How can Barack Obama justify rejecting support from Louis Farrakhan, even though he refused to do the same with 'ex-gay' singer Donnie McClurkin?
At the recent Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, NBC's Tim Russert pressed Barack Obama on whether he would reject the unsolicited endorsement the Illinois senator had received from Louis Farrakhan, famous for his anti-Semitic fulminations.
Obama tried simply denouncing the hateful rhetoric of the Nation of Islam founder, but that didn't satisfy either Russert or Hillary Clinton. For her part, the former First Lady related how she actively 'rejected' support from a New York political party controlled by anti-Semites and then demanded Obama do the same.
Obama ultimately caved to the impossible politics of the moment, and said he didn't 'see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,' considering Farrakhan hadn't offered to campaign on his behalf.
'But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,'' he concluded, 'then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.'
'Good. Good. Excellent,' nodded Clinton.
Obama's decision to 'reject' Farrakhan's endorsement stood in stark contrast with the charismatic candidate's refusal last fall to reject the support of Donnie McClurkin, a Black gospel singer who claims to have been 'cured' of his homosexuality. Obama did apologize for not vetting McClurkin better, but insisted that the singer actually perform on his behalf at official campaign events in South Carolina.
Back then, Obama argued the practical impossibility of combing the views of his supporters for those with views he finds objectionable. 'If I start playing that game,' he said at the time, 'then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.'
But now he's 'playing that game' and risks the suggestion that Jewish voters are more important than lesbian and gay voters. How would Jewish voters have reacted if Obama had associated himself with Farrakhan the way he did with McClurkin?
The same questions could be asked of Hillary Clinton, who goaded Obama into not just 'denouncing' but 'rejecting' Farrakhan. Why, then, did Clinton not 'reject and denounce' the endorsements of African-American ministers like Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Ralph Mayberry, who like McClurkin preach that homosexuality can be 'cured'?
Two weeks ago, Hillary gave an exclusive interview to CBN News, the 'news department' of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, despite Robertson's history of outrageous homophobia, even blaming gay Americans for hurricanes in central Florida and the 9/11 attacks. Is there any doubt how the Clinton camp would have reacted if Obama sat down with Farrakhan's Final Call newspaper?
John McCain has his own denouncing and rejecting to do. One day after the Cleveland debate, the presumptive GOP nominee appeared on stage with Pastor John Hagee, a major figure in the Christian Zionist movement, who has preached that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ and Hurricane Katrina reflected God's anger at the gay Southern Decadence festivities set for New Orleans that fateful Labor Day weekend.
Last year, McCain famously gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, the same Falwell who joined Robertson in blaming 9/11 on gays. Liberty also treats students in gay relationships the way the infamous Bob Jones University treats interracial couples, expelling those involved. And unlike Obama's denouncements of objectionable rhetoric from Farrakhan and McClurkin, McCain hasn't done anything to distance himself from Hagee, Falwell or Liberty.
These few examples illustrate how the 'political game' that Obama denounced last fall will unavoidably sting just about anyone running a nationwide campaign. Obama was right the first time that politics really ought to be about addition, not subtraction.
It's ultimately pointless to pressure presidential candidates into 'rejecting the support' of each and every supporter who has made even clearly objectionable statements in the past. So long as the candidate denounces the offensive views, in clear and uncertain terms, then ultimately it's up to the supporter to decide whether to stick with the candidate.
Viewed another way, the glass is half-full, not half-empty. Gays should be tickled pink that unreconstructed types like Donnie McClurkin and Eddie Long are supporting presidential candidates like Obama and Clinton who are committed to a wide array of gay civil rights protections. Let's hope these homophobic ministers do all they can to get them elected!
So long as the candidate doesn't waver from denouncing their bigotry, that ought to be enough.
Chris Crain is former editor of the Washington Blade and five other gay publications and now edits GayNewsWatch.com . He can be reached via his blog at www.citizencrain.com .
