Do you think Obama is stupid, not in the know, or other (I vote other)

[The Straight Story]

I see folks around the web commenting on what Obama said the other night:

"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 we have several scenarios:
1. He had no clue which promise they were talking about

2. He has people keep him up on current issues, and watches the news, and knew what went down on prop 8 the other day, and further realized he would be in CA and that there were people upset about it.

3. He knew, but was making light of the whole thing

4. His advisers don't follow the news, the heartbeat of issues as they relate to daily news items, and never bothered to mention to him about possible protests and what most likely they would be about.

5..... Other, Insert your scenario here

I'll take 5, other. He knew firstly, secondly he would be smart enough to know someone on the right would not be asking him to keep any promise, he is up on current events and knows how important the issue is - especially in CA that day, he was self aware that he had not done much when it came to gay rights, and that there were going to be people upset with him about it ---- And he simply decided to dodge the issue by making a glancing remark about what the protester said instead of engaging the issue head on.

He is playing it safe, keeping things on the status quo, and keeping powder dry and trying to build political capital with those he really fears (it is not an election year, so the people with the power now are the big boy lobbyists and corporate folks with the money - We offer him nothing now because we are not voting).

Simply put, he has been and is doing the wrong thing on the issue of gay rights.

What can he do you ask?

He is the President. When he talks, folks listen. Elucidate his position, make it known he backs gay marriage and repeal of don't ask don't tell, etc, and come out swinging for the rights of people who have suffered in ways similar to other minorities in the past.

I'll take Obama any day over a rw person, but that does not mean I think he is always right or that I will give him a pass. I bitched a blue streak about bush and his decisions over the years, and I don't care who is in power or what party they lay claim to. When you are wrong, I am going vent about it and tell you I think you are wrong.

He has a lot on his plate, a ton of issues hitting him every day, and I am sure the pressure and stress of being the President are immense so I will cut him some slack.

But really - a 5 minute speech, or even 2 minutes, would do a lot to advance the rights of our gay brothers and sisters out there.

It would do a lot more than me posting about it here on DU.

And right now, we have momentum.

Talked to a friend of mine at work today. A lutheran, sometimes rw on issues, and he said he cannot for the life of him understand why anyone should care if gays could marry, that they should be able to, and it is no one else's business.

So many now are for it. He may not be able to wave a magic wand and make prop 8 go away - but at least he could say something in support of our friends.

[Dramarama]

1. I think he made an

awkward comment that he would like to take back. only time will tell. Definitely not stupid

[MADem]

2. There were anti-war protesters, Equality protesters, Armenian genocide protesters,

and who knows who else protesting outside that venue.

He's made promises that relate to all of those issues--and other issues, as well.

[The Straight Story]

3. I could have made promises to all those groups as well

But I would certainly take it to mean one thing on that one day.

A week from now, I could see it. That day? No matter what they meant I would have taken it to mean what most others would have taken it to mean.

[MADem]

5. There were TWO anti-war groups out there. The people from those organizations

could mirror your complaint. The Armenians could say that they expected something, too, since they showed up. The "I Need Health Care NOW" group could say they deserve to be first, since sick people could die.

Where you stand, as always, depends on where you sit. Everyone who has a single overarching concern that genuinely means the world to them thinks that they deserve to be first in line.

I think Obama acknowledged the protesters and their concerns, without getting down in the weeds, because that's not what he was there to do.

You don't separate donating Dems from their money by focusing on people who have beefs with the party. You focus on the positive--on the number of seats gained, on the initiatives that have been accomplished, on the Happy-Glad Talk. You fire people up to open their wallets, get on the bandwagon, and encourage their friends to do the same. That's what happens at a fundraiser--it's a load of Hope, Change, Believe, designed to inspire and elevate. There's also, for thirty grand each, some decent entertainment and light humor, as well as good chow. It's just not a time for policy-wonking, wrestling with challenging issues, or getting down into those difficult weeds.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I realize he left the Equality protesters unsatisfied--but really, if they expected more, they shouldn't have. It's not like he campaigned as a Friend of Harvey Milk, after all. His own commentary during the course of the campaign gives people a pretty good clue about how he intends to approach this issue. He says "fierce advocate for equal rights" on the one hand, but he says "no marriage" on the other. And he also has said "Let the states take the lead" as well.

I know that makes people mad, that he has taken that stance and has stood back from this issue. And I'll probably catch shit for daring to state the fucking obvious--but that IS where the guy is, and what he has said. It's a bit late to get mad at him--the time to call him out was well before he'd locked up the nomination.

[The Straight Story]

10. Just seemed like common sense to me

Prop 8 upheld, he is there in CA....Hell maybe I am wrong, but I think most people would put 2 and 2 together and even if wrong would assume they were referencing the gay marriage issue.

Just seems an easy out to say 'I have no idea what you are talking about'. He could have just as easily have said 'Not sure which promise they were talking about, but given the recent decision here on prop 8...'

[MADem]

14. Like I said, I think his overarching agenda that evening was to do what he was there to do

...which was stroke the hell out of those facelifted, fake-tanned, boob and ball lift, hairplugs, tummy-tucked, varicose vein stripped, and ass-lifted rich people who just love to swoon and giggle at being close to power. He wanted to make them feel IMPORTANT, so they'd give the party thirty grand next year, and the year after, and the year after, AND donate the max to individual campaigns and PACs as well.

He didn't want to bring up any issues that could be construed as divisive--he wanted to do the Life Of Brian routine (Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life).

You go into those things with a happy tap dance, a barrel of inspiration, and if you say anything that's negative or challenging at all, you talk about how the REPUBLICANS are striving to take away choice or turn us into a fortress or what-have-you. You don't talk about party divisions--they just don't make the cash register sing.

I also think, from the standpoint of a former lecturer in constitutional law, he doesn't like the idea of the FEDERAL government interfering in STATE issues--and the President, even making an offhand remark about a state court issue, would be construed (and whined about by the GOP) as doing just that. After all, we sure wouldn't have liked it if George Bush's Presidency had been able to, say, overturn marriage equality in Massachusetts, using his position as President to advocate it from his bully pulpit.

I just don't see, as a matter of precedent, people being too happy about the President involving himself in a state matter--and that IS where Prop 8 is right now. Even the court decision admitted that the policy of denying Equality to all may not be "sound" but that the citizens should be able to weigh in on it--it was really a very narrow ruling (and that narrow ruling, to my mind, seems to lead to the obvious--that this should be revisited via referendum ASAP).

I do not blame him for not touching the subject or even referencing it specifically--that whole "states' rights" business is certainly a two-edged sword. Fine when Obama does it, and not-so-fine when Bush does?

Can't have it both ways.

[The Straight Story]

17. A fund raiser in generally liberal CA

To a liberal audience? He would have got a standing O from those folks.

And I don't see gay marriage as a party division, especially in CA.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. The biggest donors in the room:

David Geffen and his business partners. Divisive? That is hilarious.

[MADem]

29. States' Rights. That's the crux of the matter.

And don't assume that all of those rich movie people are all that liberal on EVERY issue. These are the people who worshipped the personage of Bill Clinton--whose view on this subject was not "Marry 'em all now!" either. Plenty of people say "Sure, whatever," when asked about their level of support for Equality, but they're not going to make that their Number One Priority if it doesn't apply to them. If they perceive that Obama heading down that road will weaken him in other areas and perhaps strengthen the GOP, they are going to back away from that subject. That's just fact--no messenger shooting. I know GALLUP is not without controversy, but Pam's House Blend put up a poll (edit--poll graph) the other day that says that this issue is getting a bit wobbly of late. It likely will surge again eventually, but it's hit a plateau at the moment.

You are glossing over my central, legal and most important point--would you have wanted to see George Bush (whose fundraising speeches were often covered live on TV) giving a talk to a bunch of nabobs about how the view of his federal administration was that Equality in Massachusetts should be overturned? And then listened to the talking heads on TV chew those words over and over and over again?

Presidents need to stay the hell out of state issues, for their own political health. They also need to step back from commenting on ongoing judicial issues, because they nominate the judges for appointment, and can't be seen as trying to influence a co-equal branch of government.

Obama's the lawyer, not me. He's the constitutional law scholar, too. I will wager that this background influences the things he chooses to discuss--or not discuss.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Here is exactly what he said when asking for our votes.

This is what he said:
" I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." – Barack Obama, February 2008

Leadership is what he said he would provide. These are his words, free of clever lines about being a 'Friend of Harvey Milk' or any of the stuff that graces your routines here. These are the words of a man who claims to honor his word, words he spoke by choice. THAT is what HE said. Not what you present.

[MADem]

30. Do you see "marriage rights" in those quotes? Do you? I don't.

He can support the repeal of DOMA till the cows come home, but he's never going to cast a vote on it ever again--unless he returns to the Senate in four to eight years and it's still on the books. Leadership? What kind of "leadership" is he going to cough up?

"Gee, Harry Reid....think we can address that Equality issue now? Have ya done a head count? How's it looking? Ewwwww--not too many Blue Dog voters having the Equality spirit there, eh?....OK, not time yet." Or "Say, Nancy P, where's that DADT repeal bill, how is that coming along? Oh--in COMMITTEE, you say? How many cobwebs have grown over that thing to date? We're not gonna be seeing that thing this year, are we?" He can "lead" till the cows come home, too, but Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government. And he is not going to twist arms and make congresspeople vote in ways that will insure that they lose their seats to GOP challengers.

And he's also not going to--like it or not--give the GOP any "States' Rights" ammo from a bully pulpit.

Obama parsed brilliantly during the primaries. I noticed it when he was doing it. Many, apparently, did not. He said "equal rights" but he didn't say "marriage." He said "fierce advocate" and he said "let the states take the lead." And then, he hired McClurkin and Caldwell to tout for him in Carolina. He played both sides of the fence. What the hell did you expect?

And yet, you're surprised. And then, to ice your bitter cake, you get mad at ME, and call my plainspoken comments "routines." I am not Obama, the California Supreme Court, or the Congress of the United States--I am not denying anyone anything. I came right out and said I had a problem with Obama on this issue way, way, way back when during the primaries--and I was told to STFU because "he didn't really mean it." So why don't you just get off that horse. I am simply daring to state facts, and getting "the business" because I am not pretending that everything is going along swimmingly and Equality is just around the corner--because it isn't. Griping at Obama is a waste of energy, energy that could be better spent, oh, gathering signatures for a ballot initiative in California or other battleground states.

Yep--it isn't going to happen in the blink of an eye. Not this week, not this month, not this year. Nationally, we'll be lucky to see it come down the pike in 2012. And no, I'm not happy about that, but what I am is realistic. I'd be delighted to be wrong. Read that sentence again, I want you to understand my position very clearly now--I'd be delighted to be wrong.

It's going to be a hard-fought, state-by-state slog, and only when enough states have weighed in (and by enough, I mean a bunch, and they'd better be Big Population states--which is why CA is such a serious setback) will the Congress even think about doing anything with it. Even hoping that the Boies-Olsen thing will bear fruit is, as a guest law professor blogged at Pam's House Blend (where they discuss things civilly and not call people's comments "routines") a "Hail Mary pass." It's the very rare one of those that works--we remember the one that was caught in the endzone, but we never mention the 99 that fell short.

[Buzz Clik]

4. I'm thinking you're overanalyzing this. By a whole lot.

[The Straight Story]

6. Well, I am an analyst professionally

So maybe so.

But if bush had made a similar remark about something I am sure folks on DU would have about 500 threads on how jacked up he was on it :)

[sibelian]

7. FWIW I think your analysis was clear and correct.

and, actually, at the level necessary for any useful discussion of a political subject.

[Buzz Clik]

8. And how many threads have been posted on this subject so far?

Yeah, I'm thinking the overanalysis isn't just you.

And, in fairness, every move Obama makes is treated similarly. You have lots of company.

[The Straight Story]

11. No Idea how many threads:

I was busy with work all day, then playing some games with my daughter, and did not get a chance to go through all the other threads that might have been posted.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Well, you've got access to DU's search engine. It would take seconds to find out.

Not that either of us cares.

[The Straight Story]

16. So I should search for what others posted on a topic all the time before I post?

Other people replied to my thread, so why should you?

I don't decide what to post generally based on what others have posted.

I was pretty sure others had (it is DU afterall) but had my own take, limited time earlier, and tossed out my thoughts on the topic.

Not sure how any of this is really relevant though, and not sure how your comments have anything to do with my OP.

I stated how I felt on a topic, and you retorted by commenting on how many other threads there were on it. which addresses my feelings on it how?

[Buzz Clik]

25. Just go back to my original post. You're still overanalyzing and far too sensitive.

Either develop a thicker skin or give it up.

I guess you're used to most people simply swooning over your posts. Sorry to disappoint you.

[The Straight Story]

27. pfffft People rip my ass here on a regular basis

And I have a thick skin, but then it is not my rights that are being denied.

Part of being a leader is taking the hard road that may not win you a popularity contest.

Obama is our leader, the one we worked so hard to elect.

Sometimes, like on this issue, he is not leading.

If you think he is - I would like you to tell me how, instead of directing your replies to how others here feel about me.

[EFerrari]

9. Not hardly

Go do a search outside of DU before you minimize posters here.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Ok. I finished my search. Can I start minimizing posters now?

I certainly didn't minimize The Straight Story, but I now have your permission to do so, correct?

[EFerrari]

15. Here's John's post at Americablog:

Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama joked about gay protesters asking him to keep promises: "I don’t know which promise he was talking about.”
by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 5/28/2009 03:09:00 PM

Okay. Where to begin with this? First question is: Who in the West Wing is advising Obama on gay issues? Because, they're not doing a very good job at all. This is becoming a real problem.

Yesterday, as John noted, there was a protest outside of the Obama event in Los Angeles. The local CBS affiliate observed who the protesters were:

While many Obama supporters waved and cheered as his motorcade approached the hotel in Beverly Hills, some protesters were gathering to decry Tuesday's California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the voter-approved gay marriage ban. Some of them also urged Obama to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays.

Don't think for a minute that the crack Obama advance team didn't know who was out there.

Apparently, your president thought it was kinda funny. He made a joke about the protest during the event, according to the New York Times:

“One of them said, “Obama keep your promise,’ ” the president said. “I thought that’s fair. I don’t know which promise he was talking about.”

The people in the audience – who paid $30,400 per couple to attend – laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.

The audience laughed?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/obama-jokes-about-gay-protesters-asking.html

You can minimize anyone you want to at any point, of course.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Thank you.

And I'm sure you climb up my shorts anytime you feel so compelled. Sounds like a wonderful relationship.

[Stephanie]

18. What did he promise?

I remember his discussion of the topic on MTV. He was very clear that he believed same sex couples should have all the rights guaranteed to married couples under federal statute. He did not go further than that. Did he promise something else? I don't agree with that position, I support marriage equality, but I don't remember Obama promising anthing else. What was it?

[Bluenorthwest]

22. He promised leadership, he delivers silence

" I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." That was a candidate named Obama who said that, hat in hand.

[Bluebear]

24. OMG lofty in retrospect

[Stephanie]

28. Ok

I remember when he got down to detail, as in that MTV appearance, he talked about equal rights under federal statute and moving forward state by state. I agree that the quote is a promise, but when he was pressed on specifics during the campaign he didn't promise what that quote might lead one to believe.

[Thrill]

19. What difference does it make? If you watch the video. He wasn't mocking or making light of anything

If anything, he was saying he liked the protest.

[defendandprotect]

20. Obama should know that many voters are unhappy --

and not just homosexuals -

whatever promise Obama offered -- it's over.

And, as far as I can see, Obama understands he's working for very powerful people.

Not us . . . !!!

[monmouth]

31. Will Rogers was absolutely correct....sigh....n/t