• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « The missing pink elephant | Main | The Obama-Clinton difference »

    November 02, 2007

    Hillary's Donnie McClurkins

    Posted by: Chris

    Bushcaption One week after the gay blogosphere went ballistic over Barack Obama's ties to an "ex-gay" gospel minister, the Washington Blade has an interesting story about two prominent anti-gay black ministers who Hillary Clinton has embraced as supporters.

    [Clinton supporters] said they’re generally unconcerned that anti-gay ministers Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry are supporting the campaign.

    Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in suburban Atlanta once marched against gay marriage and hosts an “ex-gay” ministry. Mayberry has preached against homosexuality to his First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland, Calif.

    In interviews this week, Wilson and others said they were not concerned that Clinton had accepted a $1,000 donation from Long or that she recently thanked Mayberry for “fighting for civil rights and equality,” because she has not allowed either minister to speak for the campaign.

    The Clinton backers tried to draw a distinction between Clinton accepting support from Long and Mayberry and Obama "handing a microphone" to "ex-gay" singer Donnie McClurkin. Actually it was the Obama campaign that picked McClurkin and the candidate chose not to disinvite him, but whatever.

    Harold_mayberry Unlike McClurkin, who is a gospel singer, Bishop Long is an anti-gay leader active in anti-gay poltics, gathering thousands to march in support of Georgia's anti-marriage amendment. Likewise, Mayberry said of gays, "I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery." 

    Another blogger, MyDD, has highlighted Clinton's ties to yet another anti-gay black minister, who has a $10,000 "consulting contract" with the Clinton campaign and spoke out in favor of the state's anti-marriage amendment.

    There is an even more important distinction. Obama issued a forceful statement and gave a half-dozen interviews drawing sharp disagreements with McClurkin on gay issues. Clinton, on the other hand, has made absolutely no effort to distance herself or "speak our truth" to these anti-gay leaders.

    A Clinton spokesperson told the Blade the candidate “has been very clear” she supports gay rights, which is entirely different than making clear the views of Long and Mayberry on gay issues are not the same as her own.

    “But in campaigns, you can never expect all your supporters to agree with you 100 percent of the time,” said Jin Chon. “Hillary Clinton is a leader who will bring together people with differing opinions and have an honest and open dialogue to find common ground.”

    Where is that "honest and open dialogue"? We saw it with Obama, in a joint letter issued by anti-gay black religious leaders and gay activists.  There is no hint of it from the well-oiled Clinton campaign machine.

    Hrcequals But the soft-peddling of bigotry was, of course, enough for the "other HRC," the Human Rights Campaign:

    Brad Luna, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said the organization had no plans to issue a statement regarding Clinton’s ties to Long and Mayberry.

    He said the Obama campaign’s decision to let an “anti-gay reverend” headline a campaign event was “a unique situation,” but that HRC’s advice to Obama stands for Clinton, fellow candidate Sen. John Edwards and others.

    “If it’s Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama or Sen. Edwards or whoever,” he said, “we would encourage them to seek out places to have discussions among their campaign supporters and try to bridge the gap between religious leaders who might not be as good on these issues as we’d like and their GLBT supporters.”

    What crap. Can anyone imagine either Clinton or John Edwards having those kinds of discussions among campaign supporters? Meanwhile the only candidate who has, Obama, got its hand slapped by HRC, which as usual is doing the bidding of its pre-selected candidate.

    One of the most appealing things about Obama's candidacy is how he doesn't always tell a given audience exactly what it wants to hear. And given his ability to unite and not polarize (the way Clinton does, fairly or unfairly) his candidacy holds a much greater promise for the kind of honest and open dialogue we give so much lip service.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54f787f268833

    Comments

    1. Joseph Kowalski on Nov 2, 2007 10:28:11 PM:

      Democrats are going to make a huge mistake if they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee in the 2008 elections.

      After 8 years of lies, deceit and secrecy from the Bush administration, the last thing this country needs is another administration built on lies, deceit and secrecy.

      If Hillary Clinton becomes President, the only thing that will change in this country is the letter following the President's name...R will become D.

    1. Sean on Nov 3, 2007 6:42:22 AM:

      Chris, I want to know if your boyfriend and friends in Brazil would like open borders for their country?

    1. Andoni on Nov 3, 2007 9:08:24 AM:

      There are many reasons I don't want to see Hillary become president. One is that I don't want to see eight more years of the Hatsfields and McCoys in this country.

      In case you haven't noticed for at least the past 15 years one half of the electorate HATES the choice made by the other half of the electorate ... and I can confidently say that this often degenerates to one half of the electorate ends up hating the other half of the electorate.

      In a sense we are in a civil war folks. To vote for Hillary for whatever reason, is to consciously choose to continue the civil war. You may say your motive is that you think it is time for a woman president or that she is the most qualified. Whatever your stated reason, you have to realize that the flip side is you are choosing to continue the civil war.

      I want an end to this 50-50 madness where nothing can get accomplished. I want an end to one half of the country hating the other half and not giving that half a chance to govern.

      The only candidate that doesn't come with the hate baggage of the past 15 to 30 years is Obama.

      There are many, many other reasons I like Obama (gay rights positions, foreign policy ideas), but one huge consideration is that I want the civil war to end in this country.

      Obama looks like the person who can accomplish this best.

    1. Citizen Crain on Nov 3, 2007 1:22:36 PM:

      Sean, it's beyond me how answering a question about Brazil would inform the debate over immigration policy in the U.S. The U.S. has the world's strongest, biggest economy and can shoulder a huge additional influx of workers -- and in fact needs them. Brazil is a developing country with massive poverty levels among its own population. It's apples and açai to compare them.

      That said, the MERCOSUR countries of South America have very liberal immigration rules. Brazil does require visas of Americans, but only because we require it of them.

    1. Eva Young on Nov 3, 2007 5:01:53 PM:

      Chris - I believe the MyDD post was in error about the person who had the consulting contract with Clinton - when I posted the MyDD post on Pam's House Blend as a comment, another commenter, who lived in the guy's district said he had taken a neutral position on the amendment in the legislature - and couldn't be put in the same category as the others. I'd defer to someone who lives in the district.

      Otherwise, you raise excellent points - and the Clinton campaign has some 'splainin to do.

    1. Sean on Nov 4, 2007 12:47:32 PM:

      You don't want to answer the question because they do not want open borders. Latinos believe they are entitled to come to the US. You support open borders for the US because your boyfriend is Brazilian and that would help you two come into this country and placate the Latino entitlement mindset.

      Illegal immigration might be good for businesses in the short term but it's bad for them in the long run. And it's always bad when law breakers are rewarded.

      Cheap labor is not good for moving a society forward and having high standards of living. The most clear example is the south during slavery. Here you had free labor yet the area was underdeveloped compared to the north which did not have free labor. Why would a place that had vast amounts of free labor be so underdeveloped? There was no need for innovation because the free labor did much of the work.

      You are seeing that pattern again with the vast amounts of illegals flooding in to this country willing to work for cheap.

    1. Lucrece on Nov 4, 2007 7:36:12 PM:

      Before you go making generalizations about Hispanics, please get your head out of your ass to notice the ironic inflated sense of entitlement you seem to have. Not all of us Hispanics migrate here illegally, nor do all of us favor the lack of sanctions for illegal immigrants. I don't think it's about just the breaking of the law that bothers you; it may just be the fact that you'll have to deal and compete with the spics who have that particular accent that hits the hick nerve in you.

    1. Citizen Crain on Nov 4, 2007 10:29:59 PM:

      Sean, you often have insightful comments to make but there is a not-so-latent racism when the subject deals with blacks or Latinos. Believe it or not, not all of us WASPs are so threatened by minorities and have confidence that we're bettered by the contributions of all.

    1. Double T on Nov 5, 2007 1:26:52 AM:

      Andoni, Hatsfields and McCoys, exactly. If Hillary gets in, the next President will be Jeb Bush.
      He would hold office until 2024. Then we'd have 40 years of two family rule.

      South America is looking better by the minute.

    1. Sean on Nov 5, 2007 1:41:58 AM:

      Not a racist. Don't play that card.

      Your right Lucrece it's not just about breaking the law that pisses me of, it's also that they get rewarded for it while I, a gay American, have to FIGHT for my rights everyday. NY governor Elliot Spitzer said in his campaign last year that he would pass marriage law for gay couples. Yet when he came in to office he said that it would not be politically feasible at this time. How many politicans promise gay people something and then tell them to wait? A whole lot and they take our money. Instead he wants to push through driver's liscenses for illegals. He is risking his political career for people that are not even supposed to be in this country. John McCain did the same thing earlier this year when he championed amnesty for illegals. He is against gay people in the military, against marriage for gay couples, against hate crime laws for LGBT people, and against non-discrimination employment opportunities for LGBT people.

      Chris, I'm not a WASP. I don't think cheap labor is the right direction for this country as I stated before. American kids don't have aspirations of working in Wal-mart, McDonald's or a hotel. They want better jobs.

    1. Double T on Nov 5, 2007 3:05:28 AM:

      Sean, what you fail to understand is that Latino's are the new "slaves"

    1. Double T on Nov 5, 2007 12:03:35 PM:

      I just knew this was coming.

      http://bloggernista.com/

      Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

      Posted on November 5, 2007 by Michael Crawford
      Former President George Bush (41) is threatening to unleash more Bush spawn on the world. In this clip he mentions a number of the Bush clan who he says have an interest in politics. He may think that they would be able public servants.

      Interested in being President?
      Join one of two families.


    1. Lucrece on Nov 5, 2007 11:02:37 PM:

      Sean is the new Little Ms. Missed The Point. I don't take issue with your position on illegal immigration; I take issue with your blanket statement concerning Hispanics, which seems to be the latest highlight of your ignorance when different-cultured individuals come into play.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Nov 6, 2007 1:46:44 PM:

      I'm just sitting back and enjoying the silence of those who wanted Obama's head having nothing to say about Hillary's association with "homophobes".

    1. Randy on Jan 22, 2008 9:39:07 AM:

      Wow... you deleted my comment. Well, I didn't mean to offend but "ex-gays" (I don't like that label) do exist. We do live well-adjusted lives all across the social, political and religious spectrums.

      Bigotry isn't a religious condition it is a human one. There is plenty of it in gay activist fundamentalism. I am sorry to see you aren't confronting that.

    1. emumoonboots on Nov 16, 2010 1:32:33 AM:

      Men's and Children's Styles

      Though Visvim shoes

      Men's and Children's lines Visvim shoes

      do not feature as many different Emu boots

      styles as their Women's line; the cheap emuboots online shop

      is available for both. Men have the Classic Short moonboots

      and tykes have the Kid's Classic Tall boot. The men's and kids versions of the emuboots

      are made of Twin-faced sheepskin and have the same features emuboots

      as the Women's style.  

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad