The White House has nowhere to hide from MSM equality questions as Gibbs blows it at presser

Guess what, Bob

... the honeymoon is OVAH!

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:41:58 PM CDT

But What do We Do?

I always contended I supported Obama in spite of, not because of, his GLBT policies. They were no different from Clinton's, and still (even now) worlds ahead of the adulterers. But now that GLBT rights and equality have clearly been discarded in favor of more important priorities, what do we do? I've sent the nasty emails to the White House, but how else do we force Obama to act?

After all, he made it clear during his Advocate interview during the campaign that he counted on the GLBT community to lobby him on marriage. I think the message there is that Obama is not going to go out on a limb for anything - he is FDR reincarnated in that sense. I really think he will wait to act until the public support for any issue (see torture prosecutions) is very high and the political negatives are negligible. How do we change the political calculus to force his hand?

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:18:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do we do?

How much more obvious could it be?  Stop voting for him and politicians like him.  Period.  When losing the gay vote looks like it might cost him and his party an election or two, we'll see action fast.  Until then, they have no incentive whatever to move on DADT, marriage or any other LGBT issue.

I can hear the cries already:  But the Republicans would win!  Yeah, and with the Republicans in charge, DADT would not be repealed.  Neither would DOMA.  So, what would be different?  

As they always say, "Politics ain't beanbag."  Until we start playing tough with the Democrats, will will not win the equality the constitution promises us as American citizens.  Standing around, hat in hand, waiting politely for Obama to notice us will accomplish nothing.  And making excuses for him (He's new!  He has a lot on his mind!) only serves to endorse his inaction and betrayal.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:09:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nngh

I know exactly the people behind this crap and it sickens me.

No, DNC, it wasn't the magical evil gays that sunk Clinton what with their existing and all, it was the mother fucking Conservadems. And you know what guys, they didn't give a fuck about the gays, they were looking for an excuse, any excuse to jump ship and turn traitor.

Similarly, Kerry didn't lose because of the gay marriage bills. He lost because he was a stuttering weak apologist for Bush's excesses, thus simultaneously reinforcing the right wing narratives about both Bush and Kerry and preventing any strong defense of the liberalism her was a part of.

Know where the gays destroy Democrat bullshit came from?

Right wing assholes covering for vote fraud and bigotry. And you all bought the bullshit hook line and sinker, but it's not fucking true.

Look outside at the capital on the issue we just delivered on a rolling ball of change. You didn't even need to lift a finger. You could have just had some random surrogates or Nancy Pelosi allow the bills to be penned and continued babbling on the economy.

Instead, you got to piss off part of the base courting conservative democrats who are still biting your hand anyways. You know who else that strategy worked well for? Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

Same as it ever was.

---

by: Cerberus @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:06:13 PM CDT

Whatever

Suddenly people on this site are shocked that Obama is not committed to full rights for GLBT Americans? At what point did it finally hit you? If it wasn't during the campaign or the inauguration festivities, the changing to the DADT wording on the White House website (before, oops change it back we got busted) was it finally today? And only a 114 days into office, wow.

It's almost humorous to watch. Most people here were SOOOO far up Obama's ass they chewed the same piece of gum. They made so many excuses for him he has come to expect it. And he knows most will keep on keepin on.....

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:25:18 PM CDT

Uh huh

Ok, that's it. I have to call this bullshit out.

Everyone, we are all pissed as hell at Obama's cowardice and careless impolitic feeding of right wing narratives. In fact, he is a disgrace on this issue.

But see that's the point. He's a disgrace on the issue, everyone's been pointing that out for awhile. Even Pam, especially Pam. And yet, it seems every Obama post is gathering a specific type of poster, someone who seems to be completely oblivious to the long history of taking Obama to task on this brain-dead shit, who seem to have very specific objections to Obama and any coughblack*cough* site that mentions him in any context.

So tx wht boy, I see what you're doing and frankly this isn't even about you, but all the posters today especially. There is no black vs gay war, so take your tired racist shit and move on and I don't want to hear another one of you malcontents trying to chide all the rest of us you know, monolithic blacks and the like, for not doing what we've been doing for a good long while now in criticizing the president.

Not a one of us voted him into office believing he'd be a champion for gay rights. But we preferred the silent stooge to the people who thought a constitutional amendment ban of gay marriages was a swell idea donchaknow and at least this man, our president can be shamed by the cold weight of history.

So frankly, all of you queers who think this is a great time to let out that little racist voice need to spend a few hours considering exactly what they want to say and where they want to go to say it. Hint, it shouldn't be here, not until you all cool the fuck down.

---

by: Cerberus @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:38:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cerberus, obviously both of your heads are brain dead

Racist? Get a f**kin grip. If you had ever read any of my many posts you would that my son is Bi-racial. I NEVER had race as the point of my post. My beef is with the fact that Obama campaigned on the backs of Liberals and kicked them to curb at the door of the white house. We're still in Iraq and ramping up Afghanistan. He wants to EXPAND faith based bullshit initiatives. He as bent over backwards to help Wall Street at the expense of working men and women at GM. He loves Rick Warren, shall I continue?

Please take one of your heads and pull it out of you know where....

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:55:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point as it were

Are the assumptions that a) I support Obama unconditionally or ever have done so, b) the writers on this site posting article after article calling out Obama on letting down the queer community and calling him a coward, an idiot, etc... are somehow obviously ignorant about Obama and support him blindly, c) all the posters on this site magically are a strawman oddly reminiscent of the racist memes about monolithic black voting blocks and the like, and d) the fact that I criticize Obama's abominable record is somehow rendered moot just because I don't like casual systemic racism.

Obama's gay policies are travesties to the community, deeply hurtful, a disgrace to the law and to history and the advice he is receiving and choosing by his volition to follow is toxic both to his political capital and to the support of the people who believe in him (you know the basis of his and the Democrat's popularity, the same disenchanted oppressed who if fucked over again will once again sit out in large numbers allowing yet another right-wing psycho rise to power). It is not only morally abysmal, but simply bad and clumsy politics and frankly, he wouldn't have so easily fallen into that trap if he wasn't following his own casual systemic homophobia.

Hey, hey, look how I was able to do that without once buying into right-wing narratives or memes about Obama nor assuming a monolithic unthinking support among liberals, black people on the subject of Obama.

Now you and frankly it's not about you, so this is more for everyone dipping their toes into this particular set of waters, should try it as well, unless you thought the black versus gay battle Rush Limbaugh tried to forge was a great idea and not a tired retread on the old divide and conquer strategy the right wing has been using forever.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 03:37:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Racism?

Maybe I missed some other comment of the txwtboy, but where do you see racism in his comment? (That's not to say I agree with him on the issue of "blind Obama support".) But as concerns his racism, I fail to see any in this comment of his.

---

by: avocado @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:10:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any criticism

Any criticism of "The One" is racist, by definition. Their definition, anyway.

They get away with selling that line because there's so much that actually is, underneath. Maybe 10%?

Guess what - that meme's past it's "use by" date. It doesn't work as a way to silence all criticism any more.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:24:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I present this response

As one of my proofs.

Assumption of lack of honest racism, refusal to examine racist stereotypes, adoption of right-wing memes despite the fact that there is no reason for a left-wing opponent to do so. Assuming that there is such a thing as a race card or that it is a regular strategy to deflect. Downplaying the amount of racist invective launched against Obama and then using that to smear the motivations of ALL his supporters. Even ones who weren't.

I fought long and hard with a decision to vote for Cynthia McKinney instead. I placed my bet on increasing the symbolic power of Democrats and now I try and ride the motherfuckers into getting over their pathetic fears that supporting the gays will not cause rivers of fire to spontaneously form in their backyards. It's not 1994 anymore.

And frankly, if I am at all tempered in calling Obama a fucking disgrace on this and other issues it's only because this rot is at the core of the Democratic Party and its strategists right now and for whatever reason (cough homophobic boy's club cough) they refuse to look at the momentum or the growing polls in support of equal rights.

So we ride them, but we don't let that riding be an excuse to be idiotic about race.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 03:26:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Racism

Assumption of lack of honest racism,

Which part of "Any criticism of "The One" is racist, by definition. Their definition, anyway.

They get away with selling that line because there's so much that actually is, underneath."

Did you not understand? I think that fully 1 part in 10 of the criticism is due to racism, pure and simple. That's a heck of a lot.

To you, it's 100%. By definition. You ignore what people actually say, and only hear what you want to.

As for the notoriously anti-semitic Cynthia McKinney, you obviously don't recognise obvious racism when you see it. Yes, we need a third force. But not a demagogue like her.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 04:19:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oi

I'm not even going to touch the third rail that is anti-Israeli war crimes versus anti-semitic, but the point isn't the statement.

The point is the assumption the statement makes.

The statement: "To you, it's 100%. By definition. You ignore what people actually say, and only hear what you want to."

Compared to my statement: "if I am at all tempered in calling Obama a fucking disgrace on this and other issues"

Huh, fucking disgrace, abominable, atrocious and on specific policy and attitude discussions. There's also all the posts by Pam and others on this blog, all calling him to heel, calling him a betrayer and a coward and other names. Many of these are non-racist, because they do not give in to systemic racist portrayals of blacks as monolithic and unthinking about their support nor use right-wing racist memes such as "The One" (a mixture of Rapture-ready fear of the anti-Christ and the old "uppity" slur). It's really easy to do because Obama is giving into homophobic attitudes in Washington, supporting a homophobic status quo and letting himself be complicit in societal systemic homophobia because it doesn't hit home for him.

Yes, it's only a fraction of comments that are racist, dissensions that are based on race and few which are merely excuses to drag through that systemic social racism that we can be blind to too often. I'm pointing that out.

And yet, you accuse me of accusing all dissent as being racist, of all Obama supporters at any time of trying to shut down dissent by feigning the race card (one of the nastier attempts to shut down black voices in recent decades). That's stupid, counterproductive, makes our case look like sour grapes and feeds that annoying and evil narrative of a black vs gay battle. Why do that when you could just listen and not indulge your darker beasts when someone tells you that yes they supported them, yes they thought it'd be better than kill the faggots Palin, yes, they're riding his ass to stop being such an idiotic douche, and yes, they too are fucking pissed and tired of the silence.

Or you can attack a strawman to bleed off misdirected anger over Prop 8. Your choice.

But seriously everyone, knock the man, but don't use right-wing narratives to do it, is that so hard? Does the left have some shortage of words of scorn that I was unaware of? Let's see, passive bigot, coward, abysmal faux-support, taking us for granted, listening to the wrong crowd, religious fucker. And those are just a sample of out and out epithets. Don't be lazy, that's all I'm saying.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 05:51:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ditto

?

---

by: Donna @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:43:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Race, no way

I didn't see any racial slam there, and honestly, I don't want this thread hijacked because of something that IMHO isn't there.

There are a lot of problems re: gay vs. black in our community that we need to deal with head-on (e.g. the lashing out against black gays after Prop 8); I see no point in dealing with perceptions or the abstract because it only polarizes people further and silences them.

I want the Blend to be a zone free of people holding back because of PC bullsh*t so we can discuss race honestly, and draw ignorance and misperceptions out into the open, not hurl charges when there may be no intent at all. Asking questions about intent first, rather than responding emotionally -- on either side -- is what has gotten us to this rancid place.

I would appreciate everyone's cooperation on this. Merci.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 06:43:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh please, please

let just ONE of the journalists ask Gibbs to explain the "constitutional theory" behind Obama's position that "God is in the mix" on marriage equality.  I can't wait to hear the answer on that one.

Just what kind of pretzel logic do you think they have to explain that one?

---

by: timNC @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:11:41 PM CDT

Thanks Pam

Pam, I am so thankful that in spite of your (& my) support of Obama, you are willing to call him on his numbing silence on civil rights issues concerning the GLBTQ community.  There are way too many Obama apologists, who continue to give this guy a pass saying that he is too busy to chew gum and walk at the same time. e.g. the economy, the 'war', etc.

Please keep the fire to Obamas feet.  We have no other option but to do so until he gets off his ass and moves on some GLBTQ issues in a positive way. Repealing DADT and giving up the one man one women seperate is not equal crap seems to be the no brainer easy ones to change. Then he needs to keep his promise on repealing DOMA.  I voted for him to do this now, not later. The clock is ticking and so is my patience.

vanhattan

---

by: vanhattan @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:53:40 PM CDT

The clock is ticking and so is my patience.

  I have already had it with Obama.  From Jan 20th to the present, the LGBT community has been off the radar screen.   He has been able to use the bully pulpit for many issues except LGBT issues.  Even the Mathew Shepard Act was just a press release.

 I don't like his hiding from the torture issue and I don't like his hiding from LGBT issues.

 He is letting criminals off the hook and at the same time letting a whole group of innocent people be treated like criminals.  

 Disgraceful and Shameful. And that is our President.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:05:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't Pres. Obama say his administration could multitask?

It's a question of his LGBT constituency not being an administration priority.

The DADT dodge is unacceptable though, not just from an LGBT perspective, but from a National Security perspective. We can't afford, with an all volunteer military, to be discharging qualified servicemembers when we're fighting two wars.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 22:15:30 PM CDT

They don't believe we're at war

And it's not just the Dems.

Look at the Schroer vs Library of Congress case. It was deemed more important to prevent a transsexual women being employed than to have by far the most capable anti-terrorism expert in the country advising Congress.

Neither side takes National Security seriously. It's all a political game. In some ways that says a lot for the people who have been taking it seriously, and who have had so much unpublicised success that politicians on both sides can just use it for points-scoring.

I fear though that the situation in Afghanistan has been put on the "To Do" pile for so long that there's far bigger an issue there than most are aware of. The recent three attacks on girls schools using poison gas haven't been exactly front-page news, as they should have been.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:09:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam,

why do you keep that Obama graphic on the side?

---

by: TrumpetDC @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 23:03:35 PM CDT

because you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater

I may be pissed about Obama's weak public positioning on our issues, but on a host of other issues we are in a better place today than if McCain/Palin were at the helm.

We would be facing SCOTUS vacancy fight over some reactionary conservative nom. Is that the new day you would have preferred?

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 06:46:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It just gets very tiring when our only choice

Is between getting beaten to death and getting beaten only half to death. I'm sick of getting beaten.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:38:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

Let's set aside, for a moment, the issue of whether civil unions and marriage are "separate but equal."  I think we all agree here - they are not.  Separate is never equal.  But that aside...

Obama says he support civil unions and full federal rights for same-sex couples?  THEN DO SOMETHING.  ANYTHING.

Of course, we shouldn't rest until we have full marriage equality across the land, but for now, federal civil unions and rights would be a real sweet down payment.  It would show us he meant what he said.  

No more talk.  ACTION.

No more "someday."  NOW.

---

by: ArizonaDave @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 23:25:38 PM CDT

The bitter tears of a spurned ex-lover

Sigh.  I've been a cheerleader for Obama here and elsewhere, and it's always been my opinion that he really is in favor of acting on all these GLBT issues, he just has a long-range plan for getting them accomplished in just the right way.  A portion of me (let's say 35%) still believes that.

About another 50% is in the wishy-washy middle: this part of me still thinks Obama is on our side, but that he's more concerned about the political maneuvering (how to get it done with NO loss of political capital, without alienating the religious conservatives in his coalition, etc.) than actually accomplishing anything for the pure sake of equality.  Call that the "semi-cynical" argument.

And then there's 15% of me that is groaning right now, saying "wise up - this is just Clinton all over again.  He doesn't care about gay rights, he was just using us and stringing us along."  Call that the "fully cynical" argument.  Which, unfortunately, is growing right now.

Obama's making it harder and harder for me to keep defending him.  I get that his civil-unions answer to the marriage question used to be the prudent compromise position, back when his campaign first started.  But the ground has shifted so dramatically, that that answer is no longer acceptable.  I don't expect Republicans to recognize the ground-shift, since being hide-bound and reactionary is their entire schtick.  But it's really disappointing to see Obama, one of the shrewdest and most in-tune politicians ever, being so tone-deaf on GLBT issues.

Now, maybe this wave of GLBT anger he's creating is all part of the overall plan - to increase the groundswell and create FDR's "now make me do it" perfect atmosphere for change.  I sure hope that's the case, and that he's prepared for that wave of anger, because I don't know if he knows just how angry we can get.

Obama could clear all this up in one really good speech.  But it can't be just more beautiful-sounding variations on "I'm on your side, really, really I am."  We've heard that song before.  It's rapidly getting to the point where Obama has to, finally, put his neck on the line and just SAY what he's going to do for us.  If he has that long-term strategy that all us gays are ruining by insisting on quick action, now's the time to let us in on it.

---

by: popebuck1 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:42:38 AM CDT

there is no possible "long-term" strategy that the gays are ruining

or risk ruining.

Gay rights win the opinion polls in just about every corner of this country, especially stuff like repealing dadt and legalizing enda -- even marriage equality is rapidly becoming the politically popular position across America, much more so than the homophobes and civil-union types, according to some polls. I just don't see what he has to lose -- this is just another example of the risk-adverse nature of most politicians in this country.

If you people can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can pass a budget and umbrella gay rights bill within a few months of each other. In fact, with so many other scarier issues (for Republicans), I highly doubt this will even be a rallying cry amongst the rightwing. They're too scared about public option health care and efca to worry about civil rights that are supported across the country and wouldn't hurt the corporate bottom line.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:21:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And this is a key point...

While the question of marriage equality may still tend outside our favor, EVERY other LGBT issue in front of politicians today polls in our favor.  Repealing DADT and enacting the hate crimes law and ENDA should be no-brainers.  Even a federal civil unions law would have the poll numbers.  But none of it's happening, which means that Obama and other Dems are still fearful of that huge non-existent "silent majority" the Freepers et al talk about on a regular basis.

He's a coward, guys, he's a coward.  And it's pathetic.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 15:58:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama can run, but he can't hide

Change is coming and Obama will be forced to deal with us if we keep up the momentum. It's been more than 100 days after 8 years, after how many decades? Enough waiting. It's time for results.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:13:22 AM CDT

The ONE "weapon" we have.

Not letters. Not calls. Not a march on Washington. But the weapon gays, including eventual Clinton appointee and now Obama's Export-Import Bank head, Fred Hochberg, threatened to launch in 1993 but it fizzled before taking off:

Reduce the flow of the mother's milk of politics: money. From gazillionaires like David Geffen down to poor mice like me, gays collectively contributed a huge amount of money to Obama and other Democrats last year.

I'm sure that most of you, like me, are continuing to get requests for donations from "Organizing for America" with the Obama campaign logo at the top.

Reply with: "Not another dime until Obama issues an executive order to halt gay discharges in the name of national security; not until he fulfills his campaign promises to 'put the full weight of my adminstration behind' gay equality across the board. Not another dime now. Not another dime in 2010 when you'll be desperate to keep House and Senate seats. You freeze us out, we freeze the pipes to always available, always gullible gay money."

You think YOU'RE afraid of what would happen to the programs he IS working on that we care about if they lose seats...imagine how afraid HE and the DNC are!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:51:30 AM CDT

I do think it's that simple

MONEY will ALWAYS get attention.   Period.

If not a tax revolt, then withhold our money in other ways.  

(I know, I know - no one seems to like the idea....although I've yet to hear a valid reason for being fully tax-compliant while simultaneously being SUB-American and denied Equal Protection, esp. AFTER having one's finances ruined and/or family traumatized due to legal exclusion from civil marriage or other civil rights).

I think Michael is spot on....unless everyone wants to wait 10-20-30 years for federal equality just because some Bible-Thumpers think we are perverted.

Are we ANGRY ENOUGH yet?

Decades more of abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 14:06:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In other words... "Jim Crow"

Ie, an institutionalization of discrimination which, on the surface, appears to be separate and equal but which actually provides inferior, substandard and less desireable resources and rights to the group that is separated.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:35:54 AM CDT

Come on people.....

Goverments of the world have never had anything to do with doing what's right or moral as a priority.  They only do that which will keep them in power, whether Repub or Dem.  Both sides think staying in power, no matter how they go about staying in power, will allow them to ultimately do the most good........Obama is not anti-gay.  As soon as it is politically expedient and safe for him to change the policies in our country that are anti-gay, he will.  Or whoever is in office at that time, will.  So yes, we have to keep asking the questions and coming out to friends and family.  But let's please not be naive about the way Obama is handling things (unless we are just pretending to be naive in order to keep the pressure on as we call him out, just as he is pretending to be evasive when he dodges "separate but equal" questions).

---

by: Narra @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:33:36 AM CDT

This isn't 1993

The people of the United States are in favor of LGBT rights in the cases of ENDA, DADT, hate crimes, etc.  Even if Obama punts on full marriage equality, it's transparent that balking on these other issues is pure political cowardice.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 16:44:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Every time I hear Gibbs do this kind of tap dance

I get the eerie feeling he's channeling Dana Perino.  But then, since his lord and master is channeling Bush on LGBT issues, I guess that's no surprise.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 18:46:38 PM CDT