In the debate we saw Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton attempt to gang up on Obama over an endorsement by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. First off, let me say I really hate the whole "Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!" game that Tim Russert love to about entirely stupid things. This was one of them even, but Obama's response when coupled with his letter later in the week really irked me. First Let's look at the debate exchanges in question:
TIM RUSSERT: On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago. Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. [laughter] You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
... [after Sen. Hillary Clinton response]
RUSSERT [to Sen. Clinton]: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
From this exchange I think we can safely say that Barack Obama does not agree with Louis Farrakhan and "reject[s] and denounce[s]" his anti-Semitism and other extremist positions and he and his campaign would not accept an offer of help from Farrakhan. Doing so would most certainly arouse the ire of a significant portion of the Jewish-American community and seriously call into question his commitment to tolerance and diversity even though it could be argued he is being tolerant and diverse by extending his tent to include Louis Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic followers in the Nation of Islam. There is no doubt that Farrakhan does have a significant following within the African-American community and embracing Farrakhan would be likely to sway some if not many Nation of Islam members to vote for Obama. Obama however has been adamant about his support of those of the Jewish faith and Jewish ancestry. In the exchange above, within the elipsis, Obama stated:
I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign, and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
Fast forward a few days to the release of Obama's open letter to GLBT Americans. As he did with the Jewish community, Obama expressed in his letter his commitment to equality for GLBT Americans saying "It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation." In the letter, Obama outlines his positions on a number of issues important to the GLBT community while asking for our votes.
Now color me jaded or cynical, but Obama's positions on these issues are hardly revolutionary and are far from being at the vanguard of the struggle for civil rights in this country. Obama states that "as President, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of ... a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity." (emphasis added) Nice to know that you are with 89% of Americans that think gays and lesbians should have equal rights in the workplace. Support for equality in the workplace for gays and lesbians has been at over 80% since the early 1990's according to Gallup polling and over 887% or higher annually since 2003 and yet in his capacity as United States Senator, the weight of Obama's office has been limited to co-sponsorship of a bill that has been proposed in every session of Congress for more than a decade but has not ever so much as come up for a vote.
Matters aren't much better for the bill now known as the Matthew Shepard Act that would extend federal hate crime protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the support of 2/3 of Americans, the bill has gone no where for years. Democrats recently tried to pass it by attaching it to a Defense Dept funding reauthorization Bill, but the Democrats promptly did their usual duck and cover on GLBT issues once Mr. 19% approval rating threatened to veto the bill. In the meantime, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered are without hate crime protections and continue to be targets of such crimes in utterly disproportionate number to other minorities. There has been the shooting death of Lawrence King at his California middle school, the shooting death of another gay teen in Fort Lauderdale, the gay bashing of a gay couple at a Fort Lauderdale restaurant, the gay bashing outside a Lexington Kentucky nightclub, the gay bashing of a gay couple in Seattle Washington just in the last month alone.
The question remains, exactly how many more have to die, be assault or maimed or be made to fear going out in public before Obama (or Clinton or any other member of the Senate for that matter) filibusters all legislation until Congress takes actions on this? It is simply not enough to co-sponsor a bill. That is a cop out. That is not action. Action would be standing on the Senate floor and not leaving until the bill has been passed and sent to the President. Are 89% and 67% of the American people not enough? What percent of Americans would be enough for the Senate (and House) to get off their collective asses and take action? 99.9999%?
Obama's letter, if taken at face value, put Obama squarely in safe territory on glbt issues, taking stands that have support by a majority of Americans. But it can hardly be called leadership if America is already there with majority support. He's merely advocating the majority position, and not leading the country to a position the majority doesn't currently hold. A leader is out in front of public opinion. A leader brings people to his position not follow behind the crowd and then claim to have been in front.
How does this tie into Louis Farrakhan? Last October, Donnie McClurkin appeared on stage for Barack Obama at a concert for Evangelical African American Christians in South Carolina. Obama released a statement prior to the concert where he "reject[ed]" the virulently anti-gay ex-gay McClurkin's beliefs about homosexuality, but the event went on with McClurkin as emcee of the event. Obama figuratively handed McClurkin a microphone after elevating him into a pulpit and McClurkin delivered in true homophobic fashion a rant against homosexuality including a statement that "God delivered me from homosexuality!" Obama's response after the concert to McClurkin's remarks...utter silence. No apology. No denunciation of the remarks after the fact. Obama's pre-concert statement (which reads nearly identical to the letter released this week) stood as his position. All we got was a statement from the campaign that "McClurkin does not want to change gays and lesbians who are happy with their lives." The only major difference between the pre-concert statement and the letter this week was the lack of mention of McClurkin in the later. Again, the GLBT community got no apology, no acknowledgement of the divisiveness Obama created, no acknowledgement of the blood boiling ire that Obama stirred up in a significant potion of the GLBT community. His letter certainly hasn't cooled my temperature over the affair.
This begs the question, if Obama rejects the beliefs of both Farrakhan and McClurkin, why then is McClurkin given a microphone and stage and allowed to spew his bile, but a Farrakhan offer of support would be rejected? Both men have a notable following with the African-American community and could potentially sway those persons to vote for Obama. As best as I can tell, the difference between them is the constituency that would be angered and troubled by allowing such support to be openly accepted. It appears that it is entirely intolerable that a Democratic candidate should throw the Jewish community under the bus for the support of a small number of bigots, but the political calculus is such that it is tolerable to throw the GLBT community under the bus for the support of such bigots.
Obama truly undermines his message of support and his call for for equality for GLBT Americans through his actions. It is sad to say that given the language of his two statements and the fact he let McClurkin go on rather than dropping him that Obama can't apologize for McClurkin, for the under-the-bus-constituency-tossing, for the divisive pre- and post-concert firestorm and the bridges he burned because he doesn't think he has anything to apologize for. In reading the comments on the diary about the open letter, my suspicion was only further reinforced by a comment made by Lisactal, who apparently was able to confront Obama about McClurkin in New Hampshire:
and when I asked him in person in NH he seemed ticked off that I brought it up. He did not apologize or say anything that would make me think he understood how offensive the incident was to LGBT folks.
His answer was to repeat over and over "It was just one concert".
by Lisactal on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM PST
I have to agree with that. He doesn't understand how offensive the incident was. Obama (and a significant number of his dKos supporters) obviously do not understand Ex-Gays are radioactive within the GLBT community. Touch them and you die. Get too close and you get poisoned. There is a human price to giving a forum to these vile individuals. For my part, I tried to explain atleast some of the reason why in a diary shortly after the McClurkin incident: Surviving Childhood. While some GLBT people seem to have let Obama off the hook because of this open letter (which again, is largely the same statement Obama made shortly before the concert), but I have not and cannot.
Even the letter this week contained language that should cause pause within GLBT community. In the letter, Obama states, "I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system." This statement is fine except for the last prepositional phrase. Why should GLBT equality be limited to "our immigration system"? Yes, Obama supports a full repeal of DOMA (something Clinton does not), but Obama does not support all same sex couples having access to equality in their ability to form the relationships that give rise to those rights and obligations. First, he opposes same sex marriage. So much for equality. He advocated good 'ole Jim Crow segregation in the form of a separate but wink, wink, wink, equal institution such as civil unions. Second, he's ambiguous at best in whether he supports the federal government forcing the states to offer at the very least domestic partnerships or civil unions if they don't offer full equality through marriage. He merely states "the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples." So if Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc don't want to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples at all and continue in their policies of open hostility his solution for same sex couples in those states is what? Said another way, is Obama willing to put the force of the federal government behind a law utilizing Congress's authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by requiring the states, at a minimum, offer domestic partnerships or civil unions to same sex couples? John Calhoun must be loving the Democratic Party's return to the the position of state's rights, atleast partially. At the LOGO Presidential Forum last fall, Obama stated he was sympathetic to how gays could be trouble by the hypocrisy of a separate but equal institution like civil unions. He described it as progress. I don't see it that way. I see it as a step backwards for equality. This nation had a long and very unfortunate history with separate but equal and a return to that mentality cannot and is not progress especially in light of the Civil Rights Movement. To embrace that would be akin to allowing Virginia and the 16 other states that had interracial marriage bans prior to 1967 to create civil unions for interracial couples instead of foisting marriage equality upon those unwilling states.
I voted this afternoon in the Texas Democratic Primary. This is the first time I have voted in the Democratic Primary in several years having made the conscious to leave the party that left me. My decision to "become a Democrat" again is likely temporary, for this election cycle only, and was not motivated by a desire to vote against Obama or because the party has returned to its pro-civil rights legacy left by FDR and LBJ, but rather to support a family member running for District Attorney in Travis County. Since I cannot support Clinton either due to her own disingenuous support of the GLBT community seeing how she and her husband have thrown gays under the bus more times perhaps than anyone else. How GLBT's can fawn over them is beyond my understanding. The Texas Democratic Party also apparently does not allow write-in votes for the primary as the option wasn't one the E-slate machine as it is for general elections. I went into the booth fully intending to write-in Barbara Boxer but ended up having to notch my vote for John Edwards for lack of write-in ability.
Obama, like a great many "Democrats" is spineless on gay rights. It simply is not enough to co-sponsor bills, especially ones that have languished in the Halls of Congress over a decade, but enjoy broad support by the public at large. It is not enough to give a few words "shout out" at a speech to a crowd potentially hostile to gay rights, especially when that crowd is also fawning over you. That's not leadership, that is playing it safe. That is the problem, not the solution. Americans needs a leader, not a follower, in the White House. America needs someone who will actively and vigorously support equality regardless of office. Throwing the "weight of my administration" behind bills such as the Matthew Shepard Act and ENDA "as President" isn't enough. As I have said here many times before, you have the power as a United States Senator to effectuate change and you have declined to use it. You support the repeal of DOMA, but haven't a proposed a law doing that despite having the power to do so. You have the power bring the Senate to a halt with a filibuster to get the Matthew Shepard Act and ENDA the long, long, long overdue votes they deserved. You have not done so.
I really wish Obama could change. I wish he could understand the serious damage he did with Donnie McClurkin. I wish he could understand why so many gays find ex-gays to be a deal-breaker. Maybe then he could muster the courage to apologize. I'd like to believe he can be a great President, but his treatment of the McClurkin incident will continue to fester with me and likely many others until an apology is made. The wound cannot heal if the root of the infection remains.
Permalink | 6 comments