The problem with Obama’s ‘gospel tour’

It seemed like a pretty good idea at the time. Late last week, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign announced it had recruited several gospel acts for a tour of South Carolina. As campaign strategies go, this didn’t look controversial — a gospel tour, featuring predominantly African-American artists, would target black evangelical voters in an early primary state, while reinforcing Obama’s religious background.

“This is another example of how Barack Obama is defying conventional wisdom about how politics is done and giving new meaning to meeting people at the grassroots level,” Joshua DuBois, the campaign’s religious affairs director, said in a release.

What started as a clever idea has quickly turned into a serious political mistake.

Senator Barack Obama is drawing criticism for signing up a gospel singer with controversial views about gay men and lesbians for his campaign in South Carolina. The Obama campaign has recruited several gospel acts, including Donnie McClurkin, for a statewide tour to begin this week in Charleston. Gospel music is one of many ways the campaign is trying to reach black evangelicals in South Carolina, an early voting state where half the Democratic primary voters are black and where at least one recent survey shows Mr. Obama is losing ground to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. McClurkin, a black preacher who sang at the Republican National Convention in 2004, has gained notoriety for his view that homosexuality is a choice and can be “cured” through prayer, a view ridiculed by gay people.

Well, it’s actually ridiculed by most people, gay or straight, because it’s ridiculous. But that’s beside the point.

The fact that Obama’s campaign would launch a tour featuring an anti-gay bigot like McClurkin has, not surprisingly, prompted quite a bit of disappointment. The question remains, however, how the campaign got to this point, and what it’ll do next.

At the Huffington Post, author and political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson argued that Obama intentionally picked McClurkin to appeal to anti-gay voters, describing the announcement as a “Bush pander to anti-gay mania,” which is “shameless and reprehensible.”

Whether Hutchinson’s criticisms are fair remains to be seen. There’s no evidence that the Obama campaign deliberately picked McClurkin because of his offensive beliefs. It seems just as likely, if not more so, that the campaign put together a roster of popular gospel artists, most of whom do not have an anti-gay history, and simply didn’t know (and didn’t check) McClurkin had a history of bigoted remarks.

In other words, chances are, this isn’t an example of malice, so much as it was a staff mistake. There’s supposed to be a vetting process, and it broke down. If the campaign knew about McClurkin’s comments, he wouldn’t have been invited to participate.

Hutchinson, among others, called on Obama to repudiate McClurkin’s anti-gay animus. The senator did that last night.

“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.”

Obama’s critics were not, however, persuaded by this in the least. The repudiation was the first of what was supposed to be a two-step process — first was denouncing McClurkin’s bizarre beliefs, the second was dropping McClurkin from the South Carolina tour.

Now, it’s a mess. If Obama keeps McClurkin on the gospel-tour lineup, he’ll anger supporters of gay rights. If Obama drops McClurkin, he runs the risk of offending African-American evangelicals in South Carolina. Last night’s forceful denunciation didn’t resolve much.

Let this be a lesson to campaign staffers everywhere: Google is your friend. Before lining up guests to be associated with a campaign, check to see if they’re crazy.

Post Script: Ideally, McClurkin would just do the honorable thing, do Obama a favor, and step aside. If the campaign could push him in that direction, it’d be a good idea.

“The question remains, however, how the campaign got to this point, and what it’ll do next.”

They got to this point by trying to attract religious voters (including those who do not vote Democratic) while also defending ideas such as separation of church and state and gay rights. It’s difficult to please both groups, and this time he came out on the wrong side. Doing their homework a bit better before making the invitations would have helped.

As for what he will do, the preferred choice would be to drop McClurkin but so far he hasn’t taken that step. Second choice would be to state his views on the subject and that McClurkin’s views do not represent his. At least Obama has done that.

  • Post Script: Ideally, McClurkin would just do the honorable thing, do Obama a favor, and step aside. If the campaign could push him in that direction, it’d be a good idea.

    That’s a cop out. Obama needs to do the honorable thing, and the right thing, and drop him. Don’t leave it up to McClurkin.

  • All the closet queers in the GOP and the WORST they can say about Obama is that one person leading a choir on a tour he’s doing is anti-gay.

    I know it’s so “not fashionable” to be anti-gay anymore but there are plenty of people who are, especially religious people. McClurkin is a minister with a conservative BLACK base at his heels and I really wouldn’t hold my breath for him to be issuing apologies for his views any time soon.

    Obama is no more responsible for McClurkin’s views than George Bush is for Senator Craig’s cruising. Obama should not drop McClurkin. If anything, he should keep him as an example of “I may not feel this way, but this is America and the man is entitled to his point of view.”

    We don’t need left wing thought police. We have the GOP for that, thank you very much.

  • Trying to make peace with bigots will not work. The colored people who think gays can safely be marginalized need to be reminded that not long ago the Democrats were fighting for their rights, and that if a white Democratic politician in the 60’s had booked a singer who turned out to be somewhat of a racist, that singer should/would have been respectfully un-booked. No offense, but if you think gay people are “sick” and need to be “cured”, then you are squarely in alignment with the same people who think that blacks are inferior. You simply cannot represent a guy who stands for the opposite of that.

    IMO there’s no question, the guy’s gotta go, along with the politics of pandering to bigotry, if that’s what’s at play here.

  • “That’s a cop out. Obama needs to do the honorable thing, and the right thing, and drop him. Don’t leave it up to McClurkin.”

    agree 100%. and who cares if Obama offends a bunch of evangelicals?

  • First and foremost, this is sloppy campaigning – I know it misses the substantive point, which is what really matters, but none of this is ever an issue without bad vetting.

    But it seems to me this is also the price of pandering. When one tries too hard to overreach, to please everyone, it is easy to lose sight of those already in your camp. The envelope is not infintely elastic – sometimes instead of expanding it any farther, you just move the entire thing: you make a move to expand one edge of the envelope that alienates some supporters and moves the envelope in a way that finds some prior supporters now on the outside.

    Whether he knew McClurkin’s exact extreme views on homosexuality, he surely knew McClurkin had performed at the Republican Convention. Obama also knew he was intentionally mixing church and campaigning for public office, and doing so using a black gospel tradition that has often been conservative on social issues. Obama played with fire. He got burned. Not a lot of sympathy here.

  • Obama took a good, long time though before repudiating McClurkin’s views. At best, this was very poorly handled.

    Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central yesterday evening:

    Though McClurkin’s involvement with the Obama campaign has been sharply criticized in recent days, the campaign has yet to disavow his remarks or distance itself from him, and didn’t give us a comment in response to our queries today.

  • Let me make sure I understand this, because this post from CB is the only source I’ve read about this issue so far.

    Obama’s campaign brought this Gospel performer in to tour with a group of Gospel entertainers for the purpose of entertainment?

    This is not someone who will act as an advisor? So long as he keeps his views to himself while on tour, I’m not sure why his personal views matter.

    Should the campaign run a thourough background check on every employee, staffer, and volunteer and compile a detailed analysis of each person’s personal views on every possible issue? Should they then only allow those whose views line up exactly with Obama’s to assist the campaign?

    If this performer uses this tour as a platform to speak out against homosexuals, then Obama should, could, and probably would immediately state that such behavior is not acceptable while representing his campaign. Otherwise, the fact that this performer is willing to promote Obama seems to me to be a suggestion that even when individuals disagree on an issue or two, they can still come together for what they recognize is the greater good for the country overall.

  • Quite a number of years ago, I had the opportunity to buy tickets to a performance by a symphony orchestra. They were a pretty good group of people; their skills were world-renowned, and I already had some of their recordings. They were also a local keystone for the area Public Radio broadcasts.

    Of the several pieces scheduled for the evening, one was “Die Valkure” by Wagner. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Apocalypse Now,” then you’re familiar with the music played during the air-cav scene—“The Ride of the Valkyries.”

    THAT Wagner.

    But—because Wagner was an Anti-Semite, the entire performance was scapped, due to not only a protest against the scheduling of the piece, but due to a grassroots effort to completely defund and disband the orchestra altogether. It didn’t matter that the piece was good; it didn’t matter that the guy had been dead for years and years—and years. It was a choice between performing the piece and staying in business.

    In short—it was censorship.

    Now, Obama has to deal with an eerily-similar issue. If he retains McClurkin on the performance roster, he risks alienating a lot of voters and their money. Votes and money are two things that his campaign need right now.

    BUT—and this is the “biggie” of the issue, as I see it—dumping McClurkin will now come across as a form of censorship. It will say to a good many people—and to their votes, and to their money—that a man’s musical talents should be stifled because of his personal beliefs.

    THAT is censorship. It is the same brand of censorship—simply flown under a different banner—that was employed by a rather brutish fellow named McCarthy. It will be no less wrong to commit such against McClurkin than it was for the batsh*t brigade to do such to the Dixie Chicks.

    The only solution to the mess—the “apocalyptic train wreck,” we might call it—is a split-down-the-middle position. Let McClurkin stay with the tour, on the grounds that he doesn’t try to use the Obama tour as a launching-board for his personal viewpoints. He’s being put on the roster to perform music, and not to preach homophobic mantra. If he can’t accept the terms, THEN the two camps—Obama’s and McClurkin’s—should part ways.

  • McClurkin has put Obama in a pickle. Is he going to be singing gospel or preaching? If he’s singing just let him sing.

  • and who cares if Obama offends a bunch of evangelicals?

    The MSM which will immediately give a platform to the Pat Robertson’s of the world as they decry Obama’s “anti-christian bigotry.” This will be bigger than Edward’s hair, Hilary’s cleavage or Craig’s wide stance. I’m willing to be it is worth a few million for Dobson’s third party war chest.

    There’s no way for Obama to come out of this clean, as the speculation will be “Did Mclurkin jump or was he pushed.” I think Obama is better off pushing, but he has to be ready for the total crapstorm that will follow.

  • I see the point in #9 and #10, but I think this is considerably different. I think the defunding of anyone who plays Wagner is silly; as you note he is long gone, the point of a local symphony’s performance of it is the value of the music, not the value of any unrelated message Wagner ever spoke.

    But in a political campaign, everything is the message. That is the only point of the campaign. Team Obama hand-selected a set of musicians with the express intent of making a political statement: they are black, and they perform gospel music – because Obama wanted political inroads with religious black Christians. In this case, there is no separation between the music and the message – the music was chosen as a part of the message.

    There is some attraction to saying “well this just proves that Obama is tolerant and will be the President of all Americans, even those who disagree with him.” That is a noble sentiment, but this is more than just tolerating McClurkin – by hand-picking him to represent Obama’s outreach, Obama appears to be endorsing McClurkin. When (a) the performer is alive, unlike Wagner, and (b) in a temporal sense has made problematic statements relatively recently (again unlike Wagner) and (c) the entire point of pairing Obama and McClurkin is a political statement (not solely entertainment) then the political views of the performer are relevant, even if not made from this stage during this performance.

    Even if one totally disagrees with me on whether this is how things should be, this is the reality of modern politics where any “gotcha” will do and everything is scrutinized by opponents – and the perception should have been enough to keep Obama away (and really, it is a pretty fine line to say McClurkin is ok to appear with because he is just providing entertainment, but to say Repubs shouldn’t appear with Coulter – I mean, at the end of the day, she is just a comedienne, a writer who sells books, that is, an entertainer. The only difference is her entertainment includes political content, McClurkin allegedly keeps theose separate – but his entire genre, “gospel,” has inherent political content.)

  • I know it’s so “not fashionable” to be anti-gay anymore but there are plenty of people who are…

    Man, this pisses me off. Yeah, there are, and they’re wrong.

    What’s the difference, aside from current level of social acceptability, between homophobia on the one hand and racism or anti-semitism on the other? Is it The Bible? Because non-whites don’t come off real well in there either, sez the 19th century racist. People are ingenious at finding justifications for their bigotry.

    Hate is hate, and we as progressives should reject it categorically and absolutely. Zero tolerance.

    And I’m an Obama supporter, before this incident and now, my disappointment in this notwithstanding. I wish there was as much scrutiny of Lady Triangula’s corporate servicing as there was of this misstep on Obama’s part.

  • Totally agree with Zeitgeist, as usual…

    It is impossible to be all things to all people, but it is possible to meet with, talk to and listen to as many people from as many backgrounds and beliefs as one can. You have to figure that campaign-sponsored events will be attended by those who are inclined to be open to what the candidate has to say, if not already fully committed to him or her; those are the easy events. What’s harder is reaching out to people who aren’t motivated to meet you on your turf, so you have to meet them on theirs. It’s one thing to be invited to speak to audiences attending a gospel tour; it’s another for the campaign to put the tour together, and include someone whose views are 180 degrees from where the candidate is. Think John Edwards would take any heat for putting together a tour and inviting Ann Coulter along? How about Hillary and Rush on a tour together? What would that say?

    This is a fight for the Democratic nomination, after all – does Obama expect to find many registered Democrats on this tour? I have to think this comes from Obama needing to tap into more voters in order to have any chance at winning some primaries, but he’s doing general election campaigning before he’s gotten there. It feels a little desperate to me.

  • dont worry, dajafi – she’ll wear a v-neck again one of these days and totally bump Obama from the news for days. . . until Edwards gets another haircut.

  • No, Z, the Perfect Well-Disciplined Campaign never makes the same mistake twice. The MSM will have to hope she licks her lips or something as a hot young woman walks by, allowing them to speculate about her latent lesbian tendencies… or, if she doesn’t, they’ll just say she did.

  • He’s got an even bigger problem. I can say from up-close and personal experience that the average professional gospel act only differs from the average professional rock act in the fact that people sort of expect rock artists to trash things, drink like fish and generally be obnoxious snots.

    This could well leave a mark that follows him into 2008.

  • Obama, Clinton, Guiliani…who cares. Just keep ignoring the only hope we have for any real change…Kucinich…I guess he just doesn’t fuck up so he’s not controversial enough to be mentioned. Our only real hope for this country stands before us and you just pretend he isn’t there. No cleavage, haircut, or campaign staffers’ mistakes. The right way on all the issues…exactly what progressives claim they want…but we dare not speak his name.

    Kucinich/Edwards ’08…the truth ticket…the only real change.

  • I don’t know… it seems to me that, in some areas, the Dems aren’t much better at respecting a diversity of views as the Repubs.

    Thinking the gays can change might be wrong, but it ain’t crazy. The research is not final here. And anyway, even if it were a choice, there is nothing wrong with the choice. All people deserve and should be treated with respect.

    Donnie McClurkin should be allowed to stay and be a part of the big umbrella that is the Democratic Party.

  • I’m with Deborah.

    There’s all kinds of really violent anti-gay sentiment out there, and believing you can “cure” someone of being gay through prayer has to rank somewhere towards the bottom of the scale of bigotry. Maybe if he was proposing that people be locked up and forcibly prayed over until they renounced their sexual orientation, and was proposing that in his gospel music I would find something to get worked up about.

    My grandparents used to think they could bring me to God if they prayed for me. That didn’t mean that they were bigots against all no-believers in either thought or action. This seems like the same situation.

    Oh, and I’m gay, and does that entitle my opinion to more weight than someone’s who is straight? OMG, I can’t keep track of all the rules governing how to be PC the PC way.

  • I emailed the Obama campaign this morning to let them know I won’t be sending any more checks and to take my name off all their lists. Mr. McKlurkin claims to be a former Gay man who became Gay when he was molested, hence his belife that Gays can be cured. He’s a bigot. No excuses from Obama supporters will change that.

    My advice to all the Obama supporters: Maybe Obama can be “cured” of his Blackness.

    Like that idea??? No? Well, now you know how I feel.

  • Funny thing is, some white folks do try to cure blacks of “blackness” and Latinos of being whatever brand of Latin they got lumped into (Puerto Rican, Spanish, Gutamalan, they’re all Mexican right?) and wasn’t it Ann Coulter who recently recycled the old claptrap idea that all Jews should become Christian?

    It’s called assimilation. White people are the standard and everyone is supposed to imitate them as much as possible.

    I’ve been thinking about this all day and I think I have an answer to the question that was asked of me earlier.

    What’s the difference, aside from current level of social acceptability, between homophobia on the one hand and racism or anti-semitism on the other? Is it The Bible?

    Yes, if you believe the evangelicals or even hard line Christians. Any true Christians will believe that gays should not be persecuted, that they should be afforded the same dignity and respect as any other person on the planet, but that their lifestyle may be biblically out of line. They also know that they are entitled to their opinion but not their judgment as the bible also says,’Judge not, lest ye be judged.” In other words, they may be right, they may be wrong, but only God gets to say so.

    But then there’s just the simple and non-biblical matter of being able to blend in with white American society. If you are white and gay or fair skinned and Jewish, no one questions who you are or what you are just by looking at you.

    There’s no question of gays or Jews not being allowed to be who they are publicly until you state who they are publicly. And no I’m not advocating don’t ask don’t tell for anyone. I’m just saying that while some of the circumstances are the same, the reality, depth of bigotry and the consequences of systematic isolation, politically, economically and socially, are not the same.

    In my opinion, I feel that gays, at least in America, don’t even come close to where blacks are in that type of exclusion unless they also happen to be another minority.

    All this to say, again, that Obama is not responsible for McClurkin’s views. If McClurkin starts spouting anti-gay propaganda then Obama would be well within his rights to dismiss him from the tour. But since McClurkin has been retained as an entertainer NOT a preacher or even council, this should not be a consideration for Obama at all.

  • Comments are closed.