Why are you harassing the Obama Administration for NBC yakking up anonymous non-quotes?

How do we even know what the quote was?

So LGBT bloggers got called “fucking stupid” by a White House employee.

Welcome to the fringe. It sucks.

There’s obviously a game being played.  Who will end up getting played is the question. 

So far, LGBT Americans and Progressives are getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. Obama, you can be another FDR or Lyndon Johnson (Re Civil Rights, at least), or you can be a combination of Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr., which is what you look like now.

Is that what you want?...

3.

“Inside sources” have been doing their damndest to undermine him on more important issues than this and there are enough Clinton-era bluebloods in high positions of power to whine about the sudden accountability of meanie left-heads. Hell, could even be a cabinet member. Geitner has taken some strong knocks from the “internet fringe” since before he was inaugurated and has got to be aching for some potshots. Rahm also seems to have a sour look to the netroots. Hell, any of the old moderates could be a culprit. To a certain type of Democrat voter, bypassing the MSM and talking to the kids on the internet machine is cheating and makes their republican friends cry.

Not to defend Obama for his mealy-mouthed, “can I wait this issue out because I’ve been listening to Rahm crap.” but I seriously doubt this was an order from on high or the viewpoint of Obama considering how much of a techie he is. I guarantee this is the viewpoint among a moderate group of Obama’s luddite staff, but that just shows the line in the democratic circular firing squad.

Getting your hopes up too high for any politician is just asking for hearbreak. Call me a cynic, but me and my low expectations are rarely disappointed.  There was a very striking moment in the VP debate when Biden declared his opposition to gay marriage and said (close but not exact words here) - both tickets have the same view on gay marriage.  That should have been a sign to not expect much in the way of positive changes for the LGBT community.

What a shock.  John Aravosis willingly puts the worst possible spin on something to whip up outrage, trusting that his friends will amplify it further.  I wish more of the people I respect online would stop listening to him.

“he didn’t say LGBT bloggers” (ok, that one is just lame—I said in the headline ”part of pajama-clad ‘Internet fringe’”

Well, the comment isn’t calling LGBTs part of the pajama-clad internet fringe.  Even at its worst, it’s saying the pajama-clad internet fringe includes LGBTs.  That switcheroo, making something that could already be bad enough look worse for the sake of polemic, is classic Aravosisism.

Well, I’m unsatisfied with the speech Obama gave, because ultimately what matters are actions, not words. These are also only words, and for the moment don’t have much to back them up, so I don’t care so much about them either.

Either way, this whole weekend has been pretty inconsequential, as far as the White House goes: if the White House is indeed being two-faced, the overturn of DADT and DOMA still both need to happen, and if this is someone off-message, or something made up by Harwood, then the overturn of DADT and DOMA still both need to happen.

If this is an accurate representation of how the White House actually feels, we’ll find out soon enough, and then I’ll find out how “complicated and difficult” writing checks to the Obama campaign in 2012 is going to be for me.

“one believed to be widely held by insiders about progressive bloggers, but never articulated so boldly”

Haven’t Washington people thought of non Washington people as a bunch of rubes forever now? To them anyone who isn’t in the game is impeding it and is simply a useless clod who doesn’t know how things work. Unless you can make serious political donations you may as well not count on being taken seriously and that means you have to be marginalized. You shouldn’t be in their faces. What cracks me up everytime is the washinton people running against washington and really connecting with the people.

Um. From where I’m standing Aravosis looks to be accurate. They were reporting on the Gay march today and the people quoting “unnamed” sources certainly seem to be implying that the gays are part of the “this opposition” they talk about. (I’ll admit they’re very careless with their pronouns.)  Which is what Aravosis’ headline says. I don’t see how it can be read any other way. Don’t let us form one of those circular firing squad things, ok?

And yeah, somebody’s head needs to roll for this. Then Obama needs to take a substantial action on civil rights. I don’t know about you, but *this* part of the Internet Left fringe is getting pretty fed up. Hell, I don’t even *wear* pajamas.

MKK

”You wouldn’t believe some of the excuses flying around on FB and Twitter saying “oh, you shouldn’t pay attention to anon sources” or “the WH wouldn’t say that” or that this statement somehow is NBC reporter John Harwood making the sh*t up”

I don’t know, but something sure is fishy
Politician says he supports a groups agenda and then does nothing but blow smoke? Yep, happens all the time, left and right

Dem politicians pissing on dem aligned groups to please beltway types? Yeah that happens all the time too

But the 2 contradict each other, once you do the first, the villagers wont be satisfied with the latter.  My wild guess is internal WH infighting, that is some advisors wanted Obama to snub the HRC dinner, and having lost to those who advocated smoke blowing are trying to sabotage their rivals

That said, its no excuse
”Anonymous or not, the statement’s out there now for all to see … The WH needs to clear it up pronto.

Aye! Obama is the President, not a puppet who’s strings are pulled by his staff or VP like Reagan and W were

Even if he is just blowing smoke, his own people are undercutting him
(to be fair, I think he’s generally on your side, just not willing to put a lot of effort into it, so he’s just mostly blowing smoke)

Either way, this whole weekend has been pretty inconsequential, as far as the White House goes: if the White House is indeed being two-faced, the overturn of DADT and DOMA still both need to happen, and if this is someone off-message, or something made up by Harwood, then the overturn of DADT and DOMA still both need to happen.

I’m sure someone will accuse me of being an Obamabot but you guys do know there’s a thing called “Congress” that’s kind of important when it comes to making laws and there are 535 people in it right? And a lot of them are hardcore assholes?

I believe we *might* be able to repeal DADT during the Obama presidency, but DOMA’s not going anywhere for a long, long time.

Is that a reason to stop fighting against DOMA? Of course not. But it’s not going to go down because one little Democrat is in the White House, and we can expect the fight to go on for years to come.

Wow.  So we have a guy working actively AGAINST the GLBT for 8 years, then we have a guy who openly pledges support for it…..and we punch him in the face.

Okay.  Makes perfect sense to me.

I’m trying to decide if there’s anyone on the left side of the blogosphere whose reporting I trust less than John Aravosis.

Can’t think of one, to be honest.  He’s just been too wrong too many times.

Weezie - Whats more frustrating: someone you vehemently oppose who is openly hostile to you or someone you enthusiatically support who claims to want to help you but refuses to to do at every turn?

Not only is Obama passively refusing to help through inactivity, his own DOJ lawyers worked to defend DOMA.

While both clearly suck, the latter is more infuriating because my dollars and efforts got him there and his actions are a stab in the back.

As Jane Hamsher notes, the White House can clear this up quite handily (or face questions about it during Gibbs’s next press briefing).

If the administration wasn’t in the habit of giving anonymous quotes on a daily basis that might be fair, but reporters regularly complain that they show up for ON the record briefings at the White House only to be told that it’s on background. It’s a regular habit so you can’t just say that the ones you don’t like aren’t legitimate. They need to stop the practice completely or take responsibility for the ones that get out there that backlash on them. There’s a reason the person didn’t give their name.

Harwood said that “the White House views this opposition as really part of the ‘internet left fringe’” so yes, you’re right, he did make the connection — based on what he says he was told. By an aide in the White House, knowing he was going on the national news momentarily to talk about the march. The appropriate thing for the White House to do at this point is free Harwood up to reveal his source. Because if they just deny that the statement was accurate without doing so, it’ll always be trapped in that nether region of journalistic privilege. And the “anonymous source” will have achieved their desired objective of getting it out there without having to wear it.

And if Harwood is lying, he should have to own that, too. But the only way we’ll know for sure is if they free him up to reveal the source and the source contradicts him on the record.

They were reporting on the Gay march today and the people quoting “unnamed” sources certainly seem to be implying that the gays are part of the “this opposition” they talk about.

Right, that’s fine, and if that’s the problem, call it out:  Obama advisors dismiss criticism from the left (including LGBT activists) as fringey.  That’s the immediate context of the discussion, triggered by the comments about the LGBT protest.  But Aravosis, and Pam, are switching it around:  Obama advisors dismiss LGBT concerns as fringey.  That’s not really what was said. 

When Obama said that the Cambridge police department acted stupidly, you could headline that story as “Obama just called cops stupid,” if you wanted to stir the pot; but he was clearly addressing a smaller group than “cops.”

It’s a set-logic problem:  the snippy comment was about the activist left, which includes the LGBT people protesting.  It’s not about the LGBT community as a whole, it’s about a subset of the LGBT community, a subset that (they’re saying) happens to be encompassed by a larger circle of internet-powered activists to the left of the administration.  *And that’s bad enough*, if you want to zing the administration for dismissiveness. 

To put it another way, I think you can read the quote as pretty good evidence that the Obama administration has issues with the left, or with activists.  I don’t think you can read it as evidence that they have issues with LGBT people.  So maybe they have issues with LGBT activists _as activists_ rather than as LGBT. 

YMMV.  I’m disinclined to agree with Aravosis on much of anything, so maybe I’m overcorrecting in the other direction.

@ Mnemosyne, I have to ask, are you, um, me?  Because I don’t know if I agree with anyone more often than I agree with you.

“I’m sure someone will accuse me of being an Obamabot but you guys do know there’s a thing called “Congress” that’s kind of important when it comes to making laws and there are 535 people in it right? And a lot of them are hardcore assholes?
I believe we *might* be able to repeal DADT during the Obama presidency”

Yeah, but I dont hear him pushing for repeal in congress. “Bully Pulpit” and all that
and of course as chief executive Obama must “take care to faithfully exicute the laws”
so if somebody in the army files charges against an LGBT soldier, well the law is the law I guess
but nothing stops the commander in chief from putting the person who filed charges on the first plane to Afganastan or an isolated artic research station

“Not only is Obama passively refusing to help through inactivity, his own DOJ lawyers worked to defend DOMA.”

I dont fault them for that, they have to - its thier job description
of course I do fault them for making a more then half hearted effort

And if Harwood is lying, he should have to own that, too.

Does anyone think he’s lying?  I’m sure he’s saying what he heard.  I imagine it going down like this:

Harwood:  So what does the administration think about that protest outside the HRC speech?  Are you concerned about discontent and impatience on the president’s left flank?
Source:  Pfft, some people will never be satisfied.  But we have 90% of the party behind us, so we’re not too worried about it.
Harwood:  If you look at the blogs, people on the left are venting their dissatisfaction.  That doesn’t worry you?
Source:  Tell them to take off their pajamas and get out into the real world.

I mean, I guess it’s possible that Source said, “Yeah, don’t let this get around, but the queers really get on our nerves.”  But my sense is that the big category that irritates them is Internet Left (which includes Gay Internet Left).

The way Holt is framing the conversation is, I assume, the way Harwood wants him to frame the conversation.  Holt is asking what Harwood asked, and Harwood is relaying what his sources answered.

Weezie - Whats more frustrating: someone you vehemently oppose who is openly hostile to you or someone you enthusiatically support who claims to want to help you but refuses to to do at every turn?

Whoa.  Not only are we only NINE MONTHS INTO THE ADMINISTRATION, but the guy has just openly pledged his support for the cause….not as a candidate….as the most powerful person in the free world.  Does that mean anything?  Anything at all?  Have we all dranketh from the Chalice of Perpetual Outrage or something?

I don’t really know what the fuck was going on with the DOJ brief.  But it seems that by the POTUS getting up before the world and saying he is on your side and ready to fight along side you would clear things up just a tad right?  At least reset your outrage button back to the “Okay Let’s See What’s Next” setting?

FlipYrWhig:

This is EXACTLY like the “Obama Called Teh Cops St00pid” conversation.  While I am not shocked to see someone as stupid as Aravosis (he is a dipshit - our side’s version of Pam Geller) trot this kind of shit out, I am surprised read it on Pandagon.

“Have we all dranketh from the Chalice of Perpetual Outrage?”

my new favorite phrase

Yes, typist, I am aware of the existence of Congress. So, I assume, was Obama, when he campaigned on repealing DADT. And he has occasionally made anti-DOMA noises that make me think he thinks he could do something there, too. What did he think a “fierce advocate” would be doing, exactly? Making stirring, inspirational speeches about things being difficult and complicated?

I’ll repeat the point I made earlier today in another thread: when the Republicans are in charge, they get things done, and they do it very rapidly. They’re awful, horrible things that nearly ruin the country, granted, but they happen very quickly. I certainly can’t buy that Obama has desperately wanted to show support for his GLBT constituency for nine months now but has been prevented from doing so by the evil, evil, Congress that his party controls.

I vote for they’ve got a lunatic loose high level advisor who is off message

Now, let’s analyze the “pajama-clad blogger"meme. This seems to be a variation of the blogger posting from Mom’s basement meme—someone who doesn’t participate in the real world, because you can’t do it in your jammies.

Translation: The White House is in the real world trying to make something happen. Go thou and do likewise.

Drinking from the Chalice of Well-He-Says-He’s-On-Our-Side-So-Let’s-Give-Him-The-Benefit-Of-The-Doubt-And-Anyway-The-Other-Guy’s-Worse didn’t work so great during the Clinton Administration, did it?

Surely a little outrage is occasionally called for, especially when it comes to shit like the DOJ filing on DOMA (incestuous marriages? Really?).

Translation: The White House is in the real world trying to make something happen. Go thou and do likewise.

I did. I helped elect a fierce GLBT advocate to the Presidency, where he controls a third of the government.

when the Republicans are in charge, they get things done, and they do it very rapidly

Well, they didn’t get Social Security privatized, didn’t get Roe overturned… some pretty major agenda items unfulfilled. 

But in general I think
(1) Democrats really do want to try to fix problems—to govern.  Republicans don’t.  They want to make the country do what they want it to do.  It may involve creating problems rather than fixing them, or just plain looting and cronyism.
(2) Democrats are saddled with a desire to please the media, which the Republicans don’t care about at all, and as a result Democrats are frustratingly cautious—which makes the media nitpick them more—while Republicans are brazen—which makes the media, somehow, appreciate their chutzpah rather than bemoaning their ruthlessness.  That’s why the Republicans get things done:  because they don’t care how it gets covered, because they know it’s going to get covered as “show of strength” every time. 

That’s my grand unified theory of politics in the 1990s and 2000s.

Surely a little outrage is occasionally called for, especially when it comes to shit like the DOJ filing on DOMA (incestuous marriages? Really?).

IIRC they were arguing about precedents for conflicting state standards on marriage, and most of the cases were about states that allowed consanguinity or that had lower ages of majority/consent.  Thus it wasn’t really making analogies between homosexuality and “incest” or “pedophilia” _as practices_, but rather citing instances in which different regulations on marriage came into conflict.  I wished they didn’t think they needed to file in support of the law at all, regardless of the principles involved, but I’m not a lawyer or a policymaker.  But the “incest and pedophilia” meme was launched by… you guessed it, John Aravosis.

Your GUT works for me, FlipYrWhig. And point taken about SS and Roe, though I am not entirely convinced that they actually want to overturn Roe, given how useful it’s been to them.

Still, on something like DADT, Obama really could just sign an executive order and be done with it. I’ve seen the criticism elsewhere that this wouldn’t do anything to fix the problem, that an incoming Republican President could reinstate DADT just as quickly and easily and therefore it’s worth putting in some extra effort to overturn it legislatively. And that may be true, though if that’s the actual logic, then 1) it’s interesting that the Democrats don’t see themselves in power for a significant length of time, and 2) why would a Republican President bother to bring it back? Undoing DADT has majority support in the polls now, and it’s only going to be less controversial later on. Is it really necessary to end DADT the hard way for a hypothetical Republican President’s hypothetical reinstatement of a policy which is unpopular anyway?

Of course, I’m half-asleep and covered in Cheeto dust, so what the fuck do I know. Good night, all.

But the “incest and pedophilia” meme was launched by… you guessed it, John Aravosis.

Not aware of that, and therefore possibly wrong on that particular point. Still going to bed.

Either heads roll at the White House or Obama should lose another important constituency.  this is simply unexcusable and a gratuitous insult to people who actively supported his candidacy.  At the rate he and his people are going, the only support he will have in 2012 are Olympia Snow and Max Baucus.

Not aware of that, and therefore possibly wrong on that particular point. Still going to bed.

What I meant was that he was the one who did most to frame the response in terms of “OMG, White House compares homosexuality to incest and pedophilia!” rather than “White House asserts that case law indicates that states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages, for example with regard to different standards of consanguinity.”  There were other bad parts in the brief, like its cavalier assertions about “traditional” views of marriage, but the “incest and pedophilia” part—which wasn’t really there—became the lasting impression, thanks to the efforts of Aravosis.  That’s the kind of bad-faith tactics that get my knickers in a twist about his blog. 

But, anyhoo, g’night!

If Harwood’s account is accurate and I had to wager who the high-profile advisor was…

Rahm Emanuel.

He hates the progressive blogosphere.  Not just the LGBT progressive blogosphere, the entire leftwing blogosphere.  This goes back to 2006.  Well, further, but it really went white hot in 2006.  Particularly since we embraced Howard Dean’s vision for the Democratic Party over his.

He’s a bonafide triangulating Clintonista DLC asshole.  And if Obama’s weak approach to a progressive agenda results in big losses to the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012, folks like Rahmbo will rightfully deserve much of the blame.

The 90% may be with them insofar as they are unwilling to vote for Republicans as an alternative, but if you let people down enough, they just stop voting if they feel like neither side will represent their interests.  There’s no real danger that progressive voters will go running to GOP candidates… they’ll just be busy watching flies fuck next November if they won’t work for progressive causes.

Virginia is probably going to elect a Republican governor in a few weeks, and New Jersey might, too.  And that isn’t because everybody is suddenly in love with the Republican Party, it’s because all of last year’s hope-filled liberal voters will be staying home next month… but the old Reichwingers who love their Glenn Beck will be out in droves.  And if the two governorships are lost by the Democratic Party in a few weeks as many are predicting could likely happen, it will be PRECISELY because the Democrats we elected a year ago are letting us down.  And it will be a sign of things to come next year, if they don’t start doing the things they were elected to do.

we have a guy who openly pledges support for it…..and we punch him in the face.

If you and I were coworkers, and you bought me lunch one day, and I told you, “Hey, thanks, I’ll get you back next week!” but every week I have a different excuse for why I haven’t bought you lunch yet, but keep telling you that I’m gonna get around to it soon, wouldn’t you get annoyed with me?

It’s neato that Obama has said that he supports bringing more equality to the LGBT community.  But when that support thus far has been strictly verbal, he doesn’t deserve a pat on the back for it.

It’s kinda like the Nobel Prize… “Hey, we think you’ll eventually do an awesome job on world peace, so here’s recognition for the great job we think you are going to do (even though you haven’t done it yet)!”

As SNL commented this weekend, the Nobel Prize shouldn’t be Obama’s “Call to Action”... his election was supposed to be his “Call to Action”.

Time for more doing and less talking, Mr. President.

I’ll be the first to give President Obama a standing ovation when he signs legislation ending DADT into law.  Until that time, he doesn’t deserve a shred of praise for that particular issue… BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING YET TO MERIT PRAISE FOR IT!

...but the guy has just openly pledged his support for the cause….not as a candidate….as the most powerful person in the free world.  Does that mean anything?  Anything at all?

How naive must you be to even seriously pose this question?  My word; even Charlie Brown must look upon you with pity.  Obama is a pro-corporate centrist, and his chief of staff is a right-wing hawk.  Before the backlash from the Civil Rights Era, both (Obama’s pigmentation notwithstanding) would have been Republicans.  Already they’ve shown a penchant for throwing their progressive staff and supporters under the bus for the sake of ‘bipartisanship’ (i.e. mollifying even the most fantastical right-wing hissy fits).  What the fuck is out there—besides carefully constructed, noncommittal platitudes—that can reasonably give anyone the impression that the Obama administration is going to aggressively pursue any of its more progressive campaign promises?  Besides ‘hope,’ I mean.  And don’t forget that hope was put in Pandora’s box (with all the other evils) for a reason.

One point nobody has brought up yet.  One aspect of this thread’s basic point is that Obama spoke positively to HRC, followed by what seems to be a genuine report that “the White House” considers people like those who went to the march (and the associated bloggers) to be fringey and not particularly important to the Administration.

Can I point out how many of us feel the same division? How often rank and file LGBT folks have complained that HRC is too much keyed into the whole Beltway mentality, how the leaders of the Prop 8 campaign dropped the ball, and so on?

If we in the trenches see that divide - that one of the big reasons that things aren’t moving along faster and better is that the professional leadership of LGBT organizations is too keyed into playing the Beltway game and overlooking the needs, desires, and frankly, genuine experience of actual LGBT people and families, why should we think the Administration sees it differently?

Apparently, unless “the White House” and the President have radically different views, the Administration (and the MSM) thinks that groups like HRC are more important than marching LGBT people or individuals who blog. Which, unless I completely misunderstand things, is precisely WHY a whole bunch of people went to DC to march, and the motivation of a lot of bloggers who would otherwise do other things with their time.

Which, sadly, sort of shows that while the march was pretty much necessary, as far as making an impression on the Administration, it was pretty much pointless.

On the positive side, not to defend the Administration’s non-action on pretty much everything, there is one major point that I do hold to.

The President making the kind of speech that he did to HRC and getting an effective yawn from the media and the country is an huge thing, compared to the past.

Not all that long ago, any candidate anywhere who even stated that maybe gay people weren’t all perverts who should be put down at every opportunity pretty much ended their career. Now we have a sitting President saying that the current state of things is unacceptable, un-American, and that it must change in the foreseeable future.

While I don’t for a minute prefer that to actual, measurable action, in some ways, there is a lot to be said for this kind of changing the dialogue. While I want equal rights and won’t settle for less, if the only thing that Obama does for gay people in his time as President is shift the discussion from whether gay people should be treated equally to when gay people should be treated equally, that will be a huge and transformative shift with incalculable benefits.

And that’s good. Not good enough, but definitely good.

How naive must you be to even seriously pose this question?  My word; even Charlie Brown must look upon you with pity.  Obama is a pro-corporate centrist, and his chief of staff is a right-wing hawk.  Before the backlash from the Civil Rights Era, both (Obama’s pigmentation notwithstanding) would have been Republicans.  Already they’ve shown a penchant for throwing their progressive staff and supporters under the bus for the sake of ‘bipartisanship’ (i.e. mollifying even the most fantastical right-wing hissy fits).  What the fuck is out there—besides carefully constructed, noncommittal platitudes—that can reasonably give anyone the impression that the Obama administration is going to aggressively pursue any of its more progressive campaign promises?  Besides ‘hope,’ I mean.  And don’t forget that hope was put in Pandora’s box (with all the other evils) for a reason.

Okay so let’s go back to the era where the president declared open war on Teh Gays and sought to make this country into the Republic of Gilead.  Because Obama is just some gay-hater and when he says he supports you, it really means he hates you.  I am just fucking naive. 

Keeping pressure on the President is good. Saying he is “Just another Republican” is stupid.  But you keep your Shrill-o-Matic Machine going and your shitty condescension in high gear.  Both are deeply endearing.  What the world needs is another army of Perpetually Outraged Michelle Malkin type motherfuckers just like you.

Fun times.

Stogoe:  Fuck you.

I believe in human rights for everyone, in SPITE of cunts like yourself.  I will just tune shitheads like you out and continue to work for the cause overall. Fortunately, even if the movement is chock-full-o self righteous, racist, and generally unpleasant douchebags, it is still more important than pretty much anything.

Shallow understanding indeed.  I am sorry but I get LIVID when some self-righteous little twat tries to school me on civil rights.  Women and African Americans have been living this struggle for a very long time.  It is difficult to watch this group of people smack us around because they are upset.

Still, on something like DADT, Obama really could just sign an executive order and be done with it.

Actually, he can’t.  Clinton could have signed an executive order.  But because he wishy-washied out and was more worried about the court of public opinion than morality in this situation, Congress got involved quickly and passed a law.  Now it requires a law change, not just an executive order.

That’s what I understand about the history of it anyway, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

And Weezie, how about we avoid derogatory terms for female genitalia used as insults on a FEMINIST BLOG.

Speedbudget: 

You are right.  I apologize.

Ah yes, the old canard about bloggers in their pjs, undies, or whatever (the White House forgot to mention the potato chips).... If only news networks were to stop arbitrarily designating some ideas as mainstream and some as fringe, stop smearing blogs and instead offer the serious discussion of ideas, which these days can be found much more often on blogs or in print editorial columns.

As for the excuses about anonymous sources, I would add that the New York Times has written breathless stories (often about serious topics like national security), based almost exclusively on the dire assertions of anonymous sources from within both the Bush and Obama Administrations. I do not see how the context of reliance on anonymous sources for the White House’s view is much different in this case, though of course, there really isn’t any context, now is there… because the source is anonymous and details of the interview left mysterious.

From #4

“Inside sources” have been doing their damndest to undermine him on more important issues than this and there are enough Clinton-era bluebloods in high positions of power to whine about the sudden accountability of meanie left-heads. Hell, could even be a cabinet member. Geitner has taken some strong knocks from the “internet fringe” since before he was inaugurated and has got to be aching for some potshots. Rahm also seems to have a sour look to the netroots. Hell, any of the old moderates could be a culprit. To a certain type of Democrat voter, bypassing the MSM and talking to the kids on the internet machine is cheating and makes their republican friends cry.

As far as all the questions go about who really said this, was it Rahm Emanuel, or BHO himself, or someone else… I honestly think it doesn’t matter that much. Obama is the head of the Executive branch, and runs an administration. The inner workings of his administration are just rather opaque to us, and I think they will largely remain so (at least until someone inside writes the definitive tell-all memoir). We don’t know who is saying this and in a sense it makes no difference who is saying it, as an administration is supposed to be on-message.

Regardless of whether this is a cabinet member, or Obama himself, or Emanuel, or some other nutball, or even an invention of Mr. John Harwood, our strategy should be the same: push back hard. The fact is that an administration is supposed to have message discipline. The fact is that the media should report honestly. So push back at them all. Us lefty blogosphere types should demand answers, demand that “The White House” retract these statements. Demand respect. If we do it hard enough, all the various elements that might have been the source of this will have to come to a decision. We all know that Obama should be in charge. Just hitting them hard enough will, I think, force them to figure it out, figure out who is really in charge, what the official line really is.

We don’t know who actually said this, and we don’t need to know. We need to counter-punch so that they all feel it.

Ugh. Suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, given their reaction to the Public Option pushback and to the critics of their Afghanistan policy and their continuing of Bush era policies. But it’s still depressing.

I’m not sure this matters much; it’s not like it alters our actions.  Obama has inherited a lot of the Dem bureaucracy, which hates the base passionately.  He’s also inherited some of the new folks who win elections. 

Either way, our job is to marginalize the stupid ideas and support the good ones.  The pajama dig was part of a long-term effort on the part of the elite media to retain power used so awfully.  It’s a meaningless verbal tic.

There are two interpretations of Obama’s actions—1) he’s a centrist politician who goes slow, so pressure is good.  2) he’s a left-wing politician who can use political cover, so pressure is good.  Either way, pressure is good.  Obama is an ally, not a leader, to the progressive cause.

Can I point out how many of us feel the same division? How often rank and file LGBT folks have complained that HRC is too much keyed into the whole Beltway mentality, how the leaders of the Prop 8 campaign dropped the ball, and so on?

I suspect this is a huge part of the underlying resentment.  God knows the idiots who ran No on 8 here in California will never get another dime of my money after their “it’s okay to hate gay people as long as you let us get married!” campaign.  They took a 20 point lead and turned it into a defeat.

And yet, somehow, it was all the fault of black people and not because the No on 8 people fucked up the campaign.  Man, that was ugly.  And, hey, blaming black people for the failure was another meme pushed hard by ... John Aravosis!  Funny how his fingerprints are all over these fact-free hysterical outbursts, isn’t it?

@ Lymis:  That’s just it.  They see the protesting kind of people as unhelpful or even counterproductive, unlike HRC.  But it’s a hell of stretch to turn that dynamic—outsider vs. insider, grassroots vs. professional-organized, maybe even aggressive vs. complacent—into “Obama thinks that LGBT people are part of the fringe.”

“And he does not need to do it.  Let’s face it, the gay and far left communities are a relatively small number of people, despite the noise they make.  And who will they vote for next time?  Palin?  Huckabee?  Romney?  Pawlenty?  No.  Your vote is already in BO’s pocket.  Why waste political capital on you when there are bigger fish to fry?”

Did the 1990s not happen on your planet? Bill Clinton spent his two terms snubbing the left and the result was enough people voting for Ralph Nader that Gore lost.

The same thing may or may not happen to Obama, but it’s really frustrating that liberal anger at Clinton led to the country suffering for eight years and we don’t even get the political benefit due for it.

Mnemosyne:

Hear hear.

That people take the crap churned out of his meme-o-matic and run with it is just deeply problematic for progressives on so many levels.  He is almost always wrong.  Even though we are playing for the same team, I hate to have a cheater like him undermining the whole effort.  We have one Matt Drudge.  I think that is quite enough, thank you.

White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”

The White House is strongly denying a report making the rounds that it views gay critics and bloggers as part of an “Internet left fringe,” with a senior adviser asserting to me that this sentiment “does not reflect White House thinking at all.” ... Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:  “That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

Hearing the same thing at a press conference would be great, too.

It is odd that John would be considered some sort of flag-bearer for civil rights.

Shorter Obama:
“Tell the Right I’ll meet with them, tell the Centre-Right I’ll give them anything they want and more, tell the Left to be patient forever and tell the Progressives to fuck off.  Oh, and send a note to the Left and Progressives telling them that I’m the best they got, so bring love and money.”

Seeker:

Trolling is fun, isn’t it.

Ahh, yes.  “All we need is a bill, that all the dems vote on!”  ...And when have we been able to break a filibuster this year?  Like, actually, instead of merely technically?

Wouldn’t know, I’ve never done it.

Go back through previous threads and posts.  You’ll find I’ve been pretty consistent in going after Obama for his lack of progressive staff, appointments and policies, especially when compared to how he has treated the blue dogs and untrustworthy trash like Lieberman.  But if you want to characterize going on a progressive blog to demand more progressive policies from a president who ran in large measure on progressive language and promises as “trolling”, then by all means do so.  You can also go out, look at your beagle and yell “kitty!!!” too, with about as much accuracy.

You might want to recall, though, that isn’t the first time the White House has sent a loud, public message to bloggers and the left to STFU when it doesn’t do that to anybody else at all.  What makes us so special that we’re the only part of the electorate, the Democratic party and Obama voters who get treated so rudely?  Progressives and the blogsphere are the only folks Obama seems comfortable giving public raspberries to.  Why?

And, I note, we’ve been here before:
http://www.pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/this_is_not_a_time/

Obama is not a center-right anything.  Words mean things.

He’s a center-left technocrat on the economy, a waffly progressive on social issues, and deeply terrified of opening up the Bush Imperial Presidency can of worms.

A center-righty wouldn’t have proposed or passed a $900 billion stimulus package, wouldn’t have spoken at HRC at all, and wouldn’t have dismissed Fox as a partisan propaganda outlet.

Maybe he’s center-right in a European sense.  But those are societies with centers in sane areas.

And after all of this, John Harwood now says that the paraphrase he used did not refer to GLBT activists at all”

“My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren’t about the LGBT community or the marchers,” he wrote. “They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo—and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama’s liberal base…”

Aravosis hysteria strikes again.

@ Mnemosyne:  w00t

Funny, I took it as referring to to “Obama’s liberal base” in the first place and not restricted to the LGBT2S community.  Generally when this administration sends a clear negative message to anybody it’s pretty much always its base, so who else would it be referring to?

Funny, I took it as referring to to “Obama’s liberal base” in the first place and not restricted to the LGBT2S community

Sounds like you were right.  But the chief reason why there was a brouhaha about the comments was not that they were dismissive of the activist left but rather that they were alleged to be dismissive of LGBT civil rights.  Note Pam’s title on this very post:  “The White House just called LGBTs part of pajama-clad ‘Internet fringe’ for asking for civil rights.”  The whole Harwood discussion was about the administration and critics to its left.  It was not about homophobia.  For 48 hours, though, we’ve been led to believe that it was about homophobia, because that’s _worse_.  Bad wasn’t bad enough; it had to be made worse.

Okay so can we now stop listening to Mr. Always-Off-His-Meds Aravosis?  Seriously?

“But the chief reason why there was a brouhaha about the comments was not that they were dismissive of the activist left but rather that they were alleged to be dismissive of LGBT civil rights”

Its dismissive of both the LGBT community and the activist left at the same time and in equal meassure

Solidarity Forever, an attack on one is an attack on all, frente popular, no enemies to our left, anyone who walks with me is a fellow traveler, etc, etc

Actually, he can’t.  Clinton could have signed an executive order.  But because he wishy-washied out and was more worried about the court of public opinion than morality in this situation, Congress got involved quickly and passed a law.  Now it requires a law change, not just an executive order.

That’s what I understand about the history of it anyway, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Partially true.

You’re right, he can’t simply sign an Executive Order to overturn DADT… it must be overturned by Congress.

But he CAN sign an Executive Order requiring an immediate stop-loss on all DADT dismissals in the interim while Congress gets their act together, and people have good reason to be angry that he won’t do that.

But the chief reason why there was a brouhaha about the comments was not that they were dismissive of the activist left but rather that they were alleged to be dismissive of LGBT civil rights.

Not so much. Remember that the immediately preceding item was specifically the March for Equality - in other words, the gay issue, if not 100% gay folks (big cheers to straight allies.)

Listen to the first 10 seconds of the imbedded clip above - the question he answered was SPECIFICALLY about the gay protest. Harwood’s answer was then that it wasn’t a big issue, because the rest of the Democrats are happy with Obama.

Yes, knowing that the brouhaha has come up, you can watch it again and see that it parses in a number of different ways, and can be spun lots of ways. You can even decide that what he appeared to be saying isn’t what he meant.

But what’s being spun now is apparently that no rational person could possibly have interpreted this as dismissive of gay people in general, and that simply ain’t true.

To summarize:
Q: We just saw this protest. Is this protest a sign of a significant problems with important parts of the base?
A: No, no big deal, because even though these clowns want equality, history indicates that actually listening to gay people costs Presidents, and polling indicates we can shut the gays up with issues important to other Democrats - “if they take care of the big issues, like health care, energy, the economy, they’re going to be just fine with this group.”  (the 30 second point).
Q: But what about the left as a whole? Don’t they see things like this as part of a larger failure to keep promises? Isn’t that an issue?
A: Sure, but if you look at the polling of all Democrats, 90% are happy, “so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.”

Remember that less than a minute earlier “this opposition” was specifically a discussion of the gay people marching for equality. The dismissal of their (our) concerns was NOT a matter of “some people do useless things like waving signs and marching, but the serious people do something different, and we take the issue seriously without being particularly worried about this kind of demonstration.”

No, the answer was explicitly, “polls show that if we handle health care and energy, we can completely ignore gay equality and still be okay with 90% of Democrats.” By extension, “so gay people count as left fringe, to be ignored.”

Stop pretending reasonable people can’t hear what is clearly and distinctly said right in front of us. Maybe (and there has been a clarification) this really isn’t the Administration’s view, but it is EXACTLY what Harwood said. Listen to the friggin clip!

I love the “90%” lie.  Obama and the Congress have been strolling firmly to the right since the inauguration and their numbers among Dems have been dropping as a reflection of this.  I don’t know whether this is just lying to viewers, or lying to themselves as well.  Probably the latter, given the fact that people like Rahm would sneer that they had the majority of Dems behind them even if every registered Democrat was burning him in effigy outside the White House.

“Clowns”.  Harwood or the anonymous source?  It sure sounds like Rahm.  It reminds one of the Tom Clancy novel where a slimy NSAdvisor leaks false data to a reporter who sees him for what he is; in the reporters notes “a senior administration official” is abbreviated to “as’ol”.

Just to be clear, my use of the word clowns was my paraphrase based on his attitude, not anything Harwood said.

Solidarity Forever, an attack on one is an attack on all, frente popular, no enemies to our left, anyone who walks with me is a fellow traveler, etc, etc

Unfortunately, though, that’s not what happened.  Over at Balloon Juice in particular it turned into some pretty ugly “my issue is more important than your issue” bickering.  In fact, I was thinking this morning that if this had been a deliberate ratfucking designed to separate GLBT activists from the rest of the left, it couldn’t have worked any better.

Stop pretending reasonable people can’t hear what is clearly and distinctly said right in front of us. Maybe (and there has been a clarification) this really isn’t the Administration’s view, but it is EXACTLY what Harwood said. Listen to the friggin clip!

I don’t think anyone’s arguing about what Harwood said—at best, he misspoke, and at worst he made shit up.  The argument occurred because Harwood’s words were then attributed to the White House and used as proof positive that the White House (not Harwood) is saying nice things about GLBT rights in public but running them down in private.  That may or may not be happening, but we now know that Harwood’s words are definitely not proof that it is happening.

Digby had a particularly interesting take on what Harwood said—apparently it’s pretty much exactly what he always says (to the point that Digby says she’s repeating it along with him on the Sunday talkers) only this time he attributed a paraphrase to an anonymous White House official.  Since it’s Harwood’s favorite meme, it looks like he may have dragged it into a conversation where it didn’t really apply and managed to cause a shitstorm by doing so.

To summarize:
Q: We just saw this protest. Is this protest a sign of a significant problems with important parts of the base?
A: No, no big deal, because even though these clowns want equality, history indicates that actually listening to gay people costs Presidents

Well, sure, if you “summarize” by just making stuff up.

The A: is more like, “No, no big deal, because there are inevitably some people who will never be satisfied with anything we do, but we’re confident that there aren’t many of them.” 

Why isn’t that bad enough?  Why force it to be specifically antigay? 

I mean, that’s like saying that the health care reform plans benefit arsonists, because people who have committed arson will be able to purchase affordable health insurance on the exchanges.  Arsonists are within the group, yes, but they don’t define the group, and it’s demagogic to treat it as though they do.  Gay critics are within the group of critics, but they don’t define the group.

But what’s being spun now is apparently that no rational person could possibly have interpreted this as dismissive of gay people in general, and that simply ain’t true. [...] Stop pretending reasonable people can’t hear what is clearly and distinctly said right in front of us.

I’m spinning it back the other way, after it came to us pre-spun by Aravosis via Pam. 

I hear what is clearly and distinctly said right in front of me.  I understand that there was a link between the gay-rights protest and critics to the left of the president:  addressing the former became a jumping-off point for addressing the latter.  I continue to deny that any dismissive attitude that does exist (and it probably does) is aimed at gay critics in particular, either in actual administration opinion or even in the Harwood paraphrase of same.

I think the negative comments directed at Obama (who didn’t even say the comments that Harwood made up) are outpacing the negative comments directed at Harwood (who made them up) at about 100-to-1. And if it was some deliberate White House/CNBC conspiracy, I wouldn’t actually call it ratfucking… more like lemmingfucking.

P.S. Hooray for the self-correcting blogosphere!

norbizness:
I’d have more sympathy for Obama on that score if his consistent record since the election hadn’t been “the only groups I’ll openly diss and tell to STFU are the progressives”.  If it’s a ratfucking then it only worked because Obama brought the rat.

“In fact, I was thinking this morning that if this had been a deliberate ratfucking designed to separate GLBT activists from the rest of the left, it couldn’t have worked any better.”

Didnt seem to work on you, sure as hell didnt work on me

did it work on others? maybe but so what - the Solidarity Forever principle still holds, I’d rather hang together then be hanged alone

@ seeker, if it had been a firestorm about dissing and STFUing _progressives_, I wouldn’t have said anything about it.  It wasn’t.  It was a firestorm about dissing gay rights.

“I think the negative comments directed at Obama (who didn’t even say the comments that Harwood made up) are outpacing the negative comments directed at Harwood (who made them up) at about 100-to-1. And if it was some deliberate White House/CNBC conspiracy, I wouldn’t actually call it ratfucking… more like lemmingfucking.”

OK, but how should that change our response?

If its the WH position then push back
If its a rouge staffer then push back
if its just Harwood then push back

OK, but how should that change our response?

If it’s just Harwood, how does pushing back on the White House for something they didn’t say do any good?  It just makes it look like we’re throwing a temper tantrum at the most convenient target rather than directing our anger at the actual culprit.

“If it’s just Harwood, how does pushing back on the White House for something they didn’t say do any good?  It just makes it look like we’re throwing a temper tantrum at the most convenient target rather than directing our anger at the actual culprit.”

Well, the WH walked it back pretty quickly didnt they?

Occasional temper tantrums from the good guys are useful, if only so the tantrums from the tea-baggers are not the only thing that gets responded to

besides, pour encourager les autres

Actually, jefft452 makes an interesting point—maybe in this contemporary political climate, tantrums can be effective.  We’ve certainly seen it get the media’s attention time and time again.  But I don’t know if it has actual political/policy effect.  It could be more like furiously pushing the elevator button and feeling like that made the elevator arrive faster.

“But I don’t know if it has actual political/policy effect.  It could be more like furiously pushing the elevator button and feeling like that made the elevator arrive faster”

Yes, I think that thats right,

But… if only one side is doing the tantrums, you have the whole Overton window thing going on and it does effect policy

He might have been generalizing.  After all, if you say that a blogger is “fucking stupid” there’s at least an 8 in 10 chance that you’ll be right.

The numbers do favor the White House in this opinion of bloggers.

Regarding my citing the data that 8 in 10 bloggers are “fucking stupid”:

I got my information from Price Waterhouse.