So, what was offensive about Obama's comments re:protestors?

[Occam Bandage]

"There were some protesters out here. I could hear them-vaguely. I don't know what they were protesting. I think there was a group of them. But one of them started to chant "Obama, keep your promise" and I thought, that's fair. I don't know which promise that he was talking about. But I thought to myself, you know, I like that."

So he said he could hear some protestors, he didn't know what they were protesting exactly, he heard them say "Obama, keep your promise," and he thought that while he wasn't sure what they were protesting, he liked that people were holding him to his promises.

Where is the offense? I simply don't get it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. There is none .......

Some really pathetic shitstirrers are working overtime .................

[Political Tiger]

2. There is nothing even remotely offensive about that remark.

The terminally outraged are simply stomping their feet and waving their arms out of a deep need to be noticed ... much like Rush Limbaugh. That alone should give them pause but they are too busy looking for excuses to play angry that they don't notice the similarities.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I don't either. I've also seen how he has treated other protesters and he doesn't mock them.

I've seen him shush his supporters to not yell at protesters interrupting his rallies and instead say how much guts it took to do it. He doesn't view protests with disdain or contempt.

It isn't like there aren't clear things to criticize him for re Prop 8 or DADT so I don't know what the point is pushing this. Focus on the real issue.

[katandmoon]

4. There is NO FUCKING WAY Obama didn't know what the protest was about

No fucking way. Playing dumb about something that means so much to so many people is NOT becoming to him.

[Thickasabrick]

10. Agreed - totally heartless on his part and people acting like he

didn't know is even worse. I don't see how people could defend this shit.

[jgraz]

19. Hey, it's not like there was some stinging defeat for LGBT rights the day before he spoke

Oh wait...

[Occam Bandage]

30. Why do you say that? I don't think he keeps a timetable of who is protesting what when. nt

[kevinbgoode]

48. And apparently he gets no news briefings, either.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Gay-rights protesters are not the only protesters in America, or even in California.

That's rather a rather solipsistic viewpoint: "Well of course he'd know it's us who were protesting. I mean, who else is there?"

[kevinbgoode]

64. Of course...there were demonstrations by a multitude of groups and causes

simulataneously held in 92 cities across the country the evening before, right? And no news triggering those demonstrations.

[Occam Bandage]

67. There were gay-rights protesters. They were not the only protesters.

Obama did not deny the existence of gay-rights protesters; he said he was not sure what the particular protester that he heard was protesting. Given that there was more than one protest that day, that isn't problematic.

[kevinbgoode]

70. Really. . .had he made promises to all of the protesting groups?

I don't believe this bullshit for a second. He was wsell aware of the demonstrations by the GLBT community. He was also well-aware of the daily questions asked of his press secretary about DADT, DOMA and Supreme Court decision in California.

[Occam Bandage]

77. He has promised to end the war in Iraq, to close Gitmo, to end torture, to increase transparency,

to call the Armenian genocide a genocide, etc., etc., etc. Surely you are not so self-absorbed as to think that gays are the only group to whom Obama has ever made any promises.

And yes, Code Pink and ANSWER, two anti-war groups, were there, too.

[earth mom]

82. EXACTLY. And he did it that way to brush it all off as unimportant. A let them eat cake moment

at a 30K a plate fundraiser.

And exactly WHY is he fundraising just months into office when there is so much work and "change" to be done?

[ColbertWatcher]

85. It was probably a scheduling thing. Who knows.

Nevertheless, I agree; it was definitely a "let them eat cake" moment.

[earth mom]

101. Sounds like he's worried about re-election. And he should be. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

104. The fundraiser in Beverly Hills was for the DNC.

Maybe he's doing this to help out Tim Kaine?

[cali]

91. As I understand it, he was being protested by several groups

but I agree that coming on the heels of the prop 8 SC decision, he had to know that there were GLBT groups protesting, and that the comment is a little flip.

[ruggerson]

5. I think people expected he would at the very least comment on Prop 8

since it was after all at the Beverly HIlton in front of a very pro gay crowd and there were demonstrators outside the hotel.

I don't have a problem myself with what he said. I don't think it was offensive at all.

I do have a problem that the most important civil rights occurences of the last thirty years are happening all around him and he hasn't uttered a word, other than an offhand joke at a correspondent's dinner.

[bigtree]

9. that's the nub of it

He's obviously smart enough to KNOW what the protests were about. It would have been nice to have him say something substantive, rather than make a wisecrack at their expense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. This.

:thumbsup:

[Uzybone]

26. Pretty sensible position

[Occam Bandage]

37. I completely agree with you that his silence on gay rights is enormously problematic.

I think it's clear from many of the posts in this thread that his studied avoidance of gay rights, and not anything he said at the dinner, is the actual problem here.

[tekisui]

6. Nothing really offensive,

but not funny and rather dismissive of legitimate protests. I think he was too cute by half on this one. He would have been better off not mentioning the protesters instead of cracking a joke about them. Not a big deal, but not helpful either.

[Thickasabrick]

7. The events were well publicized. He knew exactly what they

were protesting. I knew and I'm not even gay. He has people to keep him up to date with this shit.

The main issues were DADT and his lack of support to date to repeal completely the Defense of Marriage Act.

His behavior was heartless and cruel especially in light of the ruling on Tuesday.

[Occam Bandage]

29. But there are many people upset about many things. How should he have known

they were protesting DADT, and not protesting the war? I'm not sure the President follows the protest schedule. He has actual work to do.

[Thickasabrick]

40. Lame....he was in California. The ruling happened this week. The majority of

the protests in THAT state THIS week have been primarily focused on these issues. He is not stupid and neither are his people. Pretending he is stupid or oblivious to his surroundings is ludicrous.

[Occam Bandage]

52. The majority of the protests in that state in this week, yes.

Which is not to say every single one of those protests; it seems there was an Armenian-American protest going on at the same time. And, what's more, I highly doubt he keeps tabs on what is most frequently protested in which state each week. Like I said, he has actual work to do.

Protesting is entirely ineffective at getting the attention of elected officials, and the higher up the official, the less effective the protests are. Many of these complaints seem to be predicated in the conceit that politicians actually care when people decide to stand around and wave signs for half an hour.

[kevinbgoode]

49. Unbelieveable.

This is the same Administration that re-edited its own web site within a day of facing wide criticism about changes made to its wording of policies toward the gay community. This is the same Administration which cannot present a coherent answer on a DAILY basis to simple questions at a DAILY press conference about gay issues - specifically, DADT.

[Occam Bandage]

53. It's true that this administration has been apathetic on gay rights.

No argument here.

[BlooInBloo]

8. There's nothing to get. It's just People Who Hate Obama making shit up....

Don't even pretend like they're sincere. They know they're making shit up.

[bigtree]

11. the old standby defense: 'They hate the president'

It's an echo, really, from the last administration's defenses against criticism.

But, of course, only defenders of the president are really sincere in how they define his statements and actions.

[BlooInBloo]

13. blahblahblah.. Obama is like bush... Obama supporters are like bush supporters... blahblahblah.

[bigtree]

15. blahblahblah.. Obama is god . . . Obama critics are freepers looking to make trouble

. . . blahblahblah, yourself.

[ColbertWatcher]

47. LOL! This is fun! blahblahblah.. human nature applies to everyone but me! LOL! n/t

[ProSense]

14. Just caught up on everything. This is BS outrage.

People who are never going to give Obama any slack being encouraged by those who try to appear objective.

Doesn't matter, proof is in the pudding. More to come...

[bigtree]

16. It's usually BS outrage

. . . until it's you and your concerns outside protesting.

[ProSense]

17. Stop the distortion. n/t

[bigtree]

18. see you

. . . at the point where your ox is the one being gored.

[ProSense]

22. When you can distinquish between

calling the outrage over distorting a comment BS and calling the protest BS, maybe.

[Posteritatis]

75. No, no, see, it's BS outrage unless it's *my* concerns

Seriously though, if anything stuff like this is a reminder of how subjective some of our We Are All Outraged About _____ Aren't We Really Please? mindsets can get - and I certainly don't exclude myself from that!

[havocmom]

25. The matter at hand is an action taken by the voters of Calif, then the courts

There is this thing about branches of government. Do we really want another imperial pResident who thinks his voice IS the government, the country? Do we really think we can fuss and he will step in (and overstep his position's authority) and give us everything we want? Are we that eager to give up the sane formula for government we are finally putting back to work?

Hey, the task at hand really is not in his hands at this point. If he steps in (and over steps his position's authority)the fear mongering wingers get more fuel for their fight, more press coverage for their fight to deny rights to others, for their campaign coffers.

Now, if we get off his ass long enough to get ON the asses on the Hill and hammer them until they get rid or DOMA, then it IS in his hands to sign or answer to us.

His job is not to make all our dreams come true. In a democracy, that job belongs to We The People.

Ioo had a great post Tuesday that certainly helped my depression re that court decision. The task is ours and the method is to pressure our elected reps on the Hill to shit-can that reprehensible DOMA so any consenting adults can be married in states that allow it and be assured their marriages would have to be recognized by all states. Makes a lot of sense and is certainly more effective than wringing our hands that Obama did not react to protesters the way we want.

We won't have a better, more liberal, nation until we get over this notion that one person can fix everything. We finally have a leader who respects the law and acknowledges the limits each branch of government works within. How about we help him by doing our share instead of feeling let down that he didn't do his job AND ours?

I agree with you. The outrage is BS.

[HughMoran]

42. You hate him

I read your posts daily - you hate Obama. Period.

[kevinbgoode]

50. you mean...President "separate but equal" Obama?

[Eric J in MN]

20. I'm not sure if Obama was telling a true story or shaping the story to make a point....

...but if Obama really heard a protest and didn't bother to ask a staffer what it was about, I find that strange.

Update: Apparently, they were protesting California's Prop 8 which stopped the state from recognizing more gay-marriages.
http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/

[ColbertWatcher]

21. The tone.

He's the president and he dismissed legitimate protests with a flippant remark.

He made the remark after having been driven by them protesters and entering the Beverly Hills Hilton. There is no indication of how much time passed between the time his car passed them on the street and when he delivered his remark. Yet, there didn't seem to be any indication that he showed any intellectual curiousity about who was in the "group" that he could only hear "vaguely" (there was only one?), what they were protesting and what promises they were talking about.

He has a staff. I can't believe that he didn't bother to ask anyone on his staff to take note of who those people were and what they wanted.

Did he think they were teabaggers? Or, worse, Birthers!?

One more thing, it's interesting that he characterized the sight of people protesting as "nice," but it's insulting that he didn't care enough to find out what promise they said he wasn't keeping.

Maybe the protesters should have hired lobbyists to get to that table single-payer can't get to and discuss their concerns in an air-conditioned room.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Okay. So the offense is that he didn't dispatch a staffer to write down the protesters' grievances.

Do you expect him to do that anytime anyone protests anywhere? I certainly don't. You bring up teabaggers and birthers; should the President have dispatched an aide to each of their protests to ask them what they were upset about?

Your post does bring up a question in my mind. Could it be that people were so upset by this because it revealed just how insignificant of an impact protests actually have?

[ColbertWatcher]

43. No, the tone.

Now that we have a President who can pronounce "nuclear," we can finally raise expectations for the man holding the office. If anyone else made that exact same comment it probably wouldn't have deserved more consideration.

But, as I've said a few times today, he's President. He is held to a higher standard. He can't joke around like a dumbass cowboy. He made a flippant comment a while back about Nancy Reagan and apologized. He's big enough that he can apologize for this comment as well.

Most importantly, he didn't have to say anything. That's why I asked about the staff. He's behind the wall of security, his aides are more anonymous, but that doesn't mean they should be "dispatched". They can peak out of a window or research the internet to find out something about the guy who peaked their bosses' curiosity. How can he mention the "Obama keep your promise" protester yesterday, but not one thing today? Is it because he didn't care to find out? Obviously, it got his attention. I find it hard to believe he wasn't intellectually curious enough to ask an aide for more information.

Could it be that people were so upset by this because it revealed just how insignificant of an impact protests actually have?

Maybe, until he rescinds that whole "First Amendment Zone" shit.

Although, it could mean that even though we supported him with our votes and campaign contributions, we merit the same consideration now as birthers and teabaggers do.

But, it could just as well mean that all us protesters are all beneath the lobbyists.

Remember, they're the people at the table designing healthcare "reform" while single-payer advocates scream at him from across the street and receive a "nice" pat on the head for our troubles.

[Occam Bandage]

51. It's true that all protesters are beneath the lobbyists.

With the possible exception of the Civil Rights movement, the history of American protesting is generally a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Perhaps part of the offense is in the realization that even Barack Obama does not particularly concern himself with who is deciding to wave a sign around and chant slogans today. It is not a shocking realization to me; I am sure that as President he encounters many, many protests of varying sizes, ranging from the fringe on the right to the fringe on the left (though by no means limited to the fringes), and familiarity does tend to breed apathy. I assumed that he would react much as I would in the situation: to take a detached interest from time to time, but to consider issue polling, budget forecasts, impact analyses, internal debates, and adviser briefings when building policy. As such, my initial reaction as regards tone was actually positive; the fact that he even noticed the protesters at all, and considered them favorably, was far more than I would honestly expect from anyone in his position. Perhaps to someone who believed the President took a personal interest in any particular group, or to someone who was under the impression that huddling together and shouting slogans was an effective and powerful way of getting someone's attention, then his remark would be a cold splash of water.

Still, I don't think that his "intellectual incuriosity" in not taking a particular interest in this particular protest is the problem, because that is not (in my eyes) an entirely reasonable foundation for a deep level of disappointment. It should be little more offensive than if the President were to say, "I saw there was a White Sox game on the TV, but I didn't catch the score."

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I've come to the conclusion now that the offense is not in what he has said, but in that what he has said has reminded people of other things they are angry about. His inaction on GLBT rights, for many. His political compromises (seen as a 'failure to listen to the base'), for others. And, for a vocal but insignificant few, his very existence--but those with legitimate concern are lumped in with those jackasses too often, I think.

[ColbertWatcher]

56. "It's true that all protesters are beneath the lobbyists." Exactly.

Which is why as President he didn't have to say anything.

That he chose say something--and that something in particular--shows a disregard for either the people protesting or their cause.

I think I now know why most Presidents ignore protesters.

Regardless how you feel about him personally, the President should apologize for the flippant remarks he made about the protesters.

He did it for Nancy Reagan, he can do it for the unwashed anonymous group in Los Angeles.

[Occam Bandage]

58. It's not so much a disregard for the people protesting as a lack of particular regard.

Though this may be an irreconcilable difference, I do not believe the President owes it to anyone with a Facebook account, some cardboard, and a can of spray paint to personally investigate their grievances, and I do not believe that admitting he did not investigate the protest (in the service of a story culminating in the statement that he likes protesters who demand he keep his promises, no less) is such a breach of the public trust that he must publicly apologize for doing so.

[ColbertWatcher]

65. See! That's exactly the tone! It's a false equivalence that dismisses genuine concerns.

Well done!

[Occam Bandage]

68. Yes. Most things are dismissed, valid and otherwise. Protesting doesn't work. There we go. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

72. I accept your apology! n/t

[Occam Bandage]

78. I'm not sure how that's an apology, but I'm glad you're happy.

[ColbertWatcher]

84. I knew that you would be! n/t

[donheld]

62. bullshit

[MiniMe]

23. He never made a promise about gay marriage, so I don't get the offense either

I think he wants DADT repealed, but by congress so the next President can't reverse it. I don't think he is against gay marriage, but it isn't something he will work for either.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. Here's a clue ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5739038&mesg_id=5739038

[Occam Bandage]

31. He did promise to repeal DADT, and DOMA. He hasn't made any effort to push for either.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to demand he make some effort to keep his promises.

[Thickasabrick]

41. Bingo. n/t

[seabeyond]

27. there isnt any but there are posters working hard to create a problem. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Okay, I'll play.

To people rich enough that they could spend $15,000+ per plate for their nightly meal, and who probably ponied up tens if not hundreds of thousands more while toadying up to one of their intellectual heroes, Obama says:

"There were some protesters out there... I think there was a group of them." Nothing like minimizing the size of a group of people with a legitimate axe to grind, huh? That's akin to Fucks News saying the Million Man March had a large group of participants. By the very admission of his apologizers here, there were NUMEROUS groups.

"I could hear them--vaguely". My interpretation of that is "They may have had something important to say, but I didn't have time to slow down to hear what it was. After all, YOU people were waiting for me in here and I can't be bothered with a group of protesters when there's so much money waiting for me inside. I have more fun taking checks from your outstretched fists than listening to a group of dissatisfied protesters anyway. I could have sent a representative out to jot down what their beef was, but... nah".

"But one of them started to chant 'Obama, keep your promise' and I thought, that's fair". Fair? It's only "fair" to expect him to keep his promises? I DEMAND that he keep his promises (cue the crowd that apologizes for him by saying "he said what he needed to say to get elected. You'd rather have had McCain, I suppose?"). That he thinks it's "fair" for people to expect him to do so is very telling to me.

"I don't know which promise he was talking about." I've seen DU'ers post today that they could hear the man's accent, and knew he was Armenian. I don't know how that's true, but let's play with that one for a moment, shall we? How many promises did he make to the Armenians?

Yes, I parsed his words. I've seen plenty of people ridiculed today for doing just that. BUT, when we're talking about a man with an intellect such as his, his words NEED to be parsed. I fully expect him to say things that, by omitting certain phrases, such as "unless something more important than providing civil rights for ALL my countrymen comes up" mollify those with the highest expectations of him as President.

Have you ever been in a position to write performance evaluations? I have. Took classes to learn how. Doublespeak it's called. "Works well with little supervision" means "must be supervised", etc. You're supposed to be able to have someone leave your office after reading their evaluation and be happy, while those management people in the know read it and understand what you REALLY mean. I bet Obama could write a performance eval that totally trashes someone, while in their eyes, he's just said they wear a thorn crown and slippers.

I'm the parent of a gay teenager, and I'm beginning to become very disillusioned. If at the end of his first term, DADT and DOMA aren't repealed, he shall not get my vote again, and I'll work toward replacing him with a Democrat that WILL use the bully pulpit to make it happen, rather than spend their time giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the people who breathe the same rarified air that he does.

You asked where the offense was. That's where it is for me.

[Occam Bandage]

32. I think if you are offended that Obama said it is fair for people to chant "keep your promise,"

then you are looking for offense. It is fair, yes. He did not say it was "only" fair. This is not a SCOTUS opinion, in which each word must be analyzed in an attempt to determine how far and no further the opinion extends.

Your interpretations are all intensely skewed along similar lines, and each has a similar theme: "sure, what he said was both accurate and utterly inoffensive, but I bet he had a secret offensive meaning. Your evidence is never anything more than 'he could have worded this conversational anecdote in a more precise, stilted manner.' In a strange reversal of the norm, it takes offensive intent as the base assumption, and requires that Obama go out of his way to assure you that no offense could possibly be intended.

I agree with you that Obama should push Congress to repeal DADT and DOMA. That isn't the issue at stake here. The issue is whether it is offensive that Obama said that he liked it when people demanded he keep his promises.

[ColbertWatcher]

33. Well said. "highest expectations of him as President."

It's nice to be able to finally raise the expectations for the man person in the White House.

[rucky]

35. I have two questions:

Why did he bring that up in his speech?

Why are you bringing it up now?

Actually three:

How do gay people put up with this shit?

[Occam Bandage]

36. 1. To offend gay people.

2. To offend gay people.
3. By posting on DU.

Those are the answers you're aiming for, yes?

[rucky]

38. Why are you going out of your way to be dismissive?

same question can be asked of Obama today

[Occam Bandage]

39. It depends on what's being dismissed.

Your questions were either silly or rhetorical. Obviously I created the thread because I was curious as to what the offense was, and I think it's likely that Obama told that anecdote because he found it a pithy slice-of-life-as-President. The third question was clearly rhetorical. Dismissing a post consisting of nothing but questions that were either asinine or rhetorical is valid, because the questions weren't meant to be seriously answered. The point wasn't the answer, the point was the asking.

As for "asking the same question of Obama today?" I think that nothing Obama said can be seen as dismissive, when viewed by itself. It can only be seen as dismissive if you already assume Obama has a dismissive mindset as a result of Obama's other actions (or, more precisely, inactions) on gay rights. But then it still isn't today's actions that are the problem: it is the earlier inactions that are the source of the anger. People aren't upset about what he has said per se; they're upset because what he said reminded him of what he hasn't said and what he hasn't done. The offense is not what Obama has done today; it is that what Obama has done today reminded people of what Obama has not done earlier, and that refreshed their anger at his shameful inaction on GLBT rights. Of course, people generally aren't self-aware enough to analyze causation in their own feelings (and I certainly am not exempting myself), so we tend to direct our anger at an action that reminds us of why we are angry instead of the action that has made us angry. Anyone who has been in a relationship understands how that can happen.

So I suppose I can say that this thread has served its purpose entirely: I now understand the anger, and I understand that it is rooted in a valid place, even if I find its current manifestation a bit illogical.

[rucky]

44. Fair 'nuff.

It's all a matter of which perspective you're viewing the scenario from. I don't think there was any ill intent, but given the context, it was a tone-deaf response to an already touchy situation.

I don't think passion and logic are in conflict here. A time for Obama to address the gay community is inevitable, and even if he really didn't know why the protestors were there - you bet he does now.

[HughMoran]

46. Who said this had anything to do with gay people?

The protester was an Armenian asking about promises to Armenians.

People are bringing it up because it was misconstrued and misquoted by so many here as some sort of gigantic offense.

[kevinbgoode]

45. Wow...the president had no idea what had happened in California?

There were no protest signs he could read? No briefings on a widely-publicized protest in the immediate aftermath of a heated and controversial court decision?

If President "separate but equal" Obama's Administration is THAT clueless, it's no wonder that he has no idea which promise he hasn't kept.

But hey - at least his daughters got their puppy. And a few more servicemembers careers are sacrificed because he can't keep his promise to them.

[Occam Bandage]

54. There were also protests about his treatment of Armenia going on at the same time.

Armenian-American groups are angrily claiming he was referring to an Armenian-American. Can you refute their claims?

[ColbertWatcher]

57. Does it really matter which group of protesters he was dismissing?

You have to know how hard it is for regular people to get the President's attention.

Perhaps all the protesters were not trying to get the President's attention so much as the media's? Which they hoped might get them donations which they could use to eventually get the President's attention?

The issue isn't which group(s) was the butt of his joke, but why he hasn't apologized for it yet.

I expect nothing less from this President.

[Occam Bandage]

60. That's a fair argument but an unrelated one.

The argument to which I was replying is that Obama knew they were gay-rights advocates, and he was purposefully insulting them by pretending he didn't know who they were. Your argument is that Obama did not care to know who the protesters were.

I don't think "I don't know which promise that he was talking about. But I thought to myself, you know, I like that" is turning the protesters into the "butt of a joke." He's just saying that he didn't know what they were protesting, but he appreciated the sentiment in that that people were trying to hold him to his promises. It's mildly humorous, but in a gentle way, and directed at Obama rather than the protesters. The humor, of course, stems from the fact that he unexpectedly approves of a protest aimed at him, and that he unexpectedly approves of a protest without really knowing what it's about. (It's sort of an inverse of the Groucho Marx number from Horse Feathers, 'whatever it is, I'm against it.') It's a strange situation, and people laugh in recognition of both its reasonable and seemingly unreasonable nature.

While I hate to belabor a point, and certainly do not want to get into the "what you're really saying" game, it does seem to me that your problem is not actually with what he said, but rather with the fact that what he said revealed that Obama does not particularly care about who is protesting him, and that reminds you of the infuriating fact that the public is still generally powerless to influence its leaders in any active way.

[HughMoran]

61. Very good post

You make very cogent arguments in a calm and clear manner - I'm jealous. :)

[kevinbgoode]

63. Were the Armenian-American protests in the newspaper beforehand?

Did the President's press secretary field questions about their grievances for the past two weeks in the White House? Were there simulataneous demonstrations in 92 American cities the day before?

Did the President make campaign promises to the Armenian-Americans?

It is very difficult to believe that the President was completely unaware of a widely publicized demonstration by GLBT groups, particularly when his press secretary is DAILY asked about his policies toward that community, a major court case was decided the day before, and there were 92 demonstrations across America.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Obama never claimed he was unaware of gay-rights protests.

He claimed he didn't know what a particular group of people was protesting. Given that many, many people protest him for many, many things, it is not unreasonable for him to not assume that it was a gay-rights advocate he heard.

The lack of publicity for Armenian-Americans has nothing to do with anything. Obama is certainly aware of Armenian-American issues, given that he promised to declare the Turkish genocide of Armenians a genocide (and has yet to do so), and has commented on the issue since taking office, with nothing but a vague "my opinions have not changed" or something to that effect. And Armenian-Americans were protesting that day. People have also recently protested him over Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gitmo closing, and torture from the left, and in each case demanded promise-keeping.

You seem to be acting as if Obama was feigning ignorance of the gay-rights movement in general. That is entirely unsupported by any statement he has yet made. It seems you are arguing more about his general disappointing lack of concern for gay rights, which is a valid concern (I think the most valid of all the complaints leveled at Obama), but which isn't really related to the comment we're talking about.

[kevinbgoode]

71. Why would he be aware of those issues and a planned demonstration?

Is there some reason why he would expect them to demonstrate at that event?

Your argument has no legs.

[Occam Bandage]

79. Because he isn't a moron.

Unlike you, he is aware that there are many issue groups out there, all of whom frequently stage protests. Given that there were protests other than gay-rights ones meeting him, your position that he should have assumed all protesters are gays is absolutely nonsense. Gays were there. So were Armenians. So was Code Pink. So was ANSWER.

[ColbertWatcher]

74. Probably not.

And now, because of the dismissive comments made by THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA whatever they had to say can be dismissed by others.

As far as his campaign promises, I believe he promised he would

"... recognize the Armenian Genocide."

--PolitiFact.com

So far, he can't recognize Armenian-American citizens.

[ColbertWatcher]

73. No, my argument is that it doesn't matter who he insulted; he needs to apologize.

He's the president.

[Occam Bandage]

80. And my argument is that he did not insult them, for reasons in the post you replied to. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

83. A President doesn't insult people; he should apologize. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Great RemarksOn His Part And A Great Testament To His Character.

Continues to make me thankful that he's President, and not some of the ignorant knee jerk morons we find floating around these boards...

[kid a]

69. Absolutely NOTHING.

[sam kane]

76. He is joking about their protest. Maybe it wasn't a good joke. nt.

[WI_DEM]

81. At worst it was a stupid joke--there were lots of protestors not only re: gay marriage but other

issues as well.

[ColbertWatcher]

90. Exactly. He makes dumb jokes all the time.

But, if you consider this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5741220&mesg_id=5741220 ) he simply shouldn't have commented on those unwashed protesters outside the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel.

Now, he should apologize.

[HamdenRice]

86. Nothing to get. Remarks were taken out of context. He was being self deprecating. End of story nt

[Bluenorthwest]

89. I offer that jokes are tricky stuff

for non professionals, and that the President has yet to master the altered dynamics that come from being no longer the underdog, but the top dog. He holds the highest status on Earth. Status is a huge element of humor. I will agree with you that he might have been attempting to be self deprecating, which is his practice, he has not learned how difficult it is to be self deprecating in his position. Frankly, I don't think he should ad lib jokes much. He misses his mark, not because he's not funny or not well intentioned, but because it is hard to be funny in his position without risking all sorts of confusions, and in fact without showing more of your actual self than you really want to show. I found the comment last night to be kind of sad, really. And about himself more than about others. But I can also fully see why some would take offense, and I very much think other comments would have served him much better on many levels.
Humor is a danger zone for him until he leans how to wield it as a figure of authority and a focal point of people's hopes.

[ColbertWatcher]

94. Exactly. Thank you. n/t

[HamdenRice]

95. Wow. Imagine a political world in which politicians never attempted humor.

That would be grim.

I think the various meanings and alleged meanings of the joke have now been thoroughly debunked, based on video tape, and the issue laid to rest.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Note, oh person of words

that I did not suggest that politicians never attempt humor. I suggest that this particular person needs to use ad libs with great care until he gains his stage feet as the most powerful man in the world.
It is not exactly rocket science. It is not a world of mystery. There is no reason for his remarks not to score points in the telling, and no reason for them to even have the appearance of any slight to any one, and the fact is, when the man you trying to reach via protest says he is not reached, that is by very nature a slight. The joke in question did not pay off, and in its place could have been something funny that also spoke a positive and clear message. And any p.r. person worth a damn could have predicted that Obama facing his first organized protest on a hot news day might want to be on the ready with the verbiage. They should have framed that event, not muddled it. It could be predicted, and so he should have been ready to win the moment. In doing so he also could have 'addressed Prop 8' in a pleasing manner without actually addressing anything specific. Instead of many unhappy people, he could have scored major points with everyone, and why the hell not do that? Because learning a skill is beneath him?
The lost potential breaks my heart. As much as the lousy punch line does not crack my face. A joke is a terrible thing to waste.

[HamdenRice]

97. He is already a skilled humorist

in most Americans' minds.

The comment was not a slight of anyone, nor can it reasonably be perceived to be a slight of anyone, once the full comment is heard.

It was a humorous way for him to ask his constituents to remind him of his promises. As such, it worked.

Any other interpretations have now been laid to rest, thanks to the video tape and full transcript.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. I agree that he has shown a great sense of humor

which is why I don't think it would be hard for him to sharpen that element of his game for his new position. Note that 'reasonably' has nothing to do with how things will be perceived, or at least to assume reason from a mass media audience is just not a wise move. If all of this was laid to rest, we'd not still be talking about it. If the joke had really worked, we'd have all been talking about how funny and skilled his comments had been. How he'd taken the Prop 8 heat off of himself while also throwing a bone and making a funny comment.
I'm saying with a tad of concentration and maybe a phone call or two, he'd be far better off with the funny. It is really not such a big deal what I'm saying here.

[ColbertWatcher]

100. "The comment was not a slight of anyone" No, it was ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5741220&mesg_id=5741220

[ColbertWatcher]

99. "he should have been ready to win the moment." Once again, I am in agreement with you. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. Remember the teabaggers?

Teabaggers protested Obama over raising taxes, which Obama didn't do?

And then Obama made a joke about them and they got all upset?

Yeah, same thing. Exact same thing.

[ColbertWatcher]

92. Um, not the exact same thing. None of the LA protesters accused him of doing something he didn't do.

Also, if you take this into consideration is was not something the President should have been joking about.

It was more like when he made a remark about Nancy Reagan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/

[dem mba]

88. I was in DC on vacation a while back

and decided to go with some friends to the Mall. There were some protests and a pro-marijuana march so we said what the hey and marched along. By the end of our little parade, I had seen anti-Israel, anti-US, and all sorts of outrageous effigies, fake blood, and what have you - known of which truly represented my views on those issues.

There were maybe 10-12 different organizations protesting their views, as they should, but they were most certainly not there for the so-called "pro-marijuana" March (which was preplanned and had flyers out and all that).

Point being, a cacophony of voices gets created and Obama was merely musing on that fact. He was not ripping on anyone.

[ColbertWatcher]

93. Um, not really.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5741220&mesg_id=5741220

[t0dd]

102. Yeah, I'm sure he missed all the news coverage the day before about prop 8 being upheld

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[smalll]

103. PROTESTERS!

PROTESTERS! SOTOMAYOR!

"protestors?" "Sotomayer?" -- just WRONG!

[Time for change]

105. In my opinion

the addition of "But I thought to myself, you know, I like that" gives a different interpretation to this than the original statement I heard, which left off the ending part. With that, I don't see how it can be considered offensive -- quite the contrary.

I agree with your interpretation.

[ColbertWatcher]

106. It is offensive because the President of the United States of America ...

... made a crack about protesters, tried to brush it off, then used his allotment of apologies on the so-called "Sotomayor complaint" the GOP manufactured.

He's the president, the legitimate concerns of the citizens shouldn't be the butt of his jokes.

He can apologize; he did it for Nancy Reagan.

[ncteechur]

107. absolutely nothing