March 26, 2007
Barack Obama and the Gay Gaffe
As John Edwards buckles down and tries to keep his presidential bid moving forward while his wife deals with the return of cancer, the two other major Democratic players — Hillary and Barack — have been in the news lately for their stands not just on gay marriage, but the morality of homosexuality in general. After Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune that "homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral," neither candidate seemed in much of a hurry to take on the issue. Hillary recently told the Human Rights Campaign that she wants a partnership (but not a marriage) with gays if she is elected, but then told the press, when asked about Gen. Pace's remarks, that she would "leave that to others to conclude."
What's disappointing however, was Obama's initial reaction to Pace's remarks. According to the Tribune, a Newsday reporter asked Obama as he was leaving a speaking engagement if he thought homosexuality was immoral. Obama's first answer was: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow." Asked a second time, he said: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country." When asked a third time, the senator ignored the question, signed an autograph, posed for a photo and then jumped into a Lincoln Town Car. Obama later clarified his position, telling Larry King on CNN, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."
A calculated response from Hillary is no surprise; we've come to expect her to tap dance around all kinds of issues. And although he has been taking heat from his supporters for it, Obama has been remarkably consistent with his position on gay marriage. During his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, he said "I'm a Christian. ... And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." While we may not agree with that analysis, he is certainly entitled to his beliefs. What's disappointing is watching a man whose personal story, background and persona have the power to unite a nation that is clearly worn down by the politics of division and false choices try to find an answer that will satisfy everyone. We aren't convinced that Obama actually believes that homosexuality is immoral. But what his reaction did demonstrate is that his commitment to equality goes only as far as political expediency will allow. In fact, of the three, John Edwards had the best response, telling a reporter, up front, that he did “not share that view.” While the so-called culture wars are almost always a losing game for the left to play, we hope that Obama has learned a deeper lesson from this incident, as it most certainly won't be the last time we hear this kind of backwards thinking. If America is going to start putting itself back together again after 14 years of bitter partisan fighting, we need a leader than can stand up for what is right. Here's hoping Obama can be that leader.
Image via Telegraph.co.uk.
|
Why is this surprising? When has Obama taken a position that showed he was interested in anything other than getting himself elected? Being against the war in Iraq? Oooh, there's a really bold stance.
Amen, kevin. some of the best political analysis i've read here on the -ist, and better than any explanation i've seen in the MSM [yeah, that includes you, neil s.].
I also thought it particularly ironic, that given obama's religious immersion, that he would be asked three times to deny the gays, and he did. A Profile in courage, indeed.
Prescott,
Obama was against the war from the beginning ... it's not like this is some recentstance he's taken because it's now suddenly the thing to do.
Great piece of analysis, Kevin.
"Obama was against the war from the beginning ... it's not like this is some recentstance he's taken because it's now suddenly the thing to do."
That wasn't my point. I meant that seems to be the only thing I've heard from him that isn't some wishy-washy centrist view carefully constructed to not turn off any voters.
I’m confused, Kevin.
Obama was obviously caught off guard with the Newsday reporter questions. He probably mentioned it to his PR people then went on CNN and gave a statement of what he does believe regarding that issue.
Yet, John Edwards 4-word answer is the “best response” in your view?
Further, Obama is only seen as someone who can “unite the nation” by the Left.
P.S. Are you naïve enough to think that “partisan fighting” has only been going on for 14 years?
I would suggest it has been going on for 230 years.
How old are you, anyway?
I love it when Democrats are asked their stance about anything related to homosexuality. They too afraid to say they are for it, and they are too afraid to say they are against it.
Just pick a side, frankly I don't care which one. There are better issues to focus on then the age old "sausage vs. taco" debate.
You're blaming a guy running for the top political post in the land for being too good of a politician?
Awesome job!
What was unclear about the larry king answer exactly?
"I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."
Just that it took him time to answer it in a straight forward way? His other two answers were also on point about the General. Compared to Edwards "not share that view.” That was really powerful.
I think you're making more out of it than there really is and if I supported any of the three I don't think any of their answers would sway me to the other two.
prescott: Obama's stance against the war admittedly wasn't that difficult from the get-go, but he did stick with it as CNN was showing video of Saddam's statue being pulled down and Iraqi's dancing in the streets. I found Obama's response dissapointing because I think people are ready for a candidate that that believes in something and isn't afraid to take a stand on those beliefs. It wasn't like he had to get out there and say that he supported something outrageous; in fact, I even gave him a pass on gay marriage.
Skip: I'm sure Obama did mention it to his PR people. That's the problem. Edwards's "4-word answer" may not have been the best response, but he gets kudos for being honest and decisive, something Obama had to consider before doing. If we wanted that, we can vote for Hillary.
By the way, Skip, I'll be 30 in June. I'm well aware that partisan fighting has been going on since long before the "discovery" of the Americas. I would argue, however, that what we have seen in the last 14 years is a different type of partisan fighting, focusing more on division, false choices, and personal destruction. You might want to check out EJ Dionne's book Why Americans Hate Politics.
I think what is upsetting is that he DID have to think about his answer so much. First of all, really, he was THAT caught off-guard by the question? Really? He's running for president, Pace's comments were being widely discussed and dissected, and he didn't think he was going to have to speak to it?
I'd venture to say a huge number of his supporters are also big supporters of gay rights, and this was cowardly and disappointing.
And James, I could not agree more about Obama being asked three times, and three times failing to answer the question. I'm surprised there hasn't been more commentary on that.
If you want more information about Obama, read today's Beachwood Reporter "Papers" www.beachwoodreporter.com. I think Steve Rhodes has done the best job of analyzing Obama from all angles, not just the scraps of one or two comments being picked over again and again by most reporters
Kevin...Fair enough. I am always up for a good book referral.
What led me to my take are dozens of history books, and a very popular book by Howard Zinn..."A People's History of the United States".
What I took from the book was how partisan politics started with our Founding Fathers. "Partisan fighting" has been "divisive, full of false choices, and involved personal destruction" since the 1700's. Just to give a few examples:
Divisive: the Civil War Era
Full of False Choices: the draft, slavery
Personal Destruction: slavery, the civil rights movement
You contend "that what we have seen in the last 14 years is a different type of partisan fighting, focusing more on division, false choices, and personal destruction"
What is more "divisive" than a Civil War?
What contains more "personal destruction" than Slavery?
I am looking forward to reading your book referral to get a better understanding of why you think today’s “partisan fighting” is somehow more destructive than what happened in the mid-1800’s.
“I’ll be 30 in June”…Thanks, Kevin…I won the bet. :-)
Let me add a note that the "Civil Rights Movement" itself was not destructive...more so, the "Civil Rights Movement" was the product of hundreds of years of personal destruction.
i'm reading obama's audacity of hope right now and i'll say from the start that i really like him and i want concrete evidence to support my gut feelings on him.
but i got to a part where he said that he once made some statements in public about how he thought that drunken kids with no means of income jumping into hot tubs was not 'the real world' and basically how he wanted tv and media to sort of clean up their act and how people went crazy about it. that he was talking censorship, etc. and i thought to myself... hmm. if i had heard that, i probably would have thought the same thing. i would have been disappointed and gotten all crazy that he was talking shit about censoring what people could/should watch, etc.
but what he commented on was the fact that he wasn't trying to legislate ANYTHING. he was talking about his values. how most people in the country DO think tv and movies and such have gotten sort of skanky (my word, not his) and out of control (girls gone wild and cooches flashing -- my examples, not his), and that people do have these feelings, even if they don't want them legislated or codified. that people still want to have public discussion about them.
and i got it. i agreed. cause i DO feel the same way. i don't want ANYthing to be censored, no matter how shitty it is, but i do find myself, even at 33, thinking, "man, you could never do/say/show that on tv when i was a kid/teenager." and not being happy about it.
point being that even though i want him to say, "everyone should get married whenever they want to," if his personal christianity dictates that it's not his belief, i'd rather he come out and say that and THEN say, but i believe we can still have legislation allowing for civil unions (since that's what he does seem to believe). that way, he's honest, he's not pandering, and he seems to represent a lot of what americans feel and think.
@Taco Bell: Are you for or against gravity?
So, how does "being for" or "being against" homosexuality work?
Kevin -- I don't think Obama is a "waffler", but rather he doesn't seem to take a hard position on *anything*. I agree with you that we need a candidate who stands up for their beliefs (although I would add they should also be able to admit when those beliefs are shown wrong), so I was wondering why you (and many others) think that Obama would be that person. Because he's smart and charming? Is that enough nowadays?
Mr. Obama does not strike me as someone who will stick his neck out, at least until he's elected. After that, he might be willing to act on his beliefs, and that's not necessarily a good thing. He seems like a guy who lives the Machine motto, "Don't make no waves. Don't back no losers."
See the article today in the Daily Herald:
dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=294580
Ah, Obama and the gay question. Somehow, I believe folks forget that he is "for civil unions" but strongly against gay marriage, because marriage is for men and women only. Kind of like his stances for the state of Illinois. He is for something, just as long as it means he isn't against someone else who might just disapprove of that stance. Obama showed exactly where he stands as a politician -- focused on himself and how he can look appropriate, with little sense of really taking a stand. He won't be sticking his neck out for anyone but himself, and even then ... not so much. Give me Edwards any day now. At least he has courage. And the conviction to support all citizens.
JB - Thanks for that link. The first intelligent discourse on this topic, and it came from the candidate himself.
Prescott,
To answer this:so I was wondering why you (and many others) think that Obama would be that person. Because he's smart and charming? Is that enough nowadays?
I think the oddest statement about Obama is people saying "I don't know where he stands" when his book, a #1 bestseller, pretty much spells out what he stands for in DETAIL. I'm not saying that's reason to vote for him or anything like that. But as a body of evidence, a platform etc. he's got a friggin' book! A book! And it's actually pretty well written.
I read Edwards book before he ran in 2004, it wasn't nearly as interesting or informative on where he stood on so many issues.
to go back to the original article, he did say something right away that pointed to him disagreeing with the General's remarks and as always we have NO CONTEXT on Obama's remarks except for the Larry King one. This is really getting ridiculous that we have to make every remark a blog post to pass the time until 2008.
Where's the blog post on California moving up its primaries? Where is the state of the IL primary? is anyone in the senate trying to get it moved up?
I wish liberals would just admit that there is only one reason as to why they fawn all over O’bama. He is a none threatening non challenging Negro. He is “their” I’m not racist, “I’ve got a black Golfing Buddy” card. He is the reason they can continue to down play and ignore liberal neglect and cowardliness as if George Bush and the republicans are the only things wrong in this crumbling house called America
Its more than clear from O’bama’s record and words, that he is not about actively engaging the crisis in our “democracy” that writers like Bob Herbert in the NY Times chronicles with much needed truth telling.
Liberals can relate to O’bama because they are just as cowardly. But by supporting this “Black” man for president, they can pretend they are progressive, that they are brave.
If O’bama would have been in a room full of gays, he would have said something different. Just like when he disinvited his very mainstream minister Jeremiah Wright
of Trinity Church from a campaign event because of criticism from the sick right wing.
And of course his minister, equally cowardly, tried to explain it away and blame it on the press for quoting him “off record”
I wouldn’t be so hard on O’bama, if liberals would just admit that he is just another mainstream politician.
Hillary is just now just as cowardly, but at least she fought for Universal Health Care once upon a time
Yea I’m for Edwards too.
Hey, being a real liberal isn't anything to be ashamed of. I don't like how you throw that word around like a neocon. I haven't seen a truly liberal person in a long time, just a lot of confused people who don't know what words like that mean anymore.
Sorry Ferdy, but lets be honest here. At least the neocons fight for what they believe in and are open and honest about it. Which is why republican candidates seek to appease said Neocons in the primary. “Our” candidates on the other hand insult core supporters by playing from the Lite republican play book. I don't like lite beer and I don't like lite candidates. I want the real deal!
Even when a person like Howard Dean comes along, who thinks outside the box and reenergizes and builds our base,Liberals don’t stand behind him! I was amazed at how my Gooo liberals jumped all over him for giving that rallying cry to a bunch of college students! And come on the fact that we still haven't impeached Bush says it all,
I'd prefer you called your friends neolibs, then. Just as the neocons aren't true conservatives, liberals today aren't real liberals because the center has shifted to the right. Liberals I know do fight for their beliefs. I just spent the weekend at a conference of liberal doers, and it's amazing what they're up to (me, too!).
Good point Ferdy, let me pounder that.
I don't think it was a gaffe per se, I think it was more like he had a measured response to someone else's personal opinion. Yeah, I don't believe being gay is immoral, but some people do. So who am I to condemn them any more than they should be condemning homosexuals.
Plus, had Obama said shit he would've pissed off A LOT of veterans.
Its a marathon, not a sprint. Cut him some slack.
"Don’t believe being gay is immoral, but some people do. So who am I to condemn them any more than they should be condemning homosexuals" OMG!
O.k. sorry, Ferdy, these people ruin your point.
As long as they call themselves liberal, I'm not gonna equate myself with them. Heck, I'm not even gay but I can see the utter stupidity in the statement above.
But thank you Rachael. I’m so glad that from your high walled liberal castle you can opine what you "don’t believe", as oppose to recognizing actual fact. Talk about liberal moral equivocation and timidity! Instead of standing up forcefully for gays as full humans with out question by boldly saying what is fact, that being gay is just as moral as being straight and those that call them immoral are wrong, you (I can hear a whiney but calm voice) say, “I don’t believe being gay is immoral.” And because liberals don’t stand for any thing, you just give bigots, racists and those that discriminate,those that hate others based on gender, class race,religion a pass and a comfort zone in which to operate, by saying that to condemn them is just as bad as them condemning gays, which is the same as those that condemn Blacks,women, etc.! Get off the side line, take a stand for what’s right.
Forget it Ferdy I’m not a liberal and you should consider disassociating yourself from them too. This is why we loose so many elections and again this is why liberals love them some O’bama because he is safe and bland just like them but dark skinned enough for them to hide behind. Its time to start some thing new, a third way!
I'm sorry, Spook, that you won't stand with me in preventing a perfectly good word from being defiled. I'm a feminist, too, but that word is poison these days, thanks to the radical right. I don't like giving into the bastards. You shouldn't either.
ferdy:
As long as bell hooks uses the word feminist, I will use the word feminist. Keep on with the keeping on! :-)
Gay marriage would be a cultural disaster. Please visit the 'Family Research Institute'.
I don't see anything wrong with his answers and actually think he handled it well.
THERE IS NO LEFT AND NO RIGHT... you people who think they can charaterize 99.9% of the nation into a LEFT or RIGHT category are simply playing into the dumbed down message oriented bull that got us "Staying the Course" despite logic and common sense.
If you think gay people are immoral I say "so what"- The lawbooks are not the same as the Ten Commandments (which _does_ have a clause on loving thy neighbor but nothing specifically against being a flaming tranny).
I think Barack said it best- Basically he doesn't really like homosexuality from a religeous viewpoint but he doesn't think that LAWS should be created to legislate morality.
Don't fall into the LEFT/RIGHT trap of characterizing a stance on an issue in such simplistic terms. This kind of positioning by the Rove-ish Republicans has killed many a democratic campaign.
The trick works like this: get your opponant to endorse a divisive issue (like gay marriage or Teri Shaivo) that has no hope of actually being legislated at a NATIONAL level and then remind everyone that your opponant hates life or God or is best friends with Dr Kevorkian.