Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters
An Obama Pastor Problem That Will Rankle Democrats
GLBT Community Discovers Rev. James T. Meeks
Barack Obama's got another pastor in his closet, one that might hurt him with a key faction of the Democratic party.By now we all know that as much as Barack Obama wants to boot Jeremiah Wright off to the side and dazzle us all with a grown-up discussion about race (though it seems like he changed that subject as quickly as possible), when it comes time for the general election, he's still going to have himself a problem.
As I said before, love or hate Fox News for obsessing over Wright clips as much as Nancy Grace fetishizes missing white girls, it did provide a glimpse of what Republican operatives will get up if Obama is the nominee. Sure, John McCain said he'd keep it clean, but he won't be the only one running ads. Even one of the diarists at Democratic site MyDD broached the subject by posting an "ad" juxtaposing Wright's comments with imagery for the Twin Towers falling. As crudely constructed and slapdash as that "ad" is (follow the MYDD link) and whatever the diarists anti-Obama motivations are, the point is Republicans will use that to their advantage. But Wright isn't Obama's only religious problem.
Rev. James T. Meeks is an Illinois state senator and a strong supporter of Obama. From GayWired.com:
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for "spiritual counsel," James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.So what's the problem? Meeks is, according to the GayWired piece, "stridently homophobic." This isn't a surprise to anyone who follows politics closely. Even Republicans know this and have tried to make an issue of it previously. But on this issue, it matters little what Republicans think. It's not like the party is known for its strident support of the GLBT community. (Though, like Wright, Meeks has a habit of cursing White America.)
When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator's campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks' church "for prayer" and "to say thank you."
The problem, from a Democratic marketing standpoint, is what Meeks says about the gay community. More from GayWired:
A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both "a key member of Chicago's 'Gatekeepers' network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state" and "a stalwart anti-gay activist... [who]... has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level 'family values' pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in 'clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'"Of course, tension between Black religious Democrats and the GLBT community is nothing new, and such tensions aren't unique to the Democratic party. Many conservatives thought about donning gun-control blinders to vote for Rudy Giuliani or will put on their immigration-reform shades to unsee John McCain's recent record. Gay Democrats and Black religious Democrats (not all of whom hold homosexuality in such low regard, of course) seem to usually have a "gentleman's agreement" to not go after one another in public. But you can't sweep all of these differences under the rug. If someone like Meeks -- a man who reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews" for foisting "Brokeback Mountain" on the world -- starts making the news, it gets a little harder to ignore. (And spare me the lectures about "Guilt by Association"; this is politics, "Guilt by Association" is a proven marketing tactic.)
Of course, one of the big mysteries here is why people are only discovering these things now -- especially considering none of this was exactly secret and many of these published accounts are from two years ago. If GLBT groups start making a loud issue of Meeks, it could have an impact. And why wouldn't they? Perhaps they get a little tired of the Democratic party's tendency to overpromise and underdeliver to the GLBT community and seemingly being the first group to get sold out when the Religious Right starts screaming (last I checked, "Don't ask, don't tell" is still on the books, and gay marriage isn't).
But at this stage in the game, the issue would just have to be a small piece of the Big Miracle Pie needed to give Hillary Clinton a shot. Also something to consider is Team Clinton's almost complete inability to turn any of Obama's troubles to its advantage.
Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!












What would you like a presidential candidate to do, surround him or herself with ONLY people who believe EVERYTHING EXACTLY has he or she does?
Should they ONLY have around them a bunch of yes-men???
Did it ever cross your small mind that it is perhaps a very wise thing to set people around you with DIVERSE views, who disagree with you on key issues, but yet who have important inputs on other issues?
Mygawd, where did the facility to THINK beyond a grade school level ever go in the country!
This article is more than fair. Don't get all riled up because your candidate has more skeletons in his closet. It's politics and it's news, so people have a right to hear it.
Then again, the risk is low. Where exactly is the gay group going to go?
As for the earlier comment about 'yes-men' and welcoming diversity of opinion, one must draw strong lines when deciding whose counsel to keep. A man's companions (and his enemies) can give a fairly accurate composite of his character.
I certainly don't count racists or homophobes among my trusted friends, nor would I go to such people for spiritual advice. Nor should the next president.
[I am an employee of Icon Media Direct, and this is my opinion.]
http://www.queerty.com/obama-comes-out-about-anti-gay-gospel-ally-20071023/
Rezko received a $3.5 million loan from London-based IRAQI billionaire Nadhmi Auchi -- a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters."
These Funds from Auchi's loan helped finance a complex series of transactions between Rezko and Democratic Presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama involving the 2005 purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion and Rezko's purchase of an adjoining landlocked parcel.
Rezko claims he paid "full market price" and Obama apparently received a "discount" of several hundred thousand dollars for his parcel. Rezko then improved his parcel to benefit Obama.
Instead of handing cash to Obama, Rezko handed Obama a preferential price for property. This is the same form of "honest graft" and preferential treatment that sent former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner to jail over 30 years ago, see United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1974).
The Chicago Sun-Times recently reported that Mr. Rezko, around the same general period he was wheeling with Obama, also provided a preferential price for a property purchase by U. S. Representative Luis Gutierrez.
Instead of transferring cash to buy influence, Rezko was engaging in structured property transactions and preferential treatment of public officials to confer significant financial benefits on them, far above the legal limits of any legitimate political contribution permitted by federal law.
Thanks to the release of Barack Obama's income tax records, we are finally able to get some necessary perspective on the big favor Tony Rezko did for the Obamas in buying what has been termed in the press "the adjacent, undeveloped lot". It turns out this is a seriously misleading description.
Rather than merely purchasing a separate lot, Rezko appears to have purchased the yard of the Obama manse, and allowed them to live in the house+yard property, amounting to a gift (or loan, if you will) of considerable value.
The Obamas' tax returns from 2000-2005 had personal information blanked out, but strangely enough, the 2006 Form 1040 left in the home address.
The feds allege that Mr. Rezko was able to steer state contracts and policy decisions, such as authorization to build hospitals in specific locations, because he was so close to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (for whom he was a top fundraiser) and because he was willing to share the graft with his cronies
Rezko's connection to Obama began well before Obama ran for office. Rezko spotted him early, figured he might be a rising star, and helped secure funds for his initial campaigns. As a major mob figure, Rezko's role raises questions because NO one has ever accused him of being a civic-minded fellow who simply enjoys political fundraising because he delights in good government. Skeptical souls want to know what Rezko sought in return for his support and whether he got it?
Mr. Tony Rezko who owns a slum landlord business in inner city Chicago is under indictment in Illinois for seeking to extort money from potential state vendors.
IRAQI billionaire Nadhmi Auchi stills lives in London.
There is nothing idiotic in Wheaton's post. He raises good points and puts facts behind his assertions.
All told, I actually don't have the biggest problem with Wright. With him, you slightly more of a point. Some of his views are helpful, prescient, and forward-looking, others are not. But (for the most part) they all seem to be considered, thought out reviews. That they are so inflammatory could actually be good if it drew attention to any of his better ideas. My problem with Wright, and this goes quadruple for Meeks, is the conscience decision hate another group for wholly personal or religious reasons. And honestly, can't Presidential candidates find advisers who are smart, opinionated, disagree, AND not engaged in bigotry? I mean, it's a pretty big job and there are a lot of smart people out there. Seems reasonable to me.
Also, if push comes to shove, I'd rather have a strong, smart Pres. with a lot of "yes-men" than a lot of strong advisers with an empty shirt Pres. I don't know if Obama would be like that, but his history in the Senate of not pissing people off because he wanted to run for president as soon as possible doesn't help his case in my humble.
Guess time will tell.
As marketers, we're constantly instructed to remember that people (or consumers) want to know how your product/service/campaign affects them. They're the story (their life, dreams, needs), not you.
These pastor stories haven't had much measurable impact on Obama in the polls. Why not? Maybe ask the voters...
Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers! I'd also point out that the voters are the same people who claim to dislike negative advertising ... while letting it sway them more often than not. And that during the last election, the folks who worked in the media world in the Northeast were caught completely off-guard when the voters turned out to not like John Kerry.
As I said in a previous post, the best news for Barack in the Democratic Primary is that Fox News jumped all over this story--their incessant yelling about Obama just makes him that much more attractive to activist Democratic voters. The bad news for Barack regarding the General Election is that Fox News jumped all over this story. Then again, I still find myself yelling at non-Democrats who are still under the impression that Barack is a Muslim.
The point is that if this isn't an issue with voters right now, it's because Barack's main competition at the moment chose not to make it more of an issue. He's not going to have that luxury when he moves out into the general election.