gamer173's Blog

November 8, 2007 -- WHEN Sen. Barack Obama picked up the endorse ment of New York City Councilman Charles Barron, the first words to come from an Obama spokesperson were: "Sen. Obama disagrees with Councilman Barron's statements on several issues, but this campaign is about asking people to unite instead of divide, despite our differences."

It's understandable that the Obama campaign would seek to distance itself publicly from Barron, a former Black Panther. Barron's history is littered with disgraceful behavior, the latest incident being his defense of a staffer who threatened to kill another councilman.

Endorsements are somewhat over-hyped, and there's no reason to think that Obama shares Barron's more controversial viewpoints or approves of the tactics. Obama has distinguished himself in his rhetoric from racial hucksters like Barron, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

But this is the second controversial endorsement Obama has had in recent weeks. His campaign invited "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (who has claimed that gays are "trying to kill our children") to perform at a gospel concert in South Carolina.

Though Obama has tried to put some distance between himself and these disreputable figures, he must know how useful they might be in attracting black Democratic voters. His acceptance of these endorsements doesn't mean he's a racist or homophobe. But endorsements are nonetheless useful in making educated assumptions about the policies a candidate might pursue and values he will reflect if elected.

These two recent ones suggest that for all of Obama's talk about his purported wish to "unite" people and his supporters' claims that his "campaign is about asking people to unite instead of divide, despite our differences," he can (or wants to) play partisan identity politics with the best of them.

If Republicans constantly are vilified for the endorsements they garner, there's no reason Democrats shouldn't face the same scrutiny.