Obama gave an interview regarding the McClurkin debacle to The Advocate, the leading gay rag. Some points of note (although the entire interview is worth reading):

How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?

Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues — at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn’t undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.

Does this tour mark a turning point in the campaign where you’re more focused on wooing voters than fund-raising?

I recognize why this has attracted attention in the LGBT community, [but] in terms of our overall campaign strategy, it’s just one among multiple things that we’ve been doing in South Carolina. People in South Carolina listen to gospel music, so we have organized some gospel concerts. Black folks in South Carolina frequent barbershops and beauty shops, so we’ve had a barbershop–beauty shop strategy. And by the way, I can’t vouch for the opinions of every barbershop and beauty shop owner in South Carolina. But that is where people go, and so we’ve organized a particular way of reaching out to African-American voters in the barbershops and beauty shops. So this is just part of an ongoing strategy with multiple parts.

Furthmore, Think On These Things had a terrific write up:

There is no way to unify this country if people on both sides refuse to be in the same space as those with whom they disagree. It is fine to disagree and be vocal about your disagreement, but you absolutely can’t make progress without even talking to each other. Both sides need to stop being intolerant and threatened by those who are different from them. We need more Rick Warrens on the conservative side and Barack Obamas on the progressive side.

Which would have made everyone happy if McClurkin himself wasn’t such a dickhole. We were, largely, willing to forgive and get along, until this:

Tonight there was a small vigil of about 15 or 20 gays and lesbians, who stood quietly across the street as people filed into a big auditorium here for the last of three campaign-sponsored concerts (and the only one to feature Mr. McClurkin). The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.

The Obama camp did a daring thing: They invited a Grammy winner to sing in their concert, and, when presented with his anti-liberal views, stood by him, proclaiming he, too, could be a part of the tent. Those of us on the outside looking in applauded, hesitantly, this position. McClurkin did not need to defend himself here, in what should have been a venue supporting Obama and not veering off in to personal speaker opinions. You’ll get no argument here.

However, this especially is not Obama’s fault, as Goon Oracle so well pointed out:

Christ. McClurkin is not a spokesman for Obama’s candidacy. Let’s get that straight right now, shall we? He was invited, among other gospel performers, to sing at an event, not give a rousing let’s burn the faggots speech. If this hadn’t been blown into this big huge dustup the man would likely have just gotten on stage, sang his little song, and left. Giving him the chance to have the ‘last word’ as it were, was probably not the best idea, but I don’t think anyone expected him to go into a half hour rant about it when all he was supposed to do was fucking sing. For all we know he promised them to do just that then couldn’t resist hogging the spotlight.

As far as this getting the base/Kos all in an uproar, Kos is becoming seriously known for eating its own because of the purity tests. As far as Kos being right about Obama being in some kind of death spiral, I’ll remind you this is the same blog that had all but anointed Howard Dean the Democratic candidate even when the polls started to turn. One might charitably say they have blinders on. As for the rest of the base, don’t forget a large chunk of said base is blue-collar union workers, who are not exactly gay tolerant as a group. To pretend that every single Democratic or even Democratic primary voter is a frothing PFLAG member is being… optimistic, to say the least, especially in places like Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Sad to say, but gay rights are still not quite as high a priority as they should be in the party, a few very vocal members and some party convention planks nonwithstanding. I don’t think voting-wise this is going to hurt Obama much if at all, and it may even help him among the religious left of the ‘pray the gay away’ persuasion who otherwise support things like birth control, national/universal health care, peace in Iraq etc. Let’s not forget how many states just passed same-sex marriage bans and the Democratic crossover votes that helped them pass.

Am I saying this is right or fair or proper? Hell no. It sucks people are still voting on the ick factor when so many more important things that actually affect them are up for grabs. However that same ick factor is going to make this a relative tempest in a teapot. Regardless of how many gay folk are raising hell about it, they are still very much a small minority with limited support even within the Democratic party (remember when Bill Clinton promised gays they could serve openly in the military and then reneged with Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell? Yeah, forgive my irony, but the gays have been taking it in the ass from the Democrats for a long time. A huge stink was raised about that too but come ‘96, I didn’t see a whole lot of Homos For Dole buttons, you know what I mean?)

I think the smartest thing he can do at this point is just shut the hell up about it, not hire McClurkin to sing again, and vette his performers for, if not perfectly aligning views, at least the ability to not go off on rants about them while on stage for other purposes.

We could not agree more.

On October 20, it came to our attention that the Obama campaign was planning a gospel concert series in South Carolina. It came to our attention because people got their panties in a wad over the inclusion of Donnie McClurkin.

Who? one might rightly ask. Donnie McClurkin is a Grammy Award winning gospel singer, a preacher, and an “ex-gay.” That’s right — after being repeatedly raped as a child by various male family members, McClurkin believes he was able to pray the gay out of himself. Incidentally, he also told Ebony Magazine in 2001 that prayer cured his leukemia.

Whatev.

I thought Goon theblackw0lf handled this one well:

[Obama’s]also done quite a bit for Rick Warren, because even though Obama believes some of Rick’s beliefs are too conservative, Rick has also done quite a bit for combating poverty and aids, and Obama supports him and helps him in those areas.

Personally, I get tired of politicians having to distance themselves from certain groups because they might hold a controversial opinion. It just seems to me that by doing so we’re limiting our ability to combat certain social ills. Because while there might be groups that believe homosexuality is a sin or even against gay marraige, they might also care about fighting aids, poverty, and global warming.

And that should have been that, as we moved on to filibustering FISA, Mitt Romney being an ass and support from The Butter Cow Lady.

But no. No no no. It had to become a “campaign crisis” as Hillary’s pocket constituency, The Human Rights Campaign, got all grumpy.

According to sources, HRC offered various suggestions to the Obama camp to avoid criticism by the group, among them dropping McClurkin from the gospel act.

Oh, yes, I remember that great line from his DNC speech: “There is not a red America or a blue America, but The United Stated of People Who Already Agree With Us.” Obama stated his position very well on October 22:

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”

He then added an openly gay minister to open the show that McClurkin will be performing at.

ArchPundit then made a really good point about all of this:

The real point here is that Democrats have two constituencies that often disagree with one another. One, African-Americans, compose a socially conservative demographic who are more anti-gay than the average member of the population. The GLBT community is a strong supporter of Democrats as well, but they find that many African-American religious leaders who back Democrats have offensive ideas about gay people. That’s true. Lots of black preachers say such things. Does that mean none of them can be associated with a Democratic Campaign?

And no one makes a stink when Hillary Clinton stands with Harold Mayberry.

So here’s the nitty-gritty: The entire point of the Obama campaign is inclusiveness, which includes people he himself and his other supporters may not agree with. If that’s not your thing, he’s not your candidate. But to repudiate him for standing by his matra of inclusiveness is retarded. Since Obama’s central plank is, in fact, uniting the country, is ending the divisions that separate us, we’re all going to have to learn to play nice.

It’s the same thing that happened a few weeks ago regarding Tom Coburn. Yes, Coburn has some despicable social stands, but that doesn’t eliminate the good he has done in government. Yes, McClurkin holds some despicable views, but that does not mean we shouldn’t include him and try to change his mind.

Goon Sub Par adds:

What’s different about Obama is that he will get up in front of a group of southern black Christians and tell them they are wrong on GLBT issues. He will get up in front of gay groups and talk about how they need to work with and educate the black church population, not ignore, ridicule, and hate them. It really is inspiring.

Oh, looky, a Joint Letter from the African American Religious and LGBT Leadership Teams. These guys get it.

We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

And there you have it. You can (erroneously) believe Obama is a bigoted gay-hater, or you can (correctly) believe he’s reaching out to two disparate groups in an attempt to get them in the same tent.

This post is long, so I will finish with a final quote from Goon drscience:

As tempting as it is for us to exploit long-awaited political advantage and start our own “agree or fuck you” mentality after languishing under Bush, it’s not the campaign Obama’s going to run. There is a serious divide among the religious black community and homosexuals, and he hopes to establish a civil discourse and start mending the issue through humanization and empathy, rather than taking the easier road by calling Pastor McClurkin a nutball and possibly squeezing a few sound-byte votes out of the conflict. If I wanted that Rovian 51% split I wouldn’t be supporting Obama.

Oh looky, it’s the school yard mentality of politics, come to rear its head again.

“I think that is a position which is not consistent with the fact,” Mr. Romney said. “Actually, just look at what Osam, uh, Barack Obama, said just yesterday, Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. ‘That is the battlefield. That is the central place,’ he said. ‘Come join us under one banner.’”

The comment set off some confusion among reporters, with at least one going online to search frantically for comments made by Mr. Obama, another Democratic presidential contender, about Iraq.

It turned out, of course, that Mr. Romney was talking about an audiotape released Monday from Mr. bin Laden calling on insurgents in Iraq to unite.

See, folks, this is why caffine is good for you. If we got Mitt some double espresso’s before early morning campaign events, maybe he wouldn’t speak like a 12 year old.

In the Let’s Parse The Word “Is” catagory, we bring you the controversial FISA bill.

On October 17, the Senate Intelligence Committee reached an agreement with the White House to give telecom companies imunity from the shit they turned over to the NSA. They did this illegally, because Bush asked pretty pretty please, but, as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

On October 18 Chris Dodd said he would filibuster and put a hold on this bill. That same day, Obama said this:

“I have consistently opposed this Administration’s efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal — with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity — is not the place to start.”

MoveOn and other groups then asked that he be explicit. An hour and a half later, they had an answer:

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

However, this, apparently, was too explicit. By saying this bill he was called “chickenshit” and it was demanded that he “support a filibuster of any bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecoms amongst few others.

Because stating that if the bill comes out of committee including the immunity he disagrees with he will veto it is apparently not good enough, he had to say it again.

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

That’s right — in politics, it doesn’t count unless you say it twice. And really loudly.

Oh hey remember this dust up? Where Hillary said that Obama was “naive and irresponsible” for saying he would meet with Iran without preconditions?

Now she’s saying the same thing.

CANTERBURY, N.H. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he’d meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she’d do the same thing, too.

During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama’s position irresponsible and naive.

But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran ”with no conditions.”

”I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.

She characterized her recent vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations.

So she adopts his position, and then claims that labelling Iran’s army as a terrorist organization will help her to meet them with no conditions.

Obama once again proves himself to be out in front, and Hillary once again proves herself to be an inconsistent shrew.

Barack responds forcefully:

A couple of months ago, Senator Clinton called me “naïve and irresponsible” for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn’t like. Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.