If Michelle Obama was giving an impassioned speech in support of GLBT rights

[MrScorpio]

And this speech was interrupted by Occupy or people who wanted to close Gitmo and a likewise exchange happened between that protestor and the first lady, what's the likelihood that sides would be taken based on whomever supports whatever cause rather than versus those who have disdain for loudmouthed hecklers of the Obamas in general?

Will one heckler for one left wing cause be classified as more worthy than another heckler for another left wing cause, or are all of these people equally tedious?

With all of this attention seeking rude behavior happening, who will take a principled stand against that alone, versus supporting any particular heckler of the Obamas based on how that heckler is aligned with their own personal concerns?

Yeah, I wonder.

The point that one should consider is that these hecklers usually demand some kind of instantaneous and somewhat unilateral resolution of their concerns, ostensibly to
the exclusion of whatever else is going on.

If every heckler is a welcome voice, each of them bringing worthy interruptions about their valid concerns, however off-topic at the time and however loudly and rudely stated, of any of this...What's the most important thing?

My, my... What's a President to do? Reserve added time for the heckler's diatribe? Or perhaps appoint a special presidential advisor for off-topic heckling resolution.

Oh course, that sounds fucking ridiculous.

Ones answers to these questions should be quite instructive, especially if those answers are solely based on ones own particular arena of concern.

Whadaya say?

[Richardo]

1. "equally tedious"

There's your answer right there.


I wonder if anyone acting in that manner ever changed a mind, or do they only entrench those who are not in their group further?

[randome]

12. I doubt Michelle Obama was 'entrenched' against LGBT rights because of a lone protester.

She, more than most, I guess, would have an open mind.

I think it was rude and it was a private event. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with making one's views known to someone who is closely aligned to the political process.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Richardo]

22. I was referring more to those that witness such displays.

[morningfog]

2. I really don't care at all about this story. Public personas are always

at risk of heckling and protests. It comes with the territory. It isn't a very big deal. I think Mrs. Obama didn't handle it well. But, that also is not a big deal. Such a non-story all around.

[MrScorpio]

3. I guess that you think that heckler coddling would've been the best move

I, for one, thought Mrs. Obama handled the situation quite efficiently, so that she wasted as little of her precious time as possible in dealing with an off-topic, loudmouthed interloper.

Not to mention that, she did it with the crowd firmly behind her in firm support.

Now I've done some public speaking of my own in my day. I would kill for the kind of cheering that Ms. Obama received after that incident.

One of them won the crowd, while the other was shown the door.

I don't see how that made Mrs. Obama look bad at all.

[randome]

13. I agree. Except I think Obama handled it very well.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pnwmom]

24. Why? I thought she handled it perfectly well.

No one paid money to come to that dinner and hear hecklers instead of Mrs. Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. If she was to give such a speech, that would be surprising.

But it is a fun fantasy, I'd love to dwell in a world where such things happened.
Without equality our loved ones are in peril. Some people might get very upset about that, and even be rude, heaven help us.
Seems to me the larger outrage should be the injustices and mistreatment not the fact that one person got carried away attempting to protect her family.
What if it was your family? Would you limit yourself to the socially graceful if their future was at stake? I doubt it.

[dbackjon]

5. 100% correct

When an Obama does something with passion POSITIVELY towards the GLBT community, then we can assess the OP's fantasy scenario.


The OP also seems to ignore the fact that this was a fundraising speech for the 1%.

[KittyWampus]

6. WTF? You lump everyone making more than you into the 1%. And Obama has done more for the GLBT

community and move their civil rights forward than any other American politician.

But apparently he hasn't done it passionately enough for you.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I suggest that the politician who did the most is still Harvey Milk

Starting the electoral involvement of the community from scratch while being elected as the first ever and all of that out of nothing and in the face of nothing but brutality and resistance rates pretty high on the old flagpole in my book. Harvey was a Democrat. And that was good fortune for Democrats, still is.

[dbackjon]

18. No - but don't fool yourself

Most of the night was spent fundraising for the DNC - to further the goals of the 1%. You would have to be blind or in denial not to recognize that.


What Obama has done is half steps, followed by backtracking, and done grudgingly only when his feet is held to the fire by heroes like Ellen.

[MrScorpio]

11. Because we all know that any Obama has nary said a kind word to GLBTs

[Bluenorthwest]

17. As if that was what was said. Word game fail.

People speak for themselves, clearly. Read what they write and muster the prowess and courage to respond to reality, not to stuff you type up, ascribe to others then whine about.

[William769]

8. As usual

You nailed it!

[MrScorpio]

9. Is your point that she never addresses GLBT issues?

I'm just trying to clarify your argument.

Perhaps it would be good for her to take out a moment for GLBT issues anytime she addresses an audience.

Let's say that she were to give a speech on early childhood obesity or inner city gun violence, she also owes everyone a moment to reflect on how any particular subject that she's speaking about relates directly or indirectly to GLBT issues.

Perhaps she could force her way into the Oval Office and hold her husband's hand while swiftly signs some nifty executive orders.

Don't assume that I don't have dear ones in my life who are disaffected by the current state of GLBT rights. Because you would be wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. My point was what I wrote, that I'd be surprised and delighted if she

made such an speech, but she has not done so. She has said a few things, very nice, but this image you offered up is not how things are. I wish it was. So I said so. Sorry to crash you word game.
And also, what I asked you is that if your loved ones were in peril would you be checking with Emily Post about your methods of advocating their safety.
I asked you that, a question. I assume nothing. It is not for you to put words in my mouth as a way to avoid answering questions you do not care for. Adding more puffed up hyperbolic 'what ifs' does not address that which was asked of you.
I asked you a question and you preached at me and told me not to assume, but you did not answer the question at all. Whatever.

[MrScorpio]

20. My loved ones are technically in peril...

Most of them live in Detroit, after all, which presents all kinds of issues regarding their personal safety. In spite of that, my close family members who are GLBT, well, they don't spend every waking moment complaining that the Obamas aren't working 24/7 trying to fix the sorry state of gay rights in this state.

They're too busy worrying about mundane stuff, like work and family and making sure the car alarm is on when they park the car.

I just don't think that ill mannered loudmouths can do anything to alleviate those particular situations.

But actually, by merely centering the conversation strictly to your own personal concerns, you most certainly gave me that answer that expected from that particular perspective.

You've been quite helpful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The event was billed as an "LBT Women's Discussion and Reception with the first lady"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-michelle-obama-heckler-20130606,0,5200409.story

And she did touch once on GLBT issues:

Because of you, we have a President who stands up for our most fundamental rights –- whether that’s fighting for equal pay for women -- amen -- ending "don't ask, don't tell" -- amen -- or supporting our right to marry the person we love.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/remarks-first-lady-dnc-event

But that was it.

[Prism]

28. +1 Nailed it. N/t

[msongs]

7. odd that DU loves it when republicans get heckled but not democrats nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. Heckling is tedious business, so is being First Lady I imagine

That's why I feel they both played their part as they should. Michelle Obama can respond any way she wants and a concerned citizen can advocate for their cause by heckling.

[The Link]

16. Has she ever given such a speech?

I would be impressed with that. Especially if it was on the leading edge rather than the trailing.

[boilerbabe]

19. why are you so concerned about some 1 % president's wife who

could give a rat's ass about you or anyone on this site? the obsession with this issue says more about you. I am sure BADASS MICHELLE is over it by now and moved on to the next topic.

[MrScorpio]

21. Yeah, too bad that she's a bad old rich woman

Who doesn't give a damn about lil' ol' me.

It's enough for me to cry myself to sleep at night.

[CakeGrrl]

23. Tell it to the other posters still creating threads related to this incident.

Are you sending this message consistently to the other people who are generating spinoff threads today based on this incident?

Or are you going after people who don't think FLOTUS was in the wrong?

You do realize that pretty much any candidate who occupies the White House will be a member of the 1%? They will most likely have substantial assets before they're elected, and their presidential salary alone will accomplish that.

Are you going to be this angry at the next POTUS/FLOTUS?

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. Watch out, you may be called a racist for the

BADASS MICHELLE remark. It's code don't you know?

[treestar]

34. That is unfair

I don't think that's true at all. The First Lady has done plenty to prove she cares about people.

[CakeGrrl]

26. A heckler is a disruptor. They should expect as good as they give.

And holding that opinion does NOT equate to disrespecting their cause.

I'd love to see those who applaud heckling have to handle one themselves, or see it done to a friend or relative. Methinks a lot of people would be pretty darn flustered/angry. It's often different when it affects someone personally.

[MrScorpio]

32. I agree, thanks! nt

[LonePirate]

27. I would still support the protestor's actions of speaking out and interrupting

The causes supported by either side are extraneous details.

If people of power and influence such as POTUS, FLOTUS and others would publicly speak with (not speak to) average Americans on a regular basis, then these types of events would cease to exist. The almost complete lack of access to these people for average Americans allows the media to drive messages and issues instead of the people driving them.

[MrScorpio]

35. I can respect that position

But let's say if someone was giving a very good speech about something that you cared deeply about and in the midst of this speech a disruptor popped up for a cause that's completely unrelated to the speech.

What's the most important thing that should be considered, the speakers's theme, the protestor's cause, or are they both equal?

[GeorgeGist]

30. The stupid is strong.

[MrScorpio]

31. Whatever, Dude. nt

[treestar]

33. Hecklers are just rude and self centered

They never help their cause.

[Kurovski]

36. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Will you still be torturing us with this in December? Good gravy, look at President Obama in the three clips I searched out and posted for you in the other repetitious and lengthy chamber of horrors. Then look up how other presidents and pols have handled other protesters/hecklers.

It's not that rare an occurrence...It's part of the job!!! Annoying as it may be, pols have been dealing with it...maybe we can "deal with it " too

Stop torturing us!! I've been up for two nights in a row!

[MrScorpio]

37. I've only started two threads about this

And in those threads all I've done was to answer the people who've posted in them... Like your own post.

You call that torture?

[Kurovski]

38. Yes, I do. I'm a rare and delicate Begonia.

So sue me.

You were fine. Freshwest was the one swinging the mace.

I'm in bed now...so carry on without me.

[Prism]

39. LGBT rights are a left-wing cause?

Interesting phrasing. Guess we see where you're approaching them from.

But no, as a gay man, I wouldn't care. Political figures are interrupted all the time on all kinds of subjects. There are many important topics to many serious people. If Occupy interrupted a Human Right Cpaign speech, I'd think that'd be kind of awesome.

Power should always hear from the people. I'm adult enough to allow that there are actually other people in the universe with needs and grievances.

[MrScorpio]

40. When Michelle Obama was interrupted by Ellen Sturtz...

Gauging from her reaction of offering Sturtz the mic and stepping aside to let her address the audience, I seriously doubt that what she was did such a thing as a negative response to the cause of GLBT rights.

I've listened to that interaction and looked at the vid and from what I gather, Mrs. Obama was in the midst of giving a highly emotional speech when some person interrupted her. I seriously doubt that she even processed fully the message that Sturtz was trying to convey. With all of the shouting going on in a place, with such a large crowd, to a person who was in the midst of making a crucial point in her presentation.

Thus Mrs. Obama's reaction was visceral, as that she felt that crowd should decide whose time, hers or an individual interrupter's was more important at that point. Not as a more deliberate dismissal against an activist's cause.

And to think about it, what was Ms. Sturtz's point when she interrupted? Except for herself, I seriously doubt that anyone knew, considering the ensuing chaos and bad acoustics of an individual shouting without a mic. At least Sturtz's was offered one.

But later on, after all of that commotion, we find out that Ms. Sturtz's point was that she wanted the President sign an executive order to end workplace discrimination against GLBT Federal employees and those engaged in government contracts. Something which I'm sure that Mr. and Mrs. Obama always talks about during their dinner conversations.

Now, really... The First Lady was talking about the plight of inner city kids when Ms. Sturtz popped up to shout about something completely different. As if Michelle Obama had either the time or the authority to fix Ellen Sturtz's concern.

The audience wasn't there to listen to Sturtz, their minds were focused on the First Lady and those kids.

It's clear that Ms. Sturtz chose the wrong target and wrong time to be interruptive. The crowd itself reacted thusly after all by showing Ms. Sturtz the door and by sending Mrs Obama back to the podium to finish her speech. How did it help her cause? Or is it that workplace discrimination is an issue that should take precedence over any other issue that the First Lady is talking about at any particular time?

Sorry kids, but while the Powers That Be are trying to look out for you, we have take time away from you to discuss Federal workers and workplace discrimination.

Better luck next time.

[Prism]

41. You're simply not listening.

You asked a question, I answered, and instead of addressing a single word I said, you just tossed down a nine paragraph non-sequitor. So, there's that.

The problem here is - the real problem - is that it feels like we're back in 2009. Once again, people feel incredibly free to talk at and down to LGBTers. The entire premise of your OP is one of infantilization, as if LGBTers were children who could only see, relate to, and value their own cause without giving due consideration to others.

You might as well have simply said, "If this had happened to your pony, would you have been ok with it?" Because that is precisely what your OP is asking while dancing around verbiage.

So, here we are, four years after the DOMA wars, and some heterosexuals are still feeling perfectly free to take this approach to LGBTers and their issues. It's almost as if you heard and learned nothing at all about us or our community in all that time. Some people know how to speak the words, as if they're in church and just muttering the prayers so they can get out the door, but it's clear their hearts aren't exactly in it.

That's fine. But seriously now, at what point do you look around and go, "You know, I know for a fact ethnic minorities dislike it white people lecture them like this. I bet LGBTers dislike it when heterosexuals do it to them, too!" What is the herculean task involved in that synonymity sinking in?

Because half a decade later, we're still getting this shit on DU from the Same. Freaking. People. Seriously? No evolution possible there?

Once again, I don't even agree with the heckler's choice of time and place. But the way so many straight people are going so crazy over this totally vexes me. Michelle Obama is an awesome woman, I enjoy and admire her, but it's not like she's our Queen and someone just farted in her face in the middle of Court.

And yet, some of y'all are reacting as if that is exactly what happened.

It happens. To just about every First Lady. You have that job, you get a bunch of perks, responsibilities, and occasional unpleasantness. She's probably already over it. So it's odd that some DUers just cannot let this blasphemy slide. Nah, gotta get in some LGBTers' faces just a little bit more.

Why? Why is that so important to you?

I think you need to hush up and do some listening. Because I promise you, if a white person behaved the way you are now to the black community, I bet you'd be singing quite a different tune, and the urge to accept that condescending lecture would be minimal at best.

Eesus Cheerist. Still with this shit here!

[MrScorpio]

42. About that whole pony thing...

Isn't it obvious that some folks are defending what Sturtz did, when she did it and to whom she did it to precisely because they either don't care for the Obamas or are willing to justify any action that furthers their cause in spite of how rude, ineffectual or ill timed it is?

It shouldn't be a secret that people can be like that.

Now, when Ellen Sturtz was busy hollering about the Prez needing to sign an Exec Order do you think that she was giving any consideration to the inner city kids, which was the subject of the First Lady's own speech in the first place? But I understand that the kids needed to take a back seat to Ellen Sturtz, she had something important to say. Not just that, but she was carrying on her back every single other GLBT issue in this country to the face of the First Lady, who apparently has it within her power to fix those problems. It's a shame that the First Lady offered her the mic, and in turn, offered that screaming person to a hostile audience instead... Because that very act by the First Lady was a slap in the face to every single GLBT person in this country. Ellen's a hero, at least that's what I've been told.

For shame, First Lady, why was she such a meany to Ellen Sturtz?

But I get what you're saying, until things are fixed, it's all bad. And if Ellen Sturtz had to jump up and holler, even if she made a fool of herself by doing it, well that's just something that needs to happen until everything is resolved and Ellen won't find a need to scream at the First Lady anymore. And these things should continue to happen, the Obama's getting heckled by Sturtz and her heckling ilk, until they get their full measure of satisfaction.

Fair enough.

And after all, according Sturtz, all there needs to be done is to have the President sign some executive orders and and everything will be fixed: DOMA, Federal Employment Discrimination, and every single other GLBT issue in this country resolved for once and for all.

You're correct, it's a crying shame that Barack Obama hasn't shown any heart, soul or genuine resolve for the GLBT community by solving every one of these problems single-handedly since he first took the Oval Office. Well, it's not like he's had anything else on his plate, right?

Of course, there's no point for the heckling crowd to heckle the Congress or the courts about any of this. None whatsoever. Or file lawsuits, get the people elected who'll stand with them in Congress, do sit down strikes, rally a million people to march in The Mall, buy lots of TV, radio and internet time, pledge media personalities to do programming, buy billboard space, conduct civil disobedience against state and local governments that discriminate, write to one's local paper, or a million other things... Obviously, none of that stuff has been effective at all, and all GLBT people are in as bad of a position today as they were in 2009... Nothing has changed.

So, screaming at the First Lady while she was in the midst of a speech about inner city kids was a stroke of genius. That'll fix it!

And I see your point. We're not having a conversation about differences of opinion, and whatever I have say that you may disagree with just means that I'm trying to lecture you. So, I have shut my big fat yap while GLBT people are telling me that things are all bad and it's bad form for me to point out that Sturtz wasn't helping anyone, not herself, or the people affected by DOMA or Federal Employment Discrimination and certainly not those inner city kids by screaming at the First Lady... Well, strike one: Ellen Sturtz, it did help her get some pretty great publicity out of this...

I guess that's one way that she became a "hero" that day.

(Just so you know: It really means a lot to me, because I used to be an inner city kid at one time... That's why I'm taking it personal and it's my own pony to ride. And, plus the reason that this subject matter is still extant is that posters are still replying to me since I've posted these two OPs on the matter. If no one replied, then I would be content to let them fade away. I'm not one to kick my own threads just to kick my own threads.)