If you're happy (and gay) and you know it, clap your hands!

From Pam's House, a good analysis of how Obama's campaign has whiffed on the issue of gay rights. If you haven't been following this story, a brief summary from Pam:

In another attempt to connect with people of faith in South Carolina, presidential hopeful Barack Obama has decided to reach out by going on a concert tour with gospel artists, including known homophobe and recloseted homosexual Donnie McClurkin.

McClurkin believes one can pray away the gay, that it is a choice, and, according to Keith Boykin, Donnie compares gays and lesbians to liars.

It soon became clear to Obama's loyal followers in the gay community that they were being thrown aside in an effort to court another political demographic. Sure, the Obama campaign tacked on an openly gay (but white) preacher to the event. And, oh yeah, Obama didn't show up at the concert in person but appeared via video feed.

More from Pam:

The concert was to be the highlight of this outreach and while the crowd left excited, it was clear the campaign still regarded the controversy as complicated. Aides gave reporters a three-page memo detailing McClurkin's and Obama's views on gay rights that noted in capital letters "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS," with quotes detailing those statements from the singer.

It's too easy to say this is a battle between the secular and religious, but campaigns try mightily to simplify things. The inconvenient truth is that there are people of color in the faith community who are LGBT. These people are ignored, because for politicians, the complexity of addressing that matter is not worth the political cost. It's about the numbers game, and LGBT minorities of faith are to be tossed out like yesterday's trash.

The most disappointing aspect of this whole Obama/McClurkin affair is that Barack Obama, because of his race, actually was best positioned to address it (politically speaking, since we know white pols loathe to take it on, lest they get zapped on that third rail). Ironically, because of the ludicrous questions about his racial "authenticity" from the black community, it appears that his camp cravenly decided that Obama could cleave to the community by enabling its homophobia, rather than challenging it.

That's audacity, all right.

Barack Obama: What's he thinking?

Certainly not the biggest transgression out there, but I was very surprised to see the Raw Story video below of Obama standing and listening to the national anthem with his hands clasped in front of him, rather than the traditional right hand over the heart.

Again, not to make too big a deal out of this, but if he wants to win over the majority, these little symbolic things will help or hurt him. Everyone else on the stage was following the traditional stance, which makes it all the more uncomfortable to watch Obama standing as though he were visiting from another country and politely listening to the host country's anthem. Admittedly, it is about the worst rendition of the national anthem that I have ever heard, but if he wants to make a race out of this campaign, I think he needs to make the symbolic gestures like hand over heart.

On the other hand, a symbol is a symbol, and many folks (myself included) believe that this country has gone overboard in valuing patriotic symbolism. Flags, anthems, blind allegiance.

Is Obama making a statement here? Or did he just forget? Watch the video and let me know what you think:

Oprah raises $3 million for Barack Obama

I know he likes to portray himself as an outsider of Washington politics, and this is not Washington it's Hollywood. But I still find it interesting from this wire report just how much money is flowing around Barack Obama these days:

Tickets to the sold-out private event went for $2,300 apiece ... Visitors were bused to Winfrey's secluded home from an equestrian center about 10 miles away. A solid line of limousines, BMWs, Bentleys and a few hybrid Priuses disgorged well-dressed guests.

Then it was off to a private luncheon and on to Winfrey's cocktail-hour shindig, here a different brand of very American generosity would be on display.

Obama already enjoys the support of Hollywood moguls like David Geffen and effrey Katzenberg, and Winfrey's fundraiser is another chance for him to tap California, which was his top donor state from April through June with a total take of $4.2 million.

This is “outside”? Read more here.

Update: Obama responds

As I expected, Barack Obama has issued a statement that he did not approve the document attacking Hillary Clinton for her financial ties to India. He now says that it was a "dumb mistake" made by his staff.

I was told that he posted a statement on this at his website, but I can't find it. If someone else knows where it is, please help me find it. But here's an article discussing his response to his campaign's actions. And another here.

I'm sorry, but so far I'm hearing way too much denial of involvement from him on way too many topics. Here's a nice summary, that doesn't even include this latest campaign gaffe. I'm waiting for him to start taking some responsibility before he gets my endorsement for president.

We've already witnessed the damage that occurs when those in power refuse to take responsibility. Just ask Scooter.

Just plain "Audacity"?

I know quite a few folks who are supporting Barack Obama in the next presidential campaign. I'm trying to keep an open mind about him, as with all the others on the Democratic side. One thing I will admit I have liked about Obama has been his call to rise above partisan politics and work together to find solutions. All the more reason I was surprised this morning to read that Obama's team has sent out a document attacking Clinton, which reads at best as being in poor taste, and at worst as being racist.

Perhaps some rogue Obama staffer is responsible, just like with the "1984" ad that I also thought was in poor taste. That one, you'll remember, played on the old saw about Clinton's voice being annoying. To me, it came across as incredibly misogynistic. The person responsible for that ad turned out to be someone loosely associated with the campaign, working for an advertising company hired by the Obama campaign. He subsequently left the ad company.

Now comes an "opposition document" labeled "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)’s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India." The document attacks Clinton and her husband for both personal financial holdings in Indian companies, as well for campaign fundraising with Indian ties. This bothers me on several levels. First, D-Punjab? WTF? Let me wipe the slinging mud out of my eye! So much for Obama's website statement that "Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics." Guess he thought we could use a little more nastiness on the campaign trail. That was just petty, and I expected a little more class from his campaign than that.

The main complaint about Clinton's Indian donors is aimed at money she accepted from Cisco Systems, which did lay off American workers and replace them workers in India. Note to Obama staff: Cisco's not the only company doing this. I had quite a time recently being bounced around Banaglore, or somewhere, trying to get my Earthlink DSL issue resolved. I know Obama prides himself on the huge number of small donations his campaign has collected, and that is indeed impressive. But I'm not sure this issue of Clinton accepting money from a company that outsources to India is what we should be getting ourselves worked up about. A quick look at Obama's donors shows the president and the CFO of EBay, chairman of Walt Disney Company, numerous executives from Google, and many many executives and employees from Microsoft. Et tu, Barack?

The document continues with an attack on individual donors who have had legal troubles. Um, Obama? Have you already forgotten your old friend Antoin Rezko? Back in the 1990's he gave you lots of money for your campaigns, and held fundraisers and rallys back when you were having a tough time in your congressional campaign. C'mon, you remember: he even helped you and your wife out when you bought a house. They bought the lot next door, and sold you land so you could widen your lot. Remember?

I just wonder, and worry, that this is a new side to the Obama campaign. I certainly hope we won't see more of this kind of smear tactic in what is going to be a very long presidential campaign. I hope that Obama did not approve of this attack, and I hope he will have the cojones to say it was wrong. Other wise, "fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."