Obama's Relationship With Gay Rights Advocates Thaws In Time For 2012

[jefferson_dem]

Obama's Relationship With Gay Rights Advocates Thaws In Time For 2012

WASHINGTON -- The relationship between President Barack Obama and gay rights advocates appears to be thawing after two years of mutual distrust, in which each side was more likely to assail the other's motivations than find room for collaboration.

On Monday, the president's reelection campaign formally announced that he would attend a high-profile LGBT gala in New York City on June 23. The event is set to be emceed by Neil Patrick Harris. It will also feature former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.), chief sponsor of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal legislation, as well as Joel Burns, the Fort Worth council member whose emotional plea to stop anti-gay bullying helped make the "It Gets Better" series viral. The event is expected to raise a nice chunk of change for the Obama Victory Fund 2012.

Not even half a year ago, anticipation for such a fundraiser would center on how protesters might interrupt it. Those interruptions may still take place, but even jaded gay rights activists seem eager to find more amicable ground with the administration.

"I think that people always took the president at his word that the commitments he made in the 2008 campaign were heartfelt and that he meant them," said Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters who does not count himself among the jaded. "I think what we learned about his governing style is that he is very process-oriented. He gets a plan in his mind and there is no changing course. He said at a gay pride event in 2009, 'Give me eight years.' A lot of us didn't want to wait eight years. But two years into it, he has delivered on some pretty important, incremental, pieces."

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obamas-relationship-with-gay-rights-advocates-2012_n_876671.html

[Very_Boring_Name]

1. He needs those donations for 2012. He'll go back to ignoring us after he wins.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. We both know why... +1,000,000!! n/t

[treestar]

66. + about a billion

Geez, I've never seen such unreasonable behavior or reactions. Well, maybe the birthers are worse.

[treestar]

65. Ignoring you?

Holy cow.

[ClarkUSA]

90. Bullshit. Yeah, that Dec. 2010 DADT repeal vote was all about "ignoring us" eh?

Between that and all of President Obama's list of pro-LGBT achievements, I can only surmise that those at the fundraiser are far more informed than anyone who is critical of their attendance.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Some purposely ignore what Pres Obama has so far accomplished on LGBT issues.

Granted there is much work to be done, but why bother kowtowing to them if all they offer is ungratefulness and hostility?

[tekisui]

4. Are you suggesting the LGBT community and organizations

offer only ungratefulness and hostility?

And, even if they did offer only that, doing the right thing would still be the right thing to do.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

13. as opposed to others who hate Obama

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polmaven]

10. Do you not understand the

definintion of the word "some"?

[tekisui]

14. Are you their spokesperson?

"...why bother kowtowing to them if all they offer is ungratefulness and hostility?"

Kowtowing appeared to reference the gala mentioned in the OP. I am fine with the response they gave. Thank you kindly.

[polmaven]

19. Actually,

it appears to be referencing the "Some" who "purposely ignore what Pres Obama has so far accomplished on LGBT issues."

[tekisui]

22. In that case, the statement would have nothing to do with the OP.

Hence, my question of clarification.

[ClarkUSA]

23. It has everything to do with those who continue to denigrate Pres. Obama's pro-LGBT achievements.

[tekisui]

96. And nothing to do with the OP.

And if it wasn't directed towards those organizations, it was probably a call out of DUers.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

8. The combativeness doesn't help.

If you were at your workplace trying to detangle a nasty, complex issue and all you heard around the office was a combination of:

* You're only doing it to get ahead, you don't really care about the work
* You're not really getting anything done
* You'd better work harder or else people will look for someone else to do the project

How motivated would YOU be?

I find it ironic that so many complain that the President doesn't seem to show them he cares, but they can lob all the shit they want ad nauseum and still expect RESULTS. NOW!!!

There are times when I would be glad for him if he just said "Fuck everybody" and left this all for the Republican vultures to pick over, but he's made of much stronger stuff. This country at large doesn't really appreciate what's being done to get us out of this big shithole.

Maybe we needed another R to follow up GWB. I wonder what it would take for people to get it?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

69. Exactly, how does anyone, on any issue, think they're going to get their way

with such a nasty, always negative attitude?

I certainly won't work for people who treat me as if what I do is never enough. Who would?

[Ignis]

83. Are you referring to the "nasty, negative attitude" displayed by Warren and McCurkin?

Or are we not supposed to mention that often those who are chosen as our "allies" ... aren't?

[Ignis]

80. ...But core principles DO help. Our party used to fall back on those.

Now? Fuck it, let's just go with whatever position is polling well today.

Civil rights aren't a "nasty, complex issue" now anymore than they were in the '60s or at the turn of the (last) century.

[DevonRex]

16. It is absolutely against DU rules to question the motives of other duers.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. What then do you call post # 3? The OP is about thawing

relations. How does that post relate to the OP, and is it not questioning the motives of others, and basically nothing else? Yes, it is.

[ClarkUSA]

24. #3 is a statement of fact.

[DevonRex]

25. #3 says "some.". The post I replied to was aimed at a specific person-

a DU member, and claims to know what that DUer really wanted to say. But I guess that's ok on DU now. So disregard my objection.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. If the Staight Community voted like we do, there would be zero

Republicans in office, yet they take the highest of horses.

[ClarkUSA]

20. "we" as in the LGBT community? If so, you're forgetting Log Cabin Republicans.

Speaking of taking "the highest of horses".... :eyes:

[yardwork]

91. Fewer than 30% of gays vote Republicans. Can straights claim the same loyalty to Democrats?

Even counting the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and assorted other morans who vote Republican, 70% or more of gay voters pull the lever for Democrats.

70% of gay voters vote Democratic. That's seven out of ten gay people voting Democratic. That's 70 out of every 100 gay people voting for Obama.

Now, if you straight voters could manage to support Democrats 70% of the time - or even 60% of the time - hell, I'd take 55% that's all we need - then imagine what this country would look like.

Imagine if 70% of straight voters walked into their polling places and voted Democratic every single time they voted! Well people we'd have a movement. We wouldn't even need a movement, actually. We'd be in clover.

Run along now and get your fellow straights to vote Democratic.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Yeah, those gays are always being kowtowed to far too much!

I mean, no equal rights, but all that kowtowing! Them. They. What a poem this post is, elegant, vicious and economical, like a McClurkin speech.
Why bother? For the money, as the OP makes very clear. He wants and needs our money. His first run was founded on GLBT money.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Some purposfully ignore the fact that he is opposed to equal

rights and some try to push DC insider money folks like HRC as if they spoke for each of us. Some do that because they are deeply 'religious'. Some do it because they are bigots. Some, mind you, just the knuckleheads who do not really support equality, they support politicians, not principles, some of them.

[ClarkUSA]

37. All major presidential candidates including Hillary had/have the same position.

So? That doesn't mean that none of President Obama's real pro-LGBT achievements are not worth acknowledging.

[yardwork]

92. Kowtowing?

Who are these "some" of which you speak, who are being "kowtowed" to?

[yardwork]

94. Don't you have some straight people to convince to vote Democratic?

70% or more of gay people vote for Democrats, including Obama. You straights can't get half your community to reliably vote Democratic. Go look after your own house and stop criticizing mine.

[Lyric]

104. Is upholding the civil rights of black people "kowtowing" to them?

Or is it just the right thing to do?

Sometimes you do something because it's the right thing--not because you're going to GET something out of it. Frankly, what you're suggesting sounds WAY too much like pay-for-play.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMera]

28. +1. n/t

[Prism]

29. Just another day of fence mending

It's hard work.

[yardwork]

93. Toss that can of whitewash over here, will ya.

[DevonRex]

30. So, what do you think of posts #1 and #2 which got everything started?

I do appreciate your post, just so you know. You expressed your frustration well and you had some good things to say about Obama. I am curious about whether you missed the very first 2 replies which just might have gotten the discussion off on the wrong foot.

[Prism]

34. Many LGBT people are angry

And they have a right to that anger. I may not share entirely in that view any longer as more progress is made, but many, many people were put through hell by this administration and some of its more partisan supporters.

We need only look at the scorching attacks LGBTers suffered through at the hands of the President's partisans when the community objected vigorously to the Defense of DOMA. Were there any apologies? No. Was there any respite in attacks? No. In fact, the President changing his mind on DOMA was somehow used as evidence that LGBTers were wrong and deserved the disdain.

Gay people are pissed, and no one's going to paper over the first two years of this administration where my community came under heavy attack by partisans for daring to criticize the President.

The criticism worked. The policies have changed. I'm feeling much better about this President.

But people aren't going to get over it just like that. When it came time to act, many in the LGBT community turned to their Democratic allies and rather than support, they found knives wedged deep into their backs.

It will take time to undo that. Instead of reacting and cementing that feeling by never letting up on the LGBT community, people should try listening to why LGBTers are angry. Instead, we're dismissed. Again and again and again.

[DevonRex]

77. Thank you for taking the time to respond

I wish we could all talk like this.

[CakeGrrl]

31. They're frustrating.

However, my perception is different. The ugly comments from constant Obama critics came unsolicited and unprovoked. If you look briefly in GD: P, one such critic started a different thread just to throw the same bombs they continued to throw here.

It's interesting that you feel the need to announce the withholding of your positive comments. Bad, bad Obama supporters spoiling everything. Sounds like victim mode.

[Prism]

33. I'm not a victim. Neither are you.

I would have thought the people who support the President most would try to be at least passingly good ambassadors for him, to reflect well upon him and his policies. Instead . . . not so much, especially on gay issues. My point is that, rather than increasing support of the President, this hostility and bitterness instead drives people away from being associated with him.

It's a real effect. If you had a decent politician with sound policies, but his most vocal supporters came off as a bunch of gun-toting Rapture crazies, guess what impression of that politician is going to stick?

Do you think that helps or hinders?

Gay people are pissed for many, many, many reasons. Instead of listening, of course, we're told that our concerns are never valid. Even on the Defense of DOMA, where we were 100% correct, LGBT members of DU took an absolute shellacking in this forum for our views from the exact same people who are out here today, still attacking LGBT people even after they were proven correct.

You know what's in common here? LGBTers are always getting attacked by the same people.

Weird, right?

[CakeGrrl]

36. This is the problem. GLBTers are NOT being attacked by DUers

When anything is posted to defend the fact that the Administration is doing SOMETHING, the invariable responses from consistent Obama critics boil down to "Another post telling the LGBT community to sit down and shut up."

That is just flat-out crap.

And there's nowhere to go with that assertion but down if one tries to counter it.

So, as soon as the hyperbolic statements get thrown out there for the umpteenth time, the thread goes off the tracks. And this is the M.O. every single time any thread goes up that says anything positive about what the Obama Administration has done in terms of LGBT rights. It's a sustained effort to quash any positive news and assert that nothing has been done, it's not enough, and people who aren't as pissed off don't care enough.

Yet you want to try compare Obama supporters to "gun-toting Rapture crazies". You try to couch your posts in an air of reason, but you're passively claiming that Obama supporters are the problem.

Not.

[Prism]

39. No, I'm making an observation

Just last week, we had multiple threads about something pro-gay the President has done, and with no prompting from LGBT posters whatsoever, the threads devolved into mocking, deriding, and scorning the LGBT community. LGBT people weren't saying word one, because no one actually needs us to get the anti-gay ball rolling. If we are there, well that's gravy, but it's not required.

Hell, one infamous thread from last week slowly devolved into "gay people are racists" (and those posts are still there).

You tell me how much of that LGBTers are supposed to take on DU while still bouncing around full of sunshine?

Yes, I know, gay people are trouble-makers. Always and forever. It's never anyone else. Just those trouble-making gays.

C'mon. Democrats should know better at this point, and yet, here we are. Again and again and again.

[CakeGrrl]

41. "Yes, I know, gay people are trouble-makers."

Do you get that THIS is the very victim stance I'm talking about?

No one said that.

But you try to ascribe that to...Obama supporters?...for what purpose?

You stake that position to project the idea that you're being attacked. That is not a tactic conducive to honest discussion. And every single time a GLBT-related thread goes up in GD P, this tactic is employed.

[Tx4obama]

64. +1000000000000000000000000000 n/t

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

74. "GLBTers are NOT being attacked by DUers"

That's simply not true.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I think I understand what you're saying, but please understand that the

hostility and combativeness coming from Obama detractors are what we are responding to. Rarely is there a positive Obama thread without one of them chiming in to make snide or demeaning remarks. They complain that he hasn't done enough even with the knowledge of all the obstacles and roadblocks that he confronts. It gets tiresome. So when we respond in kind with defense, please understand why. Perhaps neither side is innocent, but that's how it goes, especially on forums like this where no ones agrees on everything.

[Prism]

42. There is a crucial, crucial difference here

That being, you're responding to an individual not being sufficiently impressed with a politician. The LGBT critic is responding to a lifetime of hurt, difficulty, and frustration.

All frustrations are not equal.

I understand it may be tiresome when someone we like isn't getting the credit we feel he or she deserves. But it's exhausting for LGBTers to be told "You should be grateful. This should be enough for you for now. Stop criticizing." when it's their lives on the line.

Not all LGBTers feel that way, I'm sure you know. But enough do, and it takes only the tiniest insensitivity to set off a chain reaction with decades of struggle as fuel.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. As a black woman who was raised by a gay man, trust me. I DO understand!

I also understand that full civil rights were not achieved overnight in the 1960s. We had to continue to fight and keep that fight up.

If anyone understands this, it is I.

I'm not suggesting that we be "sufficiently" impressed with a politician. I'm merely asking that people be realistic about what is possible, given the contentious political environment in which we are operating.

Perhaps living in D.C. has given me a different perspective on the way things really work. I'm a poltical scientist by trade, so that could be it, too.

[Prism]

46. I guess the best example of the frustration is that defense of DOMA

It was the cleanest case of how the LGBT community was correct in what was possible and achievable by the President, but where the partisans went into attack mode and tried to shut down the criticism. I don't particularly expect this President to repeal DOMA. With this Congress, it is not achievable, so I don't make it a point to rake him over the coals about it. However, defending it in Court was something he did have direct, tangible power over, and the attacks the LGBT community came under for saying so were appalling.

They never really stopped. No one, as near as I can tell, sat down and went "I was wrong about this and I treated LGBTers badly on this issue. I'm sorry." Instead, most people found even our correctness as proof of our fault and the righteousness of their attacks. It's a little bizarre, and rightly or wrongly, many LGBTers are associating those attacks with this President.

What is done in his name reflects on him, fairly or unfairly. Unfortunately, people have done a lot of wrong to LGBTers in President Obama's name. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to fix. But first, the effort must be made. To date, it has not.

[justiceischeap]

48. A little GLBT education for those that may not know it. The Gay Rights movement started in 1969

If you subscribe to the belief that the Stonewall Riots started it off.

The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when people in the homosexual community fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted sexual minorities, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

That's 42 years we've been trying to get some rights. And yes Obama has done a handful of things and his pace has been slow for the LGBT community but many in the straight community see it as sweeping change. Even though DADT was repealed, it's not in place. Do we have a date for when that will finally be in place?

When Obama was elected, he had control of the House and Senate for 2 years, many in the LGBT community saw this as a perfect opportunity for an admitted willing administration to get many more things done than they did. We heard promise after promise that he was going to fight for us and when his justice department compared homosexuality to pedophilia, it, understandably, hurt the gay community that has been promised many, many, many times that things were going to happen for us just to get us to vote. We seem to fall for it every time, hoping that THIS time, the Democrat is telling to the truth. Then, when, IMO, we get upset at the Obama administration and again, understandably so, we're taken to task for daring to share our opinions, vent our hurt and anger and be told, "Be happy for the crumbs he gave you." Because, truly, as many advances as he's made, they are truly crumbs when you're talking about someone's human civil rights. Until your rights are denied on a daily basis, until you live in fear of being hurt, bullied, killed, tossed away like trash from families or discriminated against on a daily basis, then please consider that the LGBT community may have reason to be upset.

Keep this in mind, LGBT folks are the ONLY minority class who doesn't share their status with their parents (unless their parents just happen to be gay and that's a rarity).

[Tx4obama]

49. Looks like it will probably be September. See article on link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x178500

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I'm actually well versed in LGBT history, but thanks, anyway.

There is much more work to be done. So why not all of us come together and squash this divisiveness? We're all on the same side, no?

[Vanje]

54. Hooo boy.......nt

Keep digging.

[tishaLA]

56. I largely agree with hyou. But...

I will say as someone who belongs to the "T" category, even though I almost never discuss it, I also get tired of the belief that there's a univocal response within the progressive part of the LGTB community re: the administration's efforts (and lack thereof) for LGBT people. I'm honestly appalled at things I hear on both sides.

Both sides engage in histrionics and some of the things I have read in this thread and others this afternoon that reference fences and insist that people are snarky about LGBT rights because the people talking to them have no regard for "fags" because they believe themselves superior...well, it's astonishing to me. And nobody says it's uncool, despite the fact that it's every bit as bad as those who spike the football every time the President says or does anything remotely positive for LGBT rights.

[Prism]

68. The problem is context, I think

If these were standalone threads, I think some of the LGBT responses would leave me wondering where on earth that came from. But having seen habits, hundreds of responses from various individuals, etc., I can see how LGBTers are popping off on DU. It's difficult to discuss without calling out members or threads, but suffice to say there are times where I see an LGBTer go nuclear out of the blue, but I know that was just weeks if not months in the making, of having the same people saying the same dismissive, denigrating things about you and the community.

So I give them a lot of slack.

I don't give a lot of slack to people whose hostility towards LGBTers seems based purely on "Doesn't like my favorite politician as much as I do." And that's the charitable read of it. There's a more uncharitable one I'm partial to built of reading threads and individuals for many years here.

When someone never has a kind word for you or the community, well, sometimes a sharp, hostile response is all that is warranted or deserved, imo.

[tishaLA]

70. I understand. That's the spiking the football thing I mentioned

But it seems to me that you're right: there's been an accretion of bad feelings on both sides of this and the frustration (on both sides, IMO) is both real and (sometimes) out of bounds.

ETA: I do think it'd be helpful if "both" sides, although there are more than two of them, would engage in some polite calling out of people who are intentionally trying to provoke others. Sometimes the best way of accomplishing things is to have a friend rather than an enemy suggesting you check your conduct.

[LAGC]

35. Obama just needs to come out and campaign on marriage equality, and all will be forgiven.

He's already spoken out against a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between man and woman.

All he needs to do is just take it to the logical next level, and he'll have the full support of the entire LGBT community.

The majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, so its silly of him to drag his feet on it any longer.

(Edit: typo.)

[ClarkUSA]

40. Why does Obama need to be "forgiven"? Did you say this of Bill Clinton when he signed DADT and DOMA?

"forgiven" by whom? None of the LGBT advocates attending this fundraiser feel this way, so I'm not sure who you think you speak for.

This is a long list of all the legislation President Obama has presided over in the past two years:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=689078&mesg_id=689078

Again, WTF does he have to be "forgiven" for?

BTW, all major presidential candidates including Hillary had/have the same position.

[LAGC]

44. Dude, venture into the GLBT forum once in awhile and you might have a better idea...

...why people are pissed and disappointed.

If Obama wasn't so afraid to take a stand in support of FULL equality, you wouldn't be hearing any of the bitching from the likes of Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher/FireDogLake from the Left.

The fastest way for Obama to unify his base is to quit dragging his feet and pretending taking a firm stance on support of full LGBT equality is going to hurt him amongst moderates. Most moderates now support same-sex marriage. There's no reason for him to be intransigent on the issue any longer.

[ClarkUSA]

45. You didn't answer my question. Both Greenwald and Hamsher are Obama-hating PUMAs, so spare me.

[LAGC]

51. Does Donnie McClurkin or Rick Warren ring any bells?

Obama really threw the gays under the bus at the beginning of his term, so he really owes it to them to man up and do the right thing now.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Red herrings. You're still avoiding answering my questions.

President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any president before him, certainly more than Bill Clinton, who really threw the LGBT community under the bus early on in his term.

The fact that some in the LGBT community can't acknowledge this fact like the leader of HRG already has says more about the intellectual dishonesty of PUMAs like Greenwald and Jane "Kill The Bill! Grover Norquist Is My Teabagger Ally!" Hamsher and their fans than President Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

55. "Man up"?

Really? What did he do to emasculate himself? Why does it have to go there?

And what the hell would some posters do if THEY were told to do that? I imagine nuclear clouds would rise from this forum.

I could've guessed that McClurkin and Warren are an open sore. Contrary to your optimism, I think no matter what this President does, some will use those two as the excuse NOT to give him any credit or recognition for any progress he makes toward GLBT rights and equality. Some people are doing it now.

[Ignis]

79. Here's an idea: Perhaps the Prez should apologize for those 2 picks.

:wow:

That would go a long fucking way towards showing a real change of heart, rather than a cynical political decision that is spreadsheet-driven.

[DevonRex]

95. May I ask you a question?

Without an apology from President Obama about those 2 people, is there anything he can do to change your mind about him?

[Ignis]

101. Of course you may. And yes, there certainly is.

Despite the hyperbolic rhetoric displayed by some "defenders" in this thread, most of us here aren't binary thinkers: Most of us, I'm sure, will acknowledge that good people can do bad things, and vice versa. I don't think that the Prez is the anti-Christ because of past bad decisions, nor do I think that these bad decisions have poisoned the well against future good decisions.

Allow me to turn the tables and ask you this: If David Duke* started a charity to feed the poor and shelter the homeless, would that automatically wash away the sins of his prior racism? Or would it be a good thing in and of itself--and certainly one that should be taken under consideration when judging the man--but one that doesn't necessarily wipe clean the slate?

Sometimes, we need to hear someone acknowledge that they have erred before we can forgive them. I grant you that any admission of humanity is a lot to ask of any politician, but I hold our own (D) politicians to a higher standard, because we should be interested in what is right at least as much as we are in what is politically expedient.

Thanks for asking. :hi:


* = Yes, this is a bold example to make a point in broad, simple strokes. No, I don't think Prez. Obama and David Duke are morally equivalent. Yes, I consider racism and anti-gay bigotry to be morally equivalent. No, I'm not calling the Prez a bigot, I'm criticizing his actions.

[CakeGrrl]

97. Proving my point.

Why the apology? McClurkin and Warren aren't advisors or members of this cabinet. Isn't delivery on GLBT equal rights the thing that matters?

Should he apologize to all who are offended by the existence of Rev. Wright?

How about Clinton? Where are the demands for his apology for instituting DOMA/DADT? Where are the calls for that? Not to mention his own association with Warren?

Are you inferring that even if major policies ensuring equal rights are implemented, they'll mean nothing if he hasn't assured you he really, really wanted to do it?

[Ignis]

100. "Why the apology?" Wow, just ... wow.

If you don't understand how utterly offensive those utterly unnecessary picks were, I doubt anything I could say would help you.

My suggestion would be 1) make a gay friend, and 2) ask her/him to explain it to you in words a 5-year-old could understand. I haven't the patience to explain why bigots have no place in the Democratic party.

[tishaLA]

71. I don't think it's fair to criticize Greenwald as a PUMA

...I say this as a long-time supporter of the President, by the way....guess I have to say that.

Greenwald has some basic philosophical differences with the administration about human and civil rights; they are legitimate differences about LGBT rights, about first amendment rights, about search and seizure, etc., and I generally agree with Greenwald. But it's easy for me to agree with him because, like him, I don't have to govern and, because I spend most of my time in the ivory tower, I have the luxury of things being theoretical rather than practical much of the time. Those differences, though, don't make him "Obama-hating"; they make him someone who wants to see the administration fulfill its promises to the LGBT community and to the Constitution. I think it's fair to say that he'd be just as critical of anyone not named Greenwald as President...and they are probably criticisms the President himself agrees with in part.

Hamsher? I think she's an opportunist, though.

[great white snark]

47. Please, nothing he does would stop the Greenwalds and Hamshers from bitching.

So "fear" motivates him and not his religious beliefs?

[LAGC]

50. Obama, as a senator, used to be in favor of same-sex marriage before he ran for president.

So spare me the religious angle.

His reason for taking the stance he does is pure politics, nothing more nothing less.

I know deep-down Obama believes in full equality, but he keeps trying to kow-tow to the "mushy middle", when even most independents either support or don't give a shit either way about marriage equality any more.

There's no good reason for his continued stubbornness.

And no, I don't think Greenwald/Hamsher would bitch as much if he didn't give them good reason to. (Or even if they did, they wouldn't get the traction they get now.)

[ClarkUSA]

57. Really? He said he favored gay marriage as a US senator? Do you have a credibly-sourced quote?

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 as an IL state senator.

I don't recall him ever coming out in favor of gay marriage as a US senator.

[LAGC]

58. No, during his run for Illinois state senator.

Christopher Johnson: I have some questions for you on marriage. Back in 1996, when the President was running to become Illinois state senator, he stated in a questionnaire response to what is now the Windy City Times that he supports same-sex marriage. He wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” That’s not the President’s current position. Has he backtracked on an earlier commitment he made to gay and lesbian Americans?

MR. GIBBS: I think there’s a whole host of issues that I would direct you to during the campaign on different questionnaires. And I would again reiterate what the President has said recently on that issue.

Christopher Johnson: But do you dispute the accuracy of this questionnaire response?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m happy to send you the several thousand clips of which went around during the course of 2008 on a whole host of those issues.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/robert-gibbs-president-obama-thinks-a-lot-about-gay-marriage/

Obama is clearly conflicted on his stance, but the choice should become more clear as society continues to evolve on this issue and public opinion becomes more tolerant.

[ClarkUSA]

59. lol! So what you said was false. That was in 1996, before he was even a state senator. I thought so.

How pathetic.

You still haven't answered my questions:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=688889&mesg_id=689136

[LAGC]

60. Excuse me?

Obama clearly once was openly in favor of same-sex marriage, before he decided he needed to take a more conservative stance for his entry into national politics.

It's nothing but pure triangulation on his part.

And, I, for one am not surprised that a fair segment of the LGBT population is unimpressed at his lack of backbone on the issue now.

[ClarkUSA]

61. You said "as a senator" and implied it was when he was a US senator. You were wrong.

Nice try at moving the goalpost. The rest of us prefer to focus on President Obama's very long list of pro-LGBT achievements which dwarf that of Bill Clinton and all other presidents combined.

You still haven't answered my questions in response to your original reply here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=688889&mesg_id=689118

Why does President Obama need to be "forgiven"?

Did you say this of Bill Clinton when he signed DADT and DOMA?

"forgiven" by whom? None of the LGBT advocates attending this fundraiser feel this way about President Obama, so I'm not sure who you think you speak for.

This is a long list of all the legislation President Obama has presided over in the past two years:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=689078&mesg_id=689078

Again, WTF does President Obama have to be "forgiven" for?

BTW, all major presidential candidates including Hillary had/have the same position.

Can't back up your bullshit rhetoric?

[LAGC]

62. Dude, quit apologizing for him.

What Clinton did was 2 decades ago, times have changed, its time for Obama to get on the train.

I, for one, have no problem if more concerned LGBT folks speak up and put more pressure on him to come back around to his earlier progressive stance on the issue.

There are no moving goal-posts here. Obama simply needs to endorse full equality. That's the only goal-post being set here, and 99% of all LGBT folks will be satisfied once he just attempts for that goal, let alone achieves it.

[ClarkUSA]

63. lol! Barack Obama the most pro-LGBT president ever. There's absolutely nothing to apologize for.

This LGBT fundraiser is proof positive that PUMAs like Greenwald and Hamsher and their fans are completely out-of-touch with LGBT community leaders and LGBT front-line advocates when it comes to crediting, much less acknowledging, President Obama's very real pro-LGBT achievements.

Nice to know that. :)

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[justiceischeap]

81. I disagree that he has nothing to apologize for and he's a very good example

When the DOJ decided it WAS going to defend DOMA (before deciding recently that it wasn't), the language used in the brief likened same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. I'd like an apology for that language because I expect Repubs to sling the "slippery slope" argument but I certainly don't expect my President to allow HIS DOJ to use that kind of language. That's when a large portion of the LGBT community got pissed at Obama. We also got pissed because he had two years where he could have encouraged Congress to pass Federal laws protecting LGBTers. The Dem House and Senate could have passed ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), he could have urged Congress to repeal DOMA instead of saying that the DOJ HAD to defend when so clearly after losing the majority in the House they've now stated that they DON'T have to defend DOMA.

As I've stated in another post in this thread, when you have a group being denied their equal rights, and since we've been fighting this fight since 1969, I'm tired of crumbs. I acknowledge that Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other President but I'm tired of people telling me that I should be happy with what I've gotten thus far. I'm not happy with what I've been given so far and I won't be happy and I'll criticize ANY President who doesn't fully support full, equal human civil rights, especially when the current President said in 2007:

it “is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United States Senate.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-defense-of-marriage-act-that-candidate-obama-opposed.html

It's pretty sad when Dick Cheney is to the left of same-sex marriage than Obama appears to be.

[Ignis]

84. We're never, ever going to get any sort of apology.

Not for that despicable brief, not for Warren, not for McCurkin, etc.

An apology would be a tacit admission that something-less-than-optimal was done.

Instead, we'll get endless repostings of The List--now in a kicky shade of mauve!

[ClarkUSA]

87. Pres. Obama will never, ever get any sort of credit for his pro-LGBT successes from some people.

Fortunately, the leaders of the LGBT community and all the front-line advocates attending the fundraiser and working for this administration do give this president credit and support and $$.

BTW, did the LGBT community ever get an apology from Bubba for DADT and DOMA during his presidency?

[Ignis]

102. Fuck those weasel words. If you're questioning my motives, say so.

The cowardice displayed in this sort of "some people say" rhetoric belongs on Faux News, not on DU. :thumbsdown:

You're not Obama's mother, and you shouldn't take personal offense at criticisms other Democrats might have about his policies. He's a politician for fuck's sake, not the single, infallible source of all that is Holy and Good in the world. I elected a President, not a Pope.

We're still allowed to criticize politicians and their decisions here at DU--whether or not you like it--and I'll be the first out the door on the day that rule changes.

So if you want to start a new thread to lambaste Clinton, go for it. But stop trying to hijack every single GLBT thread with your false equivalency du jour.

[ClarkUSA]

86. Yawn.

:nopity:

[tekisui]

99. CLINTON!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

78. Hmmm...

"Therein lies the most fundamental reason for the thawing: several months of Republican control of the House have given gay rights advocates experience with the alternative to an Obama administration -- and it's been motivational."

There is probably so much truth to this.

[ruggerson]

82. As many of us have said repeatedly - Obama has listened, learned and acted

The abrupt reversal on the Smelt brief being a prime example of how he heard LGBT legal activists, invited them into the process and then changed course with their guidance and counsel. He has a long way to go on marriage equality, but I have no doubt he will arrive there one day. And,, when he does, it will be because of his willingness to listen and evolve and the tenacity of the LGBT community which has never stopped holding his feet to the fire.

The repeal of DADT was another example of positive choreography, this time with some help from members of Congress whoo refused to let the timetable get pushed into 2011. While not a perfect end result (stripping out the anti discrimination language may come back to haunt us), it is real, concrete progress.

Obama deserves the support in 2012 of gay American families across the country who care about their legal rights, if for no other reason than they should be hoping that there is a President Obama making USSC appointments for the next four years, and not the horrifying alternative.

[justiceischeap]

85. He'll get my vote but he won't get my money again.

And the only reason, IMO, for the quick reversal on that brief was because a lot of high-dollar gay donors stated that he wasn't getting their money in 2012. I don't know if he's massaged them enough at this point that they are willing to part with their bucks but I know I'm not parting with mine.

[ClarkUSA]

89. The Koch Brothers are delighted to hear it.

Citizens United, anyone?

[Dr Fate]

103. Exactly- if you dont give $ to DEMS, then Obama will be forced to give the Kochs even more tax cuts.

Tax cuts they will use to fund the GOP , no doubt. Centrists warned the stay home lefties this would happen.

When will the Liberals OPEN THEIR EYES and see that they are playing into the hands of the Koch Brothters?

If we dont donate to DEMS this time, then the same DEMS we donated to last time will be forced to give even more tax cuts to the Kochs.

That is why the Kochs are so delighted when they hear that lefties disagree with centrists. The more tax breaks DEMS are forced to give them, the more they can donate to the GOP, etc.

If Liberals think the Kochs are doing bad things with the Bush era tax cut extensions DEMS had to give them (like funding the GOP, etc) then wait until they see what the Koch brothers will so if we dont give those same DEMS even more money.

Liberals just dont get it- if we dont give money to the DEMS who voted to give the Koch's massive tax breaks, then those same DEMS are just going to have to give the Kochs EVEN MORE of our treasury.

That is the problem with Liberals- they have no long term strategies. If far lefts had their way, I guess the Kochs would would get PERMANANT tax cut extensions.

[DevonRex]

88. This is a post that we can build on. Thank you. Nt

[QuintanarooBoy]

98. Where else can they go?

A GOP Administration would be a disaster for them.