neither Christian nor black enough.

Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's biggest boosters in the blogosphere who has written what is sure to be a fawning cover story about him for the next issue of the Atlantic, doesn't get what all the hoopla is about. He's "a little taken aback by the vehement response of many gay people to this McClurkin business." This is strange coming from Andrew, the most significant writer on the subjects of homosexuality and gay politics of the past 20 years, whose disillusionment (rightly, I should add) with the Bush administration reached its peak with the president's shilling for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Andrew is also a persistent critic of Bill (and, by association, Hilllary) Clinton, for his role in the passage of both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act (the latter of which he touted his support for on Christian radio stations). But Andrew has curiously spared Obama the passionate criticism usually on offer for Bush and Clinton when it comes to gay rights.

After the despair caused by the last 7 years of the Bush administration, I can understand how Andrew would see Obama as a breath of fresh air. But please don't tell me that he somehow represents a break with the cynicism and "triangulation" of Hillary Clinton. Trying to have it both ways with Donnie McClurkin -- giving him a prominent role in his campaign while mouthing niceties to The Advocate -- is the apotheosis of Clintonesque doublespeak. 

--James Kirchick

Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:01 PM with 27 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

adamvaught said:

Is "Clintonesque" or "Clintonian" the right adjective? Who decides such things?

Any rate, interesting post. I think the difference between Obama, and Bush and Clinton, is Obama just let the guy speak (albeit in a pretty high-profile setting) whereas Clinton and Bush advocated actual policies that diminished gay-rights. What McClurkin said might have angered, offended, or annoyed homosexuals, but at the end of the day it doesn't effect their liberties. But DADT and DOMA do, and the "defense" of marriage amendment most certainly would have.  

Maybe I’m splitting hairs?  

October 30, 2007 10:27 AM

adaglas said:

I think we're still at the tail end of a generation that simply cannot elect a truly progressive politician on the subject of gay rights.  The sense I get from older liberals I know is that they're still uncomfortable with gays on some level, even more uncomfortable with equating their struggle to previous campaigns against institutional bigotry, and yet somehow uncomfortable about feeling that way, as though they shouldn't.  And yet, among even younger conservatives I know, gay equality is almost taken for granted (of course I do live in a northern, liberal urban area).  I think even the most progressive major party, national office candidate we can come up with - which might be Obama right now - can't do much more than strike a tenuous balance between lip service for gay rights and a refusal to legislate anything significant.  At the very least, though, this could help prevent homophobia from being further codified into laws and state constitutions, making it easier for the next generation to make genuine legal progress.

October 30, 2007 10:38 AM

stgla said:

adamvaught summarizes my view exactly and probably Obama's.  It's not splitting hairs.  Obama showed tolerance toward a guy who believes that homosexuality is bad.  That is a far cry from espousing let alone passing legislation that hurts gays and lesbians.  I believe Obama's statement on the matter.  The outrage over "ex-gay" McClurkin seems justified to a small degree, but is blown way out of proportion.

The real question, av, is whether the adjective will be Obamaesque or Barackian or Obamaian and whether his monetary policies will be Obamanomics.  At least he didn't declare this month Baracktober.

October 30, 2007 10:55 AM

ratnerstar said:

Is it fair to talk about a Obama/McClurkin "alliance?"  Maybe I'm underestimating this guy, but he seems less like an "ally" and more like a "performer" or perhaps "endorser."

Hey, I'm not happy about it either, but I think adam and adaglas are both correct.  It's (so far) just talk, and necessary talk at that.  

October 30, 2007 10:55 AM

adaglas said:

stgla -  I love Obamanomics, but for broader policy allow me to cast my vote for Baracksteady.

October 30, 2007 11:02 AM

adamvaught said:

Stagla,

I'm not sure if it will be Obamaian, or Barackian, or Obamaesque, or "oh yeah, I remember that guy. ian." We'll have to see how it all works out. But I suggest the Obama campaign stay away from "Obama nation." It sounds too much like "abomination."

October 30, 2007 11:11 AM

drdannyu said:

No doubt unsurprisingly, I have a huge problem with this.  The "ex-gay" movement, in all its self-loathing glory, is a key aspect to the homophobic propoganda of the religious right.  By prominently featuring this man in his campaign, Obama is implicitly promoting various vicious beliefs, chiefly that homosexuality is the result of predation, and that it is something that can be "cured."  Andrew Sullivan is, as usual, completely blind to the flaws of something or someone he otherwise likes, and thus minimizes the objections of those who would question him.

Does nobody recall the gigantic tempest that swarmed around Edwards when he hired a couple of bloggers who had written a few posts thought to be anti-Catholic?  This is much, much worse.  The difference is that gay people are much more expendable from a political point of view than Catholics.  

Rather than "Obamaesque," I would opt for "craven."  I'm totally with Jamie on this one.

And yes, I realize that, in the long run, having Obama in office would probably, to coin a phrase, be "good for the gays."  Whoop-de-fucking-doo.  I heard plenty of bullshit just exactly like McClurkin's for much of my life, and I'll be damned if I'll overlook it coming from a politician I would have otherwise considered supporting.

October 30, 2007 11:26 AM

blackton said:

the key question is how much did Obama know of McClurkin's beliefs? If he only knew him as a born again bible singer than I think we can cut him some slack, if he knew McClurkin and his whole ex-gay bullshit (which it is of course, having a few homosexual experiences as a teenager doesn't mean a person is gay) then Obama is flat out wrong to have invited him.

October 30, 2007 11:47 AM

jet said:

adamvaught is right noting that Obama hasn't advocated any anti-gay policies yet.  But Obama's not in office yet.  And things like this can sometimes take on a life of their own once the potential office holder becomes an actual office holder.  For example, Don't Ask Don't Tell evolved from Clinton's campaign promise to open the military to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation.  At some point, religious  anti-gay's are going to ask how having Donny McKlurkin as a campaign advisor is going to translate into policy.  McKlurkin's a radio host, so unless Obama want's McKlurkin to set the agenda on-air for him, he's going to have to come up with something to look credible as the above Plank post implies.

October 30, 2007 11:51 AM

ratnerstar said:

I understand your feelings, drdan, but are you really going to withhold your support from any candidate that indulges in a little anti-gay sentiment?  Unseemly as it is, wouldn't that limit your options to, say, Kucinich?  Or are you prepared to overlook some things, but feel that embracing McClurkin is beyond the pale?

I don't mean to sound confrontational: I'm asking those questions sincerely.  

October 30, 2007 11:52 AM

mollysimon said:

Obama's not naive, I"m sure he knew.  And yes, it was certainly a craven move on the candidate's part.  I'm still a fan--in part because up to now he has not engaged in this kind of cynical campaigning.  However, it may prove to be a brilliant tactical move.  Can Hilary come out and condemn him?  Not without alienating the voters who may agree with McClurkin.  Maybe I"m wrong--maybe she has come out in defense of gays, but not in any significant way, i.e. standing up for their right to marry.

I still condemn this move, though.

October 30, 2007 11:53 AM

mpatrickhendri said:

I've lived in SC my entire life, worked in democratic poltics for nearly a 15 years and I've never meet anyone from this "important constituency" of black evangelicals. It simply does not exisit. And if you polled black voters in the state, which has been done extensively, no one gives a rip about gay marriage. Face it, Jamie, there are going to be people in this country that periodically say something offensive about gays. We have not turned the corner yet, but there is no reason to believe this is a craven appeal to homophobic blacks. Stop grinding that axe for a change.

October 30, 2007 12:13 PM

adamvaught said:

Jet,

You're probably right about Don't Ask Don't Tell. That was the result of trying to do too much, to soon, without appreciating the forces against them. I imagine Don't Ask Don't Tell was a bitter pill for the infant Clinton administration to swallow, regardless of what people might say. They got beat, bad, on that one.

But Clinton's signing of DOMA in an election year (1996) was done for purely political purposes. Clinton even said in the Advocate (how do we italicize, by the way) "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

I call bullshit. I certainly don't know Bill Clinton, have never met him. But I just don't believe really cared about the "institution of marriage" as a union of a man and woman only. I think he was pandering because, frankly, most of America in 1996 (hell, today) considered gay marriage icky. So Clinton sold out they gays to reap the electoral votes of Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri. Did signing DOMA win him those four states? No, but had he vetoed it he would have given Dole a blunt weapon to beat him with in those states. But I doubt he really was making a principled stand based solely on his view of marriage.

And, just to be fair to the unfair, I don’t think George W. Bush really cares about gay marriage either. But Karl Rove read the polls, pulled the string, and Bush started singing the praises of the Constitutional Amendment.

I disagree on McKlurkin’s impact on Obama. The guy made one speech. If he was opening for Obama all over the country, then there would be concern about his policy role. But if McKlurkin had kept his mouth shut, I imagine most people wouldn’t even know he had anything to do with Obama. So I think terming him an “advisor” is a bit of a stretch.  

October 30, 2007 12:19 PM

drdannyu said:

ratner, if he gets the nomination, I will most likely vote for him.  I understand that political calculations have to be made, and I'm not nearly naive enough to expect gay people to be priority #1 for any major political candidate.  But man alive, I am really disgusted that Obama chose to give this man a venue and his tacit support to spew this kind of bile.  It's not as though this is just one aspect of this guy's persona; the anti-gay thing is a major part of his schtick.  If Obama didn't know this, then his campaign isn't doing its homework.

And mpatrickhendri, while I don't think he was explicitly reaching out to homophobic blacks per se, it's pretty obvious that he's reaching out to a more evangelical audience, and is willing to tolerate some pretty repellent grace notes along the way.  Fine.  Again, I'm not dumb enough to expect to come out ahead in those calculations.  But don't expect me to buy any crap about how Obama is some new kind of politician whose above calculations as such.

October 30, 2007 12:24 PM

stgla said:

McClurkin is not an advisor to the campaign.  He's an endorser.  He is on the tour because of his singing ability and charisma.  He should have been left off the program, or better yet, Obama should be able to court voters without a freaking gospel tour.  Team Obama screwed up.  It was wrong.  But it was a minor error, not a character flaw or a hint of future policies like DOMA or DA-DT.  Drdan, I'd hate to see Obama lose you over something tactical like this.  You can disparage "good for the gays" as a criterion, but if you believe it as I do that Obama is GFTG, then don't hold this against him for too long.  Believe me, Jamie K opposes Barack for many other reasons just as Andrew Sullivan favors him for other reasons.

October 30, 2007 12:38 PM

lymon1 said:

I see Adam is still drinking the Obama-aid.  If Hillary Clinton knowingly put, say, a former Jew on stage who preached at length that Jesus had shown the wrongness of their way and put him on the right path, an uber-Colter so to speak, would anyone say she was just being "tollerant."?  Read Debra Dickerson's take.  And while I'm no fan of the DOMA, it's interesting how that law likely prevented the FMA amendment to the Constitution from going down (providing cover for respectable GOP senators to invoke federalism and "sufficient protection" from states like MA and VT.  The Obama double-standard continues (though I wonder if having seen Todd Stroger in action, Adam thinks Obama's "judgment" in endorsing the Strogers over Forrest Claypool is still a trivial matter -- (for non-Chicagoans, the Clintons - both of them - did the same)

October 30, 2007 12:57 PM

drdannyu said:

(I miss subject headers.)

stgla -- this won't make or break my support.  It just makes me a little more skeptical of him.  I misspoke a bit earlier.  Barring some kind of major change in the workings of the universe, of course I will support him if he is the nominee, as I think he would do a damn sight better than any of the GOP candidates (aside, possibly, from McCain) as president.  The gay issue isn't the only issue, as I am well aware, and I'll put this aside with time.  But I am not at all impressed right now.

October 30, 2007 1:20 PM

newdex said:

I agree with lymon1 regarding the double standard, but my wish is that Hillary would be given more slack as opposed to Obama given less.  

On the other hand, letting your MC open with a 30 minute attack on the "gay agenda" is pretty disturbing.  If its not an indication of future policies, what does it mean?  I think the general assumption is that the themes you hear addressed by all speakers at a campaign rally are the themes the candidate believes in.  I'd assume the audiences on Obama's tour would go away thinking that, and I'd assume Obama and his staff would assume the same.  

I'd like to know if Obama's made statements - at his rally or otherwise - decisively disagreeing with McClukin's views?  

October 30, 2007 1:41 PM

tkozal said:

Liberals should not, under any conditions, support a candidate that allows this. ANY candidate, period.

October 30, 2007 1:49 PM

adamvaught said:

Lymon,

Apparently you are going to chastise me because I don’t find Obama repugnant. We done this many times before; but I’m bored, so what the hell: let’s do it again.

Let me start by asking, where did I say Obama was merely being “tolerant” (your quotes, not mine) by giving McClurking a forum? I was suggesting there was a difference in the impact from what Obama did, and what Bush and Clinton did. I did not apologize for him. Nor do I choose to. I find the suggestion that homosexuality is a choice–and a sinful choice at that–repugnant. But Obama is free to do as he wishes.

Regarding DOMA, I think you are really stretching. Your suggestions on DOMA saving us from a federal amendment are just wrong. First, Clinton doesn’t get a pass for DOMA by suggesting he could see ten-years into the future that Republicans would try and pass an amendment, and therefore he needed to sign DOMA to give Susan Collins political cover. Clinton’s smart, but he ain’t that smart. The second is that the Federal Ban was nowhere close to passing. Third grade civics will teach you a constitutional amendment needs two-thirds majority in both houses to pass on to the states for ratification. The federal ban got 239 yea votes in the house (well short of the 290 necessary) and in the Senate didn’t get past cloture. A whopping 49 senators voted to put the amendment for consideration. Thank God for DOMA, otherwise Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Jim Jeffords, might have voted for cloture putting the measure only seven votes away from being up for consideration, and thirteen votes away from passing. Oh, and Collins and Snowe are from moderate Maine. And Jeffords is from freaking Vermont--that gay-bashing state that allows civil unions–and wasn’t going to run for re-election. I’m sure if it wasn’t for DOMA’s protection, their rabid constituents have called for their heads. (Props to McCain, Sununu, Gregg, and Spector for bucking their party and voting against cloture. I’m sure it was only because of the DOMA argument. Without DOMA, their votes would certainly have flipped; for those scoring at home, that would still put the amendment 3 votes from cloture, and 9 votes from passing. Let’s all sing the praises of DOMA!)

As for the Stroger-Claypool fiasco I say, “eh.” Obama’s endorsement really wasn’t that influential. He’s not a Chicago kingmaker.

Other than that, good God do the Bears suck. Last season was a hell of a lot more fun. Seriously, this blows.

October 30, 2007 2:01 PM

rishy said:

Sullivan is doing some backpedaling now.  Go check it out.

I have to agree with drdan.  Obama better fix this fast (as if he can!).

October 30, 2007 2:06 PM

adamvaught said:

Humble pie, anyone? I've got plenty here...

I counted wrong.

49 plus Collins, Snowe, and Jeffords equals 52: 8 votes from cloture, 14 votes from passing.

52 plus McCain, Sununu, Gregg, and Spector equal 56: 4 votes from cloture, and 10 votes from passing.

Third grade math should have taught me that.

October 30, 2007 2:16 PM

jblumenfeld said:

For once I agree with Kirchick.  What is Obama thinking?  He has got to repudiate this guy - completely and quickly.

October 30, 2007 2:40 PM

psantillana said:

Typo alert to Jamie K: The possessive "its" doesn't have an apostrophe. I don't know why, but this is so.

I, like Sullivan, thought Donnie was going to just sing. I also thought bringing the gay dude onto the tour was going to provide at least a counter-opinion to Donnie's.  I'm kind of waiting for Obama to say something.  I know Donnie doesn't represent Obama's views on this, he was going off on his own little unscripted free ride, but a) that was kind of foreseeable - didn't anyone sit him down and say "this is exactly not the place for your personal views on that"?, and b) something should have been done/said afterwards, because you can't allow the impression that he does represent the campaign's position. So I'm waiting.  But I'm still voting for Obama, so far.  

October 30, 2007 2:54 PM

lymon1 said:

I don't find Obama repugnant, believe it or not I may vote for him.  What I find repugnant is the double standard and free ride he's getting.  As for tollerant, I'm taking the "just let the guy speak" as way too lenient: he knowingly gave the guy a platform, but I don't doubt the sincerity of the distaste you state here.  I'll make an analogy on the DOMA -- the record industry and music fans vehemently opposed Tipper Gore and record labeling campaign, but that same voluntary system staved-off *real* censorship efforts in some state legislatures.  In any event, I couldn't count the number of times DOMA is raised as part of a "federalism" argument on gay marriage by proponents answering out-of-state critics.  Sure, I think marriage is a fundemental right and thus deserves federal protection, not limitation, but the chances of that happening anytime soon (let alone in 1996) were slim and none.

As for Stroger, I disagree -- it was a close primary and ended up coming down to race.  Had Claypool been able to run tv ads with Obama's endorsement, it would have gone a long way towards diffusing tensions -- African-Americans might not have flocked to Claypool but it would have affected both turnout and margin.  In any event, the point is to evalaute his so-called great "judgment" -- Claypool, Tillman, even Daley: kinda makes his anti-torture rhetoric a little hard to sit through.  Of course, Hillary (and Bill) endorsed Stroger and Daley too, but they aren't basing a campaign on being the new beacon of integrity.  Didn't we see this before -- his name was Jimmy Carter and he was running for president.

October 30, 2007 6:57 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Maybe it wasn't so wise after all for Obama to try to play the religion card?

Liberals will have to fight and win on the terrain of economics and security-- NOT culture. That's slippery turf for any lib. Best to avoid it altogether.

October 30, 2007 8:16 PM

The Plank said:

Reading Andrew's last post , which purports to talk about "double standards," I'm trying

November 13, 2007 2:12 PM