Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The embittered asshole lobby exposed Previous entry: Friday Genius Ten “Yes New York” Edition

Video WH ‘held for review’: Obama official Melody Barnes’ support for marriage equality

This story is so weird; it exemplifies the paranoia over at the White House over anything G-A-Y, particularly regarding the President’s current illogical-but-politically safe position on marriage equality. We have to roll the story out before getting to the meat of it.

Melody Barnes, Obama’s senior domestic policy aide, recently gave a talk at Boston College; she indicated not only her personal opinion on marriage equality (she’s for it), she provided insight on WH policy. Apparently her answer was not from the script and the White House freaked and denied Barnes said anything about her views.

Reached late Monday evening, a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Barnes was not discussing “her personal views on marriage equality or other issues.”

Paul Sousa, Founder of Equal Rep was at the talk and told Sam Stein of Huff Post that Barnes indeed shared her viewpoint on marriage equality. So that meant someone wasn’t telling the truth.

But the Barnes talk had been taped. What happened next was extremely bizarre—persons unidentified in Obama White House, home of our “fierce advocate”—told Boston College that it had final say on whether this tape would be released at all. John @ Americablog:

by 3:40PM Tuesday, November 10, the White House was given a copy of the video by BC, and was informed that the school’s policy was to give the speaker the choice to release or suppress video of their talks at the school. The White House, rather than refusing to be the ultimate censor of the publication of the video that had already caused quite a stir, and rather than simply giving BC the permission to publish the video on the spot, accepted the video, and its role as censor, and didn’t get back to the school for two whole days. It was only this morning that Kenyon says the White House told Boston College that it could release the Barnes video.

Why did it take the White House two days to decide whether it would permit a private university to release a video of a public event involving a senior White House official, a video that we now know the White House had in its possession the entire time?

...The appropriate response from the White House, when a private university asks for permission to release a video of a White House employee speaking on the record at a public meeting, is not “send us the video, so we can see it, and decide if we’re going to censor its release. And in the meantime, do censor it for at least a few days.” (Which leads to some fascinating First Amendment issues, at the very least.)

The Obama White House was trapped in yet another public “gaffe” over its preposterous dealings re: LGBT rights because of Melody Barnes’s statement. Since it couldn’t give a rational explanation for withholding the tape’s release, the anonymous paranoid Obama officials decided they would hold on to it until the news “dead drop” on Friday, when the MSM goes to sleep for the weekend. Unfortunately, the Internet never sleeps, peeps.

The Advocate obtained the tape from the college’s communications department and transcribed it, so there wasn’t any question about what Barnes told the students at Boston College. More below the fold.

Boston College law student Paul Sousa posed the question to her in the context of Obama’s current view that “separate but equal” is A-OK.

“What I would like to know is whether or not you support equal civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and if so, are you speaking or will you speak with President Obama on this civil rights matter?”

A clear question, no? And Barnes, in turn, is clear as well in her response:

“I appreciate your question, and I also belong to United Church of Christ. And I guess I would respond in a couple of different ways. One, I appreciate, I really appreciate your frustration and your disappointment with the president’s position on this issue. He has taken a position, and at the same time, he has also articulated the number of ways that he wants to try and move the ball forward for gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, including signing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and a whole host of other things that we’ve started to do to model as a leader in terms of what the federal government is doing, as well as to encourage changes both in the military, in the workplace, and certainly with regard to hate crimes. I accept that that is very different than what you are talking about. And what you’re talking about is something that is quite fundamental.

With regard to my own views, those are my own views. And I come to my experience based on what I’ve learned, based on the relationships that I’ve had with friends and their relationships that I respect, the children that they are raising, and that is something that I support. But at the same time, when I walk into the White House, though I work to put all arguments in front of the president, as you say, I also work for the president. And we have very robust policy conversations, very robust constitutional conversations with the White House counsel, and others about these issues, and we’ll see what happens from there. At this point, all I can say to you is that his plans right now are to move the ball forward in the ways that I’ve described. He hasn’t articulated a shift in his position there, and that is something that at this moment I accept as it being, it is what it is, even as we continue to have a national, or we continue to have a conversation with him about it.”

So reading the above, she supports and sympathizes with lesbian and gay families and the quandry they are in; and indicates that she, along with other marriage equality supporters want to continue the dialog to move the President back to the unequivocal position he used to hold back in 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

The whole thing would be laughable if it didn’t convey how paranoid this White house is about LGBT civil rights; taking days to review a tape as if there were some top-secret national security matter divulged in it. The statement Melody Barnes made could have been reviewed in a couple of minutes and cleared for OK. You’ve read the transcript; what on earth were they so worked up over? She stated that she will support the President’s views in her professional role; she simply her personal views in that context.

People do this all the time; you can disagree with your boss on a matter and still enforce/support the company’s policies, while personally making efforts to convince your boss that another path may be more beneficial.

Whoever you are in the White House—engineering this fracas has only strengthened the reasons for shutting down the gAyTM. Paul Sousa:

It’s disappointing and angering that the White House felt the need to lie about one of their top officials supporting marriage equality—that just reinforces the beliefs that members of our community have regarding the attitudes of this White House towards the LGBT community. There is no shame in supporting full equality for gay and lesbian Americans and the White House should be proud of the courage that Melody Barnes has displayed.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 01:20 PM • (42) Comments

This is ridiculous. A person can’t give their own “personal opinion” on a matter? Are they ALWAYS speaking on behalf of the President? I may be overeacting, but this is censorship of Barnes’ free speech.

Comment #1: Mark  on  11/13  at  01:27 PM

Thw WH is so paranoid that it has created drama where there was none. There is no confusion in Barnes’s statement—she supports marriage equality on a personal level, she acknowledges that she has to back the President’s stance in her position—there is nothing controversial there. The President has made his position clear, so why all the “hold and review”?

If the WH had simply reviewed the tape and released it that same day none of the blow up would have occurred. What it did was first deny she had expressed an opinion, then hold the tape proving that she did until it could dead drop its release. That’s purposeful attempt to suppress the non-issue.

After all, one would assume that there are marriage equality supporters at the highest levels in the admin, what is WH’s problem with Barnes’s statement? This is pathetic.

Comment #2: Pam Spaulding  on  11/13  at  01:38 PM

Yeah, this is pretty impressive.  There must be some internal tension being reflected here.

Comment #3: Punditus Maximus  on  11/13  at  01:42 PM

There’s another little issue that some silly people are going to freak out about once this video gets released…

Boston College isn’t just a private university, it’s a private Catholic (Jesuit) university.

Notre Dame, redux.

Comment #4: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  01:44 PM

I am BC law student and I was at Ms. Barnes’ talk. She was very impressove and eloquent and it is unfortunate that the White House chose to respond in such a manner. Expecially by choosing to call Paul a liar. Its pretty disgusting and tarnishes what was an empathetic and appropriate response by Ms. Barnes.

Comment #5: sizzle  on  11/13  at  01:46 PM

<blockquote>This is ridiculous. A person can’t give their own “personal opinion” on a matter? Are they ALWAYS speaking on behalf of the President? I may be overeacting, but this is censorship of Barnes’ free speech.</bllockquote>

The WH completely screwed the pooch on this one, and the LGBT community has every right to feel even more alienated from the president because of it.

That said, while the handling of the situation was completely idiotic, it can’t really be considered suppression of free speech.  As an employee of any organization, bosses do have a certain degree of control over what you may or may not say publicly, even when you are off the clock.  Consider how many people have lost their jobs for things they have written on their personal blogs on their own time.  The First Amendment protects your right to speak freely (with certain limitations, ie yelling “fire” in a crowded theater) without having that speech suppressed by government force, such as the threat of arrest or incarceration.  It does not guarantee that you have a right to keep your job regardless of what you say.  An employer can’t have you arrested for publishing a blog which is disparaging of company employees, but they most certainly can fire you over it.

All White House employees, particularly high-level staff, are bound by tons of confidentiality agreements that basically gives the White House the right to censor almost anything they say publicly.  Some of those agreements end when employment ends at the White House, which is why people like Scott McLellan can write tell-all books about certain dealings inside the Bush White House.  He would not have been allowed to write that book while he was Bush’s Press Secretary.  In addition, certain national security information must remain confidential even after White House employment is severed, and the divulging of that information can lead to arrest and prosecution.

I remember when, immediately after Obama was elected, the website change.gov went online, and there was a link where anyone could apply for one of the 8,000+ White House jobs that would be available.  On the applicatiion, you had to declare any and all online publishing activity, including not just your own blogs and social networking profiles, but comments made on other people’s blogs.  You also gave the Obama Transition Team permission to thoroughly vet your online history, and anything that they believed that could be a liability to your employment could be used against you in their hiring decisions.  That means if you ever posted a comment here like, “I think Cheney should be tried and hung for war crimes”, you probably weren’t gonna get a job with the White House.

The White House, as an entity in general, attempts to be one of the most tight-lipped institutions in the world, largely because they deal with some of the most sensitive information in the world.  As such, they exercise a ridiculous amount of control over what they will allow their staff to say, even when they are off the clock.  When you work for the most powerful person in the world, you technically are never “off the clock”.

Anyway, as I said before, I agree that the White House screwed the pooch bigtime on this one, and made way too big of a deal out of Barnes’ comments, and in the process made themselves look even worse on LGBT issues than they already do…

But it isn’t a First Amendment issue.

Comment #6: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  02:12 PM

Pam wrote:

People do this all the time; you can disagree with your boss on a matter and still enforce/support the company’s policies, while personally making efforts to convince your boss that another path may be more beneficial.

But in many places you can’t publicly disagree with your boss.  Sometimes you have to keep your mouth shut.

Comment #7: Dana  on  11/13  at  02:29 PM

One wonders if Melody Barnes will resign shortly to pursue opportunities in private industry.

Comment #8: Dana  on  11/13  at  02:33 PM

C/mon folks, they’re dealing with the paranoid extremist, who have shown no hesitation to take even a sneeze out of context and role it into a terrorist plot to spread swine flu.  So wanting to vet first is understandable - shit, I’d be reviewing Beau’s barks.

Comment #9: phylosopher  on  11/13  at  02:59 PM

This makes me so fucking angry.

Why do we elect Democrats who act like Republicans?  What is the point.

Listen, Barry, you ran on CHANGE, as in the country was headed in a bad direction and we wanted it to change.  You better believe you are pissing off your support when suddenly women have fewer rights over their bodies and LGBT are ignored and marginalized while the wars continue, the government is no more transparent, the rich are bailed out, and the sick can just drop dead or be fined for not paying for profit insurance companies.

Would it really be that much worse under McCain?  I don’t think McCain could have engineered an abortion rollback of the proportions Stupak could provide.  Yeah, LGBTQI would not have an advocate in the White House, but guess what?  THEY DON’T HAVE ONE NOW.

Not happy with the President.  Not at all.  Which, of course, if good news for John McCain.

What will it take to force Democrats to realize that when they act like Republicans and piss people off, the proper reaction IS TO BECOME MORE PROGRESSIVE, NOT MORE CONSERVATIVE.  People don’t like conservatives.  The majority of them voted for something different.  So why does it have to be more of the same?

Comment #10: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/13  at  03:07 PM

Being picky, but it’s “Bo”, not “Beau”.

The legendary blues artist Bo Diddley is the first pooch’s namesake.  “Diddley” was also a nickname of Michelle Obama’s deceased father.

Comment #11: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  03:12 PM

Would it really be that much worse under McCain?  I don’t think McCain could have engineered an abortion rollback of the proportions Stupak could provide.

To be fair to Obama… Stupak wasn’t his doing, and it isn’t a done deal.  As a matter of fact, he came out and pretty forcefully said that he won’t let the final bill create any change in the status quo regarding abortion funding, meaning the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment would be permissable, but nothing more restrictive than that.

That doesn’t mean I’m not appalled with the Stupak Amendment, because it is most definitely appalling.  However, it isn’t the law at this point, and it’s not a certainty that it will survive conference committee, given the vehement firestorm that came in its wake.  It sucks that it was allowed to be injected into the House Bill hours before the bill was passed, but the House Bill is not the final bill that will wind up on Obama’s desk.

If Stupak or a similar type restriction winds up in the final bill and it gets passed and signed by Obama, then I’ll join in blasting him for allowing it to happen.  But at this point, I place the blame for the Stupak Amendment squarely on the shoulders of Representative Stupak and all of his scummy enablers who voted for it.  Obama expressed direct opposition to the amendment in saying that the status quo on abortion availability should not be changed by the final bill; provided his actions match his words, and he refuses to sign any HCR bill with Stupak in it, I’ll lay off on criticizing him over that particular issue.

Comment #12: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  03:25 PM

Okay WHOA!!! You really think we would even have health care reform on the TABLE under McCain?  Let’s take a fucking chill pill and wind down the hysterics.

He is an asshole for dropping the ball so profoundly on this issue.  He blew his social progressive cred big time.  And if you think human rights are something to play games about, it tarnishes everything else you do. 

But the “SAME AS MCCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” screeching is somewhat over the top.

Comment #13: Weezie Jefferson  on  11/13  at  03:35 PM

(Feel free to add to or change this)
Obama scoresheet:
Positive: 

1)  Health Care Reform that will, at a minimum, prevent HI companies from rejecting an applicant or charging an exorbitant rate for that applicant.  Every thing else is a super bonus here.
2)  Competence
3)  Rational foreign policy and recovery of international reputation, relations and influence

Negative:

1)  Guantanamo still exists
2)  Secret wiretapping not repudiated, possibly still in use
3)  Afghanistan policy
4)  Complicity in gutting Sarbanes-Oxley
5)  Lack of any GLBTQ advocacy
6)  Stimulus plan omits national electric grid

Some of those positives are big things.  Are they enough to make me feel good about voting for and donating to Obama given the negatives?  Not right now, especially if Sarbanes-Oxley really does get gutted.

Comment #14: Jake Squid  on  11/13  at  03:47 PM

Can I ask the angry and frustrated ones out there to consider that you aren’t being played in the way you think you are?

Like a lot of good fighters, Obama has one general tactic that he sticks to until someone proves that they can work around it. Obama’s is rope-a-dope: get the ball rolling on an issue, and sit back and do nothing at all while his opponents exhaust themselves in increasingly hysterical attacks. Then once they start to sound silly even to themselves, he steps in and makes a rational case for his cause. He did it with Hillary Clinton, with McCain, with health care, and he’s doing it with gay rights.

He knows that whereas right-wing activists are slavishly devoted to their causes, the left-wing ones tend to wander. So while he waits out all the stupid on gay marriage, he wants you to be fired up about it: keep pushing that envelope. And it’s good for him both ways if he pisses you off: you’re more active about making full gay citizenship happen, and the people who are on the opposing side look increasingly idiotic.

He’s just unusual for C21 America in that he can plan beyond the next quarter. He’s not really that liberal, but he’s smart enough to know which way the wind is blowing, and not nearly stupid enough not to want to be around when it finally happens. This way, he gets to take credit for it without really having to work very hard other than in being kind of aloof and disdainful, which isn’t really work for him.

Comment #15: felagund  on  11/13  at  03:53 PM

Being picky, but it’s “Bo”, not “Beau”.

The legendary blues artist Bo Diddley is the first pooch’s namesake.  “Diddley” was also a nickname of Michelle Obama’s deceased father.
Comment #11: DTG in STL on 11/13 at 02:12 PM

Thanks for the clarification - I was typing quick and thought “oops, those are Obama’s initials, it should be BEAU. “

Comment #16: phylosopher  on  11/13  at  04:37 PM

He did it with Hillary Clinton, with McCain, with health care, and he’s doing it with gay rights.

Occam’s razor says he just doesn’t give a shit about the GLBT crowd.

Comment #17: mr_subjunctive  on  11/13  at  05:14 PM

First, I have to say that I do empathize with the frustration surrounding this and that I am as perplexed about this as many of those who’ve posted here are. Gay rights are one of the most important domestic issues to me, and I would like nothing more than to see the full realization of their efforts in my lifetime. 

That being said, this is my interpretation of Obama’s thinking. I feel that, with every subsequent teabagger parade or new Glenn Beck-induced hysteria fad, he’s watching the country’s socio-politico barometer a little more closely. I’d like to say that the people who sympathize with those views (ultra conservative) comprise a minority of the population, but I haven’t read up on any stats. Furthermore, I don’t know where people who are (potentially the majority) politically on the fence about a lot of issues stand, i.e. if they’re swayed more by liberals or the conservative nuts.

With this is mind, I feel like Obama is pro gay rights, but I think he’s trying to a) gauge people’s reaction and not piss off a substantial amount of the population and b) work in each issue slowly and one at a time. Change takes time. I wish it wasn’t that way, but history has proven that to be true time and time again. We have a right to be frustrated about this, but I think it’s important to keep our eyes on the prize and not let road bumps like this be drastically divisive. Perhaps we need to make sure we’re louder than the obnoxious right and that we’re getting more people on our side.

Hopefully this post will draw more positive replies than pithy remarks as we could always use more of the former.

Comment #18: LaPistola  on  11/13  at  06:16 PM

It’s entirely possible the white house communications staff had been told something different about the content, and it took a couple days to sort it out.

But certainly, releasing it on Friday seems specific.

I don’t know what the President thinks he has to gain from straddling this issue.  Those who care about it were pretty decided on supporting him or not already.  What few bigots will support him in other endeavors right now?

Comment #19: Crissa  on  11/13  at  06:56 PM

1) Guantanamo still exists
2) Secret wiretapping not repudiated, possibly still in use
3) Afghanistan policy
4) Complicity in gutting Sarbanes-Oxley
5) Lack of any GLBTQ advocacy
6) Stimulus plan omits national electric grid

1) Congress decided to pass law against closing it.  Obama hasn’t changed his position.
2) ... This is a good point.  But his position hasn’t changed.
3) Obama hasn’t changed his position.  Not sure what you’re complaining about.
4) What?
5) ... This is a good point.
6) Congress, not Obama, chooses the lines.

So basically, you have a couple reasons to be upset, but your other points are pretty much inconsistent with the abilities of the President.

Comment #20: Crissa  on  11/13  at  07:01 PM

It’s not going to be the popular opinion, but…

I think Obama is just very very conscious of the need to present a masculine image.  I suspect that he believes that a fairly large portion of his base is at best, quietly homophobic, for reasons relating to the subversion of gender roles.  That their perception of his role in national affairs is a kind of archetypal bellweather with different myths slotted in as perceptions change.  It couldn’t have escaped his notice how much a Democratic party politician has to control the masculinity of his image—regardless of whether the base supports his policy ideas or not, active support is strongly dependent on whether a person is comfortable with a presented image.  Go from Adlai Stevenson’s egghead, to mentally infirm McGovern, to impotent Carter, and ridiculous Dukakis.  Consider how much Clinton’s randy image protected him from much of the crap Republicans sling at “liberals” like Gore or Kerry.  Also consider how much gays-in-the-military weakened Clinton’s hand in the midst of the crucial evolution in the early part of his term.  It was a pretty big factor in forcing a republicans-lite mein headed by Dick Morris for a time.

Lately, I’ve been picking at psychological scabs by reading open forums on football topics.  There is most definitly a very concentrated racism around the topic of black quarterbacks—more so than in any other US sport other than women’s tennis.  There is something of a “Black Quarterback” effect, which is a similar to phenomenons surrounding high-charged businesswomen.  The end result is that one has to be perfect at all facets of the game (with very little institutional support), at all times to get a little, though quickly forgotten credit.  For instance, Josh Nesbitt is having an excellent year at Georgia Tech and has numbers similar to Tim Tebow—yet is dismissed as a fullback that throws the odd pass even though Tim Tebow is the same, if inferior, NFL talent at that.  What’s more relevant to Obama is the kind of structural issues surrounding Vince Young and Donovan McNabb.  Donovan McNabb is repeatedly benched for “inconsistency” well out of proportion to quarterbacks who have performed as well as he has, and is often treated in a paternal manner by the Eagles organization and the Philly media.  Vince Young has never been an atrocious quarterback and has had good games, however, it has taken ‘till very recently for the Titans organization to actually trust him with the ball after his mental breakdown—even with a clearly drastic underperforming quarterback in front of him.  Both McNabb and Young are routinely dismissed as being effeminate (by people with the megaphones) despite a demostrated toughness and ability to perform.

What you see with black quarterbacks, and with very public black male personas are two things.  Black men like Tiger Woods are extremely meticulous, inoffensive and careful in their public appearances.  Black male personas who have to interact in a public and competitive media have very little control over how the public responds.  If a black man has to speak up forcefully, that is almost always guaranteed to bring pushback well above and beyond the offensiveness of the comment.  I suspect that Obama believes that he has very little genuine flexibility in terms of being a public spokesman, which is why he relies so much on rope-a-dope politics in order to maximize what the public hears from him with little muddy contra-indications.  Obama already has a zillion chain emails of malicious gossip floating around the intertubes, and I damn well *know* Obama remembers how much Harold Washington’s attempt to reform Chicago politics was impaired by constant rumors of the mayor’s homosexuality.  The eighties might be a different time than now, but memories are a powerful thing.  I’m not even sure he’s actually wrong to be this cautious on the topic.  The Stupak controversy has put front and center the possibility that Obama’s super-conservative attitude with HCR is well justified.

Oh,  and um…McNabb might have to accept being treated in a paternal manner due to the structure of football, but Obama?  He doesn’t.  When you use the dimuniative “Barry”, it’s every bit as much an indicator as “honey” that your discourse is not worth the hearing.

Comment #21: shah8  on  11/13  at  07:05 PM

Caren @ #10, a-fucking-men. Thank you. Though haha your disappointment is “hysterics” and “screeching”.

The sentiments in #13, #15 and #18 are too familiar. “Calm down, be patient, Obama’s got this BRILLIANT MASTER PLAN which will be revealed at some unspecified future date”. That sure would be great but frankly I think it’s a load of crap. Those of us on the left are justified in our disappointment.

Y’all with the “there there, be real quiet and nice things will happen for us yay!” can keep waiting breathlessly for the super secret ninja mojo O will maybe someday hopefully pretty please drop on all of us but personally he, and the Democrats, can go screw.

Comment #22: mir  on  11/13  at  07:20 PM

You really think we would even have health care reform on the TABLE under McCain?

Sure we would.  He would “reform” it into the ground.  Remember his cross state border proposal?  And his proposal to tax benefits?  Without a doubt, whatever we got out of McCain (assuming he could get his proposals past Congress) would be a million times worse than the status quo.

Thinking back to the election, it still kills me that he was rattling his saber against RUSSIA.

Comment #23: keshmeshi  on  11/13  at  07:51 PM

MIR- Did you even read my post? Especially the last line? I think you misinterpreted my tone as being all rainbows and lollipops. It’s not. My concession that the disappointment is well founded was there. Your hyperbolic comments aren’t a rebuttal; don’t mistake them as such. I don’t like that the duration needed for change is unpredictable and lengthy any more than the next person, but it is reality. Show me a time in history when change has happened overnight, violent revolutions and beheadings aside. Would you prefer that we use our constitutional rights to kick out Obama and get someone else? It sounds like it. You seem more the Malcom X type when it comes to rallying for change. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you can expect to be disappointed a lot. The three viable options in this situation are: 1) work within the system 2) start a Civil War and take up arms against the opposition and 3) bitch about it on forums.

Comment #24: LaPistola  on  11/13  at  08:24 PM

Furthermore, when you have a democracy, you do indeed have to take into account everyone’s opinion. It can’t be “damn the torpedoes!” all the time because it is our constitutional right as Americans to uproot those in power if we choose to do so. This may be my neurosis talking, but I fear that the conservative crazies will do something drastic and that they are a ticking time bomb. I could be wrong, but the opposition is a very real thing. I don’t know where everyone posting lives, but I live in Texas amongst a whole mess of crazy. One of my senators voted against Al Franken’s amendment that allows employees to file lawsuits if their employer rapes them and puts them in a fucking box for days. If that isn’t demonstrative that there’s a very real threat to the goal of attaining equal human rights across the board, I don’t know what is.

Comment #25: LaPistola  on  11/13  at  08:32 PM

What LaPistola said. Politics is a slow, grinding business and actually getting anything positive done is like pulling teeth. As individuals, Americans are as often as not welcoming and open; as a group, we tend to be dumber than a box of shit and more reactionary than a small-town Southern sheriff. Furthermore, we as a culture are still extremely screwy about gay rights and gay marriage especially is going to be a tough nut to make. Recall, within the last year, enough citizens of both California and Maine were dumb enough to be bamboozled into voting against gay rights because they thought the federal government would require live gay sex acts in churches and schools or some dopey shit.

For what it’s worth, I think the Obama administration will get around to making serious progress on LGBT issues, though I’m hesitant to say how much and when. There has been some progress with the Hate Crimes bill, and I seem to remember there being some talk about the new defense budget overturning DADT. Plus, a lot of this is more or less out of the president’s hands, though he could definitely be more forceful in making Congress get up off their privileged asses and make this whole “out of many, one” concept actually mean something. Plus, we as active citizens have to hold his and their feet to the fire constantly or they won’t do shit. Granted, I’m a straight white guy, so grain of salt and all that.

That all being said, I wonder what kind of full-on bull-goose loony ape-shittery we’ll see from Teabagus Americanus when/if the Obama administration gets around to doing something substantial about LGBT rights. Given the hysteria and outright lying over health care - which should be and is a no-brainer “special interest” to everyone, gay and straight - we’ll likely see wingnuttery as yet unknown in this land. Much forcing down throats and “what about the chillrens” and whatnot. Paul Broun will probably accuse Obama of forcing grandmas to have sex with each other.

Comment #26: Matt T.  on  11/13  at  08:43 PM

Y’all with the “there there, be real quiet and nice things will happen for us yay!” can keep waiting breathlessly for the super secret ninja mojo O will maybe someday hopefully pretty please drop on all of us but personally he, and the Democrats, can go screw.

Well, since you’ve clearly made up your mind, I won’t spin wheels trying to plead with you to come back.

So what now?  Palin 2012?

I’m sure that will work out great for advancing real progressivism.

Comment #27: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  10:08 PM

Would you prefer that we use our constitutional rights to kick out Obama and get someone else? It sounds like it. You seem more the Malcom X type when it comes to rallying for change. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you can expect to be disappointed a lot. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you can expect to be disappointed a lot.

Well, since you’ve clearly made up your mind, I won’t spin wheels trying to plead with you to come back.

So what now?  Palin 2012?

I’m sure that will work out great for advancing real progressivism.

Jesus H. Christ. The Democrats invited to go screw are those IN POWER. Not you, personally, who vote Democratic. I vote Democratic. I caucused. I throw as much money and time as I can afford at Democratic candidates. The time and money are now past tense, however. And possibly votes.

Progressive disappointment is real. Obama has disappointed us time and again. It’s neither naive nor radical to say so.

Comment #28: mir  on  11/13  at  10:32 PM

I read the above and chuckle, just a little dry one…

If a non-utterly useless and/or distasteful HCR ends up on Obama’s desk by Christmas, he’ll have done more for the average joe than Clinton or Carter did in their entire first term.  He’s also got an actual environmental bill that’s also waiting in the wings.  He’s been a zillion times more effective in rationalizing foreign policy than Bill Clinton, who either went for NAFTA, gone for the big swing with Oslo, or unrecognized for the deplomacy in denuclearizing the soviet descendant states.  Following what Sotomayer has said on the bench to date, there does seem a hope that she will actually be genuinely to the left on business matters (where democrat appointments have really failed).

And for all that he *hasn’t* gone forward in some of the major issues surrounding gay rights, he also has not renounced them, nor has he actually chipped away at gay rights.  Moreover, as the response to Stupak to date may indicate, he will actually spend capital to prevent things getting *worse*.

There is plenty to be dissappointed about with Obama, but seriously geez, it’s not like he hasn’t been the leftyest Democratic winner (in practical terms) since LBJ.  And I sometimes wonder about how lefty LBJ really was—he was such an opportunist that I think much of what he did is more about power and practicality than morality.

Comment #29: shah8  on  11/13  at  10:55 PM

Progressive disappointment is real. Obama has disappointed us time and again. It’s neither naive nor radical to say so.

I agree, progressive disappointment towards President Obama is real, and to some extent, warranted.

But just as much as total sycophants who hoist Obama onto a pedestal of near deification annoy the shit out of me, I also find the nihilistic attitude of those who have completely given up on a presidency that is not even ten months old to be every bit as obnoxious.

The man ain’t perfect.  And he’s definitely not moving anywhere near as fast as most progressives would like him to.

However, he also inherited a shitstorm of a situation that NO president could have resolved in ten months time, even if you rolled up all of the best traits of our best presidents into one SuperPOTUS.  It took a lot more than ten months for us to get into this mess, and it will take a lot more than ten months to get out of it as well.  FDR is praised for pushing sweeping progressive reforms that improved the lives of many Americans for generations to come.  And if you had asked most Americans in November 1933 whether or not things were going well in America at that point, you would have gotten a nearly universal “hell no!”  This isn’t meant to suggest that I think Obama will be the 21st Century FDR, but that if FDR’s entire presidency had been judged only ten months in, many might have considered it a collossal failure at the time.

It’s totally fair to criticize Obama for not getting more done yet, particularly on LGBT issues, and not moving faster at getting things done.  It’s totally unfair to expect him to have completely eliminated decades worth of unjust and ineffective policy in just ten months time.

If the status quo hasn’t changed by the time 2012 rolls around, vote the guy out.  But judging a presidency as a total bust for progressive causes before it is even 1/4 of the way through his first term in office?

I’d hate to have a college professor who was prepared to flunk me after 3 weeks of a 16 week course because I got off to a less than great start in the class.

But I digress… people are free to do whatever they want.

As for me, I’ll wait until 2012 to decide how much, if any, financial and volunteer support I’m willing to give to Obama’s re-election campaign, after he’s had three solid years to demonstrate what sort of president he is and what sort of policies he’s going to promote.

I’m unwilling to declare him either a great president or a horrible president this early in the game.  And yes, lots of Obama supporters said this two months ago, four months ago, and six months ago.  But just as I wouldn’t grade a 10 page paper after reading only the first 2 pages, I’m not going to grade a presidency after only the first 20% of his first term are complete.

Comment #30: DTG in STL  on  11/13  at  11:08 PM

And for all that he *hasn’t* gone forward in some of the major issues surrounding gay rights, he also has not renounced them, nor has he actually chipped away at gay rights.

As crappy as DADT was and still is, I think people forget that in 1993 when it was enacted, it was a form of “progress” (albeit a very shitty way to make progress) as far as LGBT rights go.

Before DADT, the law was “no homosexuals in the military, period”.  Homosexuals could get kicked out whether they had ever outed themselves or not prior to 1993.

What DADT did was effectively legalize a “separate but equal” type of rule to allow gays to serve in the military.

To the extent that it told homosexuals that they could only serve provided that they remain in the closet, it was a huge slap in the face.  To the extent that it was the first time in which homosexuals weren’t explicitly barred from serving altogether, it was “progress”.

In hindsight, I don’t think Clinton should have signed that bill, because it wound up reinforcing institutional second class status for the LGBT community.  But at the same time, his only feasible alternative at the time was to do nothing at all, which would mean that the existing policy of “no homosexuals allowed in the military, period” would have remained in effect.  America in 1993 wasn’t willing to go any further than DADT with their tolerance towards LGBTs serving in the military, and his signing of DADT caused him more grief from conservatives than it did from progressives at the time.  The fact that he wasn’t able to get a true policy of allowing LGBT members to serve openly is a more a negative comment on the America’s general acceptance of homobigotry in 1993 than it was on Bill Clinton.  He made a misguided compromise, but his intentions were decent.  No president would have succeeded in getting a policy allowing LGBT members to openly serve at that time.

I think Clinton’s biggest offense towards the LGBT community was the signing of DOMA.  While it was a Republican Congress that was responsible for its creation, he could have vetoed it.  I’m sure his signature was some sort of trade-off for votes on other policy issues, but it’s still a trade-off he should never have made.  I realize that many argue that his hands were tied because it would have survived a veto (it passed both houses of Congress with more than 75% margins, which doesn’t speak well of 1990s Congressional Democrats, either), but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have still vetoed it and forced Congress to fully own the bill.

Comment #31: DTG in STL  on  11/14  at  02:11 AM

From Steve Benen:

Melody Barnes, the head of President Obama’s Domestic Policy Council, recently told students at Boston College Law School that she supports gay marriage. There was some talk the White House didn’t want a video of Barnes’ comments released, but White House officials have told the school that it can post and publicize the remarks.

The part about how the White House has told the school that it can post the remarks links to BAC News.

I’m not expecting this Aravosian bullshit to stop, but I really, REALLY wish it would.

Comment #32: FlipYrWhig  on  11/14  at  03:28 AM

I mean, seriously.  You haven’t noticed yet that every one of his little scoops is instantly refuted?  Why does anyone listen to that fool?

Comment #33: FlipYrWhig  on  11/14  at  03:31 AM

The whole thing would be laughable if it didn’t convey how paranoid this White house is about LGBT civil rights; taking days to review a tape as if there were some top-secret national security matter divulged in it.

That “paranoia” is almost entirely in John Aravosis’s mind.  For the love of god, make it stop.

Comment #34: FlipYrWhig  on  11/14  at  03:33 AM

I’m sorry, I meant “ABC News,” although Blood Alcohol Content news seems appropriate to my mental state right now.

Comment #35: FlipYrWhig  on  11/14  at  03:34 AM

As crappy as DADT was and still is, I think people forget that in 1993 when it was enacted, it was a form of “progress” (albeit a very shitty way to make progress) as far as LGBT rights go.
Before DADT, the law was “no homosexuals in the military, period”.  Homosexuals could get kicked out whether they had ever outed themselves or not prior to 1993.

Recall, though, that when initially proposed, it also contained a “don’t pursue” aspect. That was dumped almost immediately.  Discharges dropped somewhat initially, but by the last couple years of the Clinton administration had reached or surpassed pre-DADT levels.  Investigations based on the comments of others were still being initiated. In other words, the “compromise” was purely for show.  The situation remains pretty much the same as it did before DADT: LGB soldiers continue to serve, some openly, at the discretion of those higher in the chain of command, but a very real ban remains in place.  The compromise really wasn’t.

Comment #36: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  11/14  at  11:05 AM

As crappy as DADT was and still is, I think people forget that in 1993 when it was enacted, it was a form of “progress” (albeit a very shitty way to make progress) as far as LGBT rights go.  Before DADT, the law was “no homosexuals in the military, period”.  Homosexuals could get kicked out whether they had ever outed themselves or not prior to 1993.

Recall, though, that when initially proposed, it also contained a “don’t pursue” aspect. That was dumped almost immediately.  Discharges dropped somewhat initially, but by the last couple years of the Clinton administration had reached or surpassed pre-DADT levels.  Investigations based on the comments of others were still being initiated. In other words, the “compromise” was purely for show.  The situation remains pretty much the same as it did before DADT: LGB soldiers continue to serve, some openly, at the discretion of those higher in the chain of command, but a very real ban remains in place.  The compromise really wasn’t.

Yes, those were the shitty results of what turned out to be a shitty policy.  But again, as I said:

He made a misguided compromise, but his intentions were decent.  No president would have succeeded in getting a policy allowing LGBT members to openly serve at that time.

I blame Clinton for DADT to the extent that in his desperation to get some sort of bill passed to allow homosexuals to serve, he didn’t really adequetely think through the long-term ramifications of the bill Congress gave him to sign.

Remember, one of Clinton’s campaign promises in 1992 was to end the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.  DADT wasn’t his policy vision, it was the shitty bill that Congress gave him when he told them to rewrite the law to allow homosexuals to serve.  While he did have a Democratic majority in Congress in his first year in office, it was compromised of a lot of old Southern white bigoted Democrats, at least one of whom switched parties in 1994, and still sits in Congress today - Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.  There was no way the 103rd Congress was going to write a policy allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military in 1993.  And sadly, the American public didn’t have as much of problem with DADT in 1993 as they do today… we were a more homobigoted nation back then than we are today, even though we were trending in the right direction (we’re still way too homobigoted a nation in 2009, but there’s no denying we’ve become less so than we were 16 years ago).

The point being, as shitty as DADT turned out being, it was a lousy policy that was rooted in good intentions on the part of Bill Clinton.  He didn’t push for that bill so that he could throw the LGBT community under the bus, he pushed for it because he believed the policy of completely banning homosexuals from the military was wrong.  Congress gave him a really lousy compromise which he should have thought through more, but I don’t think he was consciously trying to do something harmful to those who wound up being harmed.

Comment #37: DTG in STL  on  11/14  at  02:44 PM

I’m not expecting this Aravosian bullshit to stop, but I really, REALLY wish it would.

He’s the Michelle Malkin of the left:  manufacture an issue out of a minor incident (gee, you mean the White House might want to review the comments of its officials before they’re posted the same way my company insists it gets to review any articles that its employees are quoted in? What a shock!), get people whipped up about it, and then when it turns out to be nothing for the hundredth time, move on to the next manufactured “issue” without a pause.

And yet people keep following him right over that cliff each and every time.

Comment #38: Mnemosyne  on  11/14  at  05:55 PM

@ Mnemosyne, I used to think Pam was reliably better than that.  But she’s been helping him amplify his nonsense (including the strange non-boycott boycott of the DNC and OFA).  It makes me very frustrated.

Comment #39: FlipYrWhig  on  11/15  at  02:44 AM

re:  Gutting Sarbanes-Oxley

This:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business/06norris.html

From the article:

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, almost unanimously, by a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. Now a Democratic Congress is gutting it with the apparent approval of the Obama administration.

Comment #40: Jake Squid  on  11/15  at  03:39 PM

Heh, gotta do better than a random quote with “apparent approval”, methinks.

Comment #41: shah8  on  11/15  at  04:15 PM

Partisan is as partisan does.

Comment #42: Jake Squid  on  11/16  at  12:23 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.