Obama heckeld June 2015 by trans immigration activist. Compare his reaction to Marty and Bernie.

[Bluenorthwest]

'But, but...this was at the WH and, and, and, that was a trans woman, and it's Obama so it is all different.'

[DemocraticWing]

1. This was a large part of my point in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251465248

I found President Obama's reaction to be way more insulting than Bernie or Martin's reaction to Black Lives Matter, and I've said repeatedly I think they could have handled it better. I am really disappointed that a lot of people who bashed Jennicet for her stand are now upholding the virtues of protest. We could have used that support last month too.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. You made the point very clearly. I've actually taken part in actions that disrupted events and so

I have my own personal standards for what I will and won't do. I will still support those who do things I might not. I take very major issue with DU posters who so absolutely condemned both heckling and those who heckle when the disruptions were made by LGBT protesters who are now not only supportive of those tactics but also highly critical of anyone who is not supportive of them. I find the hypocrisy level to be very high.
And Obama in this case, if that is in the universe of acceptable reactions to disruptive activism, then Marty and Bernie and the audience at Netroots were absolutely golden. If 'shame on you' is acceptable, then inviting them on stage and handing them the mic certainly has to be at least that acceptable.
If Marty and Bernie were deeply offensive, then 'shame on you' is unforgivable.

At the WH, every party was less receptive to the protest than parties at Net Roots. The speakers, the audience and the staff were all hostile at the WH, welcoming at Net Roots. People need to acknowledge that.

[Autumn]

2. At a White House Pride event? The peoples house?

I'm sorry

[Gman]

3. Obama is not running in 2016

Sanders and OMalley are. This is irrelevant.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. What is relevant is the compartive reactions of the persons involved. If you want examples of other

LGBT disruptions of Obama events when he was running there are plenty of those too. In all the DU threads about such activism you will find most of DU and all Obama ardents speaking strongly against the use of such tactics at any time, for any reason. But when it's not LGBT activists, they sing a different song. That is very relevant. Ethics are great, situational ethics are not ethics.

[Gman]

15. For that matter

You can drive yourself nuts with all the contradictions here.

[stevenleser]

4. It's not different. That was not a good response by the President. He deserves criticism for it. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

6. And yet I have seen no such criticism. Additonally, I suggest that some metrics might present

themselves. 'Not a good response'. No, it really was not. It was in fact not as good as O'Malley's nor Sanders' this weekend. It was much less receptive, less respectful. BLM was given the stage, while the trans woman was shown the door and much public derision.
On DU my concern is DU. There are a ton of people on DU who have long, long histories of strong and absolute objection to disruptions of political speeches who are now, suddenly all for disruptions and furious at those who are not and claiming that Sanders and O'Malley really botched this one.

If they botched it, then Obama really fucked it up. If we are to forgive Obama and see his actions in context of his whole career then is that not also the same thing that should be done for all others? If shouting 'shame on you, this is my house' is 'not a good response' then handing them the mic and the stage has to be at least 'not a bad response'. So I don't get how O'Malley and Sanders are supposed to have been so terrible. In the context of disruptive political activism, I have never seen any response so excellent as those two gave. Because the usual response is more like Obama last month.

[stevenleser]

7. When you raised it yesterday it was the first I had heard of it, or I would have said something.

I am not as up on current events since my daughter was born. Too busy.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. If I had a new child I don't think I'd be able to do anything else! Busy is a mild word for what new

parents are!
For me, I'm a person who has done lots of activism others found to be aggressive. So when people engage in that sort of activism, I support them. On DU, most people have always opposed such activism. Until it was done to a candidate they don't like with a slogan they do like. That sort of double standard really bothers me. It should bother everyone. The cause, when it is life and death, must be sacred and placed above all partisan or personal agenda. Knowledge = Life. Silence = Death.

[DemocraticWing]

11. I kind of was taken aback at first when I saw somebody had protested Sanders

I thought, hey he's on the right side! Then I remembered how it felt when people had treated me like crap for doing activism "the wrong way." I realized that sometimes you have to be forceful and aggressive to get people to listen, even when those people agree. Just because they agree doesn't mean they realize the importance of the issue. To them it's just another issue, but for those of us on the front lines fighting for something, it's the most important issue.

I actually accept that a politician is going to see my biggest issues as less important than I do. That's why I can criticize Obama or Sanders or whoever and still support them in the end. I worry that sometimes activists lose sight of that, but I really worry that everybody else can't seem to separate activist concerns with activists not supporting somebody. It's never good to give anybody a free pass just because they aren't all that bad.

[Vattel]

10. It is also worth pointing out that Obama was an appropriate target

for Gutierrez's protest. He is the chief executive and so the buck stops with him when it comes to the unsafe conditions in INS detention centers that she was protesting. Sanders, on the other hand, is not responsible for the problems that BLM is rightly angry about and is instead an ally in the fight to solve those problems. So I am not so sure that he is an appropriate target of the anger was being directed at him.

edited to add: Some are saying that Sanders was an appropriate target because he has not been giving enough attention to the issues of concern to BLM. That is a respectable viewpoint. My point is that Obama was obviously an appropriate target of a speak truth to power protest.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That sort of politics can't respect persons, all targets are apporpriate but those who take such

license are handling fire and should do so with precision and great focus. It is an intentional breaking of decorum and the reaction to it is a wild card. It's all about what happens after the disruption. Obama, while not all that kind, was within his rights to be annoyed. I'd not slam him too badly for that. But if Sanders was a racist sinner for his reaction to BLM, then Obama was a transphobic jerk to that woman. We can't have both. It can't be alright to shame some disrupting activists while others must be given control of the meeting. That's just not right. It is not right to give Obama such license and then judge those others with such strident standards. 'Obama can say shame on you trans immigrant but Bernie, he better say everything perfectly right now or he's a racist'. How does that work, really?
I sure don't get it.

[AgingAmerican]

12. Hillary has guys in suits drag them away too

Except she doesn't have the courage to at least engage them first.

This guys crime? He stood up with his back to her.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. Sanders has time

That little blip won't damage his campaign.

3 news cycles from now it will be old news.

[JI7]

16. one huge difference is that there aren't a bunch of threads

About how horrible it was and comparing the protestor to swiftboaters.