No. No. And A Thousand Times, No.

Clowns:

On Thursday night, when same-sex marriage in New York State was teetering on a razor’s edge, President Obama had a perfect opportunity to show the results of his supposed evolution on gay marriage.

Unfortunately, he did not take it, keeping his own views in the shadows. The next night the Republican-led New York State Senate, of all places, proved itself more forward-thinking than the president on one of the last great civil-rights debates in this nation’s history.

Speaking to the Democratic Party’s LGBT Leadership Council at a fund-raiser in New York, Mr. Obama ran through the many efforts he has made on behalf of gay rights, including his decision to end the government’s legal support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The act should be repealed, he said, since marriage is defined by the states.

Mr. Obama’s legal formula suggests he is fine with the six states that now permit same-sex marriage, and fine with the more than three dozen other states that ban it. By refusing to say whether he supports it (as he did in 1996) or opposes it (as he did in 2008), he remained in a straddle that will soon strain public patience. For now, all Mr. Obama promised was a gauzy new “chapter” in the story if he is re-elected, and his views remain officially “evolving.”

Who writes this nonsense? Seriously?

Cuomo and the NY politicians were very carefully advancing the issue in a delicate manner, allowing this to be a vote of conscience for the Senators, free from the usual heightened levels of partisan rancor. Things were proceeding nicely, everything pointed to a win for gay rights the next night, and Obama didn’t need to do anything to “lead.” In fact, if Obama had gone up there and delivered what these clowns wanted, and gave a rousing speech claiming he had changed his mind, it would have done nothing but blown up the current negotiations. How many Republicans who were supporting the vote would have backed away, simply because Republicans could not give Obama a “win.” The vote of conscience would be gone, and it would become a partisan battle and the vote would probably have failed.

I swear, it is almost like these idiots don’t understand politics, don’t understand risk and reward, and do not understand strategic thinking. The vote was going to pass- why would Obama do anything to insert himself into the issue and possibly blow things up? Hell, I was worried that just him appearing at the fundraiser would blow things up.

It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

361 replies
  1. 1
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    I swear, it is almost like these idiots don’t understand politics, don’t understand risk and reward, and do not understand strategic thinking.

    That’s why they’re called journalists stenographers.

    Or firebaggers, take your pick.

  2. 2
    cleek says:

    protest people, yadayadaya

    h/t JfL

  3. 3
    Valdivia says:

    Exactly! I also love how that the articles touting Cuomo and comparing him to Obama ignore the passage of DADT repeal and ACA where maneuvering and an alliance made things no one thought possible, possible. Yglesias had a really good piece on institutions and how they matter–Obama got the repeal of DADT and ACA having to put together SUPER majorities. Cuomo only needed a simple one. I just don’t get how people don’t see the differences and also just refuse to accept the wins we have had as wins. Sigh.

  4. 4
    japa21 says:

    These idiots just plain don’t understand anything, period. It was the same when they were yelling for Obama to join the marchers in Wisconsin. That would have been the worst thing that he could have done. It isn’t all about him.

    Also they ignore the fact that if he comes out strong for national marriage equality, it will revitalize the RW homophobic base for 2012. While it may not cause Obama to lose, it could well jeopardize regaining the House and holding on to the Senate. Were no lessons learned from 2004?

  5. 5
    shortstop says:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    Almost, yes.

    The cult of personality…their own.

  6. 6
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I agree with this but lets not throw away an opportunity for an Obot v. Firebagger war.

  7. 7
    dr. luba says:

    The value of quietly accomplishing something is highly underrated. I prefer actual results to moral victories.

  8. 8
    Brian R. says:

    I swear, it is almost like these idiots don’t understand politics, don’t understand risk and reward, and do not understand strategic thinking. The vote was going to pass- why would Obama do anything to insert himself into the issue and possibly blow things up?

    Sadly, most political reporters only understand politics in terms of the cult of personalities and celebrity star power. They seem to have taken the “politics is show business for ugly people” joke a little too literally and decided that they should therefore cover it all like they’re writing for Us Weekly.

    If Obama’s not jumping on stage like Kanye West and grabbing the microphone for himself, then he’s clearly missed his chance to step into the spotlight like any good diva would. It’s a shame, because you’d think the President of the United States would know the importance of securing a spot in the “Who’s Hot!” column.

  9. 9
    jwb says:

    “It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.”

    Many on both sides prefer emotional validation to legislative victory. It goes along with treating politics as sports, theater, or entertainment.

  10. 10
    shortstop says:

    NM

  11. 11
    ira-NY says:

    Who writes this nonsense?

    Does Hamsher have a new gig at the NYT?

  12. 12
    Sly says:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    Almost?

  13. 13
    Shinobi says:

    It also seems like they don’t understand that there is no better option at this point. They seem to think if they keep blaming Obama some other more liberal candidate will appear that could actually get elected. But that’s impossible. McCain/Palin, that is the alternative.

  14. 14
    ErikaF says:

    In some ways I sympathize with them. When you’ve got the TP’ers and GOP screaming at you, day in and day out, screaming at Obama and using him as the symbol for their hated enemies, I would love to see Obama race out with a club and destroy all of the idiots out there.

    However, this is real life, and politics demands knowing when to show the club, and when to save it for the larger fight. That’s how you get actual results that matter, not by constantly waving the club around.

  15. 15
    kdaug says:

    Some want a king who rules by fiat.

    Obama tends to let legislatures legislate.

    And how the fuck they think the Fed has any right to insert itself into NY’s state business is baffling to me.

  16. 16
    balconesfault says:

    I’m thinking the NY Times has to feel like they’re being shut out of deliberations within the Democratic Party, and so they’re throwing a temper tantrum.

    Anyway, it’s understandable why the media might be upset about this. It takes away one more chance to talk about how Obama feels superior and wants to tell everyone how they should believe.

  17. 17
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Obama got the repeal of DADT and ACA having to put together SUPER majorities. Cuomo only needed a simple one. I just don’t get how people don’t see the differences and also just refuse to accept the wins we have had as wins. Sigh.

    The other factor Silver and others leave out, besides those pesky things about supermajorities and New York State (where this was touch and go till the end) not exactly being a microcosm of the national electorate, is that the billionaires agreed to back the bill.

    The Gay Marriage Vote And The Power Of Money.

  18. 18
    Han's Solo says:

    I’m thinking you may not understand the modern press, Mr. Cole. They aren’t out there on some do-gooder mission to inform the masses on current events, they are there to make money.

    If Obama were to cure cancer, fix the economy, make Chris Christie lose weight, make Fox News tell the truth, and save the world from invading space aliens on the SAME day that Sarah Palin tweeted out an insulting comment about some other politician or late night comedian, what story would be the lead?

    Yeah, you got it, it would be 24hours of Sarah Palin nonsense.

    Do you remember watching all the political shows spend two weeks on the death of Michael Jackson? WTF do I want to hear Chris Matthews talk about Michael Jackson for?

  19. 19

    If you actually win, you have failed at being a martyr.

  20. 20
    Ripley says:

    They want another Beer Summit. In fact, they need a beer summit every damned week or, really, what’s the point of being a political ‘journalist’?

  21. 21
    jayjaybear says:

    WTF do I want to hear Chris Matthews talk about Michael Jackson for?

    FTFY

  22. 22
    Chrisd says:

    I get your reasoning, but I’m not convinced you wouldn’t also have praised Obama had he come out in support of gay marriage.

    Back when Obama’s Justice Department was defending DOMA, it was because he was the principled constitutional law scholar the country so desperately needed after the imperial Bush presidency; and when he flipped on that, it was because he was the greatest LBGT president EVER and shame on the firebaggers for not realizing it.

    The only constant is that whatever Obama is or is not doing at any given moment is The Right Course of Action.

  23. 23
    Dana Houle says:

    John, you have a typo in the last sentence. Please delete “almost.”

  24. 24
    ruemara says:

    cue 300+ comments on Obama vs DFHs. Of course they don’t care about good laws, politics and practicality. They want to be adored by their Boyfriend-In-Chief. Why won’t he call? Why doesn’t he understand what their needs are, without being told? Doesn’t he see they need validation? If he won’t provide that and instead is focusing on some banal presidentin’, then he’s no damn good.

  25. 25
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Many on both sides prefer emotional validation to legislative victory. It goes along with treating politics as sports, theater, or entertainment.

    This.

    It’s the inverse of the “we’re against it because the DFHs are for it” attitude of the wingtards. It’s the crush your enemies with overwhelming force then dance on their graves mentality.

  26. 26
    Citizen_X says:

    if Obama had gone up there and delivered what these clowns wanted, and gave a rousing speech claiming he had changed his mind, it would have done nothing but blown up the current negotiations.

    No, you don’t understand politics. I do, and I should know: I’m some person posting on the internet!

  27. 27
    Brian R. says:

    They want another Beer Summit. In fact, they need a beer summit every damned week or, really, what’s the point of being a political ‘journalist’?

    And as soon as they get their precious photo op, they’ll attack the president for listening to them.

    For months and months, we heard about how Obama really needed to spend some relaxing quality time with those nice Republicans in the House. He and Boehner play a round of golf, and immediately, the journalists attack him for the “poor optics” of them goofing off while so many are still unemployed.

    No matter what happens, they’ll bitch. And yet, for all their criticisms and complaints, they will never come within a country mile of any actual point of substance.

  28. 28
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Do you remember watching all the political shows spend two weeks on the death of Michael Jackson?

    Or for that matter, the two weeks of mourning the entire nation had to endure when Timmeh “I only stop sucking your cock in order to ask if I’m doing it right, Lord Cheney” Russert died?

  29. 29
    Glenn says:

    John, all of the reporting on this makes it clear that was not a done deal by that time. Now, whether Obama simply stating his position would have made a difference one way or the other, who knows (I don’t, but you certainly don’t either). But the idea that it was in the bag and Obama shut up about it just to keep from putting the kibosh on, I think is so far unsupported by any evidence.

    Of course, even if it were true, how about Obama coming out now and saying it was the right thing?

  30. 30
    Hawes says:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    Why, yes. Yes, it is.

    Hasn’t this been apparent for two years?

    I thought Yglesias was right on when he said if the NY Senate worked like the US Senate, gays would still have to get married in Connecticut or Massachusetts.

    If you understand political institutions and political culture, you can understand a lot of what has happened in this country. If you live in the land of your own delusions, everything is a betrayal.

  31. 31
    Dennis SGMM says:

    Seems to me that if Obama had stuck his oar in the resultant chorus of “Oh yeah?” from the Republicans would have sunk the bill. This is an undeniable win and, to my mind, worth far more than the Pyrrhic victory that would have ensued had Obama spoke out.

  32. 32
    Sly says:

    We clearly need Thaddeus Stevens or John Fremont to challenge that sellout Lincoln in ’64. I will only accept a leader who has real anti-slavery principles!

  33. 33
    JGabriel says:

    kdaug:

    Some want a king who rules by fiat. Obama tends to let legislatures legislate.

    A sentiment that could just as easily be expressed by a states rights conservative.

    Look, I largely agree with John Cole’s analysis of the politics here. But in his address, Obama made a mistake with this statement:

    Now, part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states.

    Clearly, this isn’t Obama’s intent, but it’s an argument that gives equal weight to the states permitting gay marriage and the states banning it. The reason DOMA doesn’t make sense has nothing to do with whether marriage is a state issue, and everything to do with it singling out a minority population for discrimination.

    At some point, sexual orientation will have to be granted the status of protected minority, and the federal government will have to pass statutes (or maybe the Supreme Court decide the issue) guaranteeing nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages.

    Ultimately, the rights of minority citizens must be protected at the federal level, and if marriage is a right, then the feds — whether it’s Congress or SCOTUS — will have to weigh in on gay marriage at some point, just as they did for interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

    .

  34. 34
    Valdivia says:

    @BrianR 8

    LOL, so right

    @Jim, 17

    I know. Money, money, money

  35. 35
    Kristine says:

    @kdaug Some want a king who rules by fiat.

    Or a liberal version of Bush, who would run roughshod over the laws they didn’t like and go out of his way to humiliate the Right at every opportunity. Someone who would get them some of their own back, whether in the end they got constructive legislation out of the exercise or not.

  36. 36
    Dave says:

    Yesss. Obama’s line that it’s best left to the states was fine on that particular night, when marriage equality was left to a state, and passed. It can be left to the feds some other time.

  37. 37
    OzoneR says:

    Speaking as a New Yorker, Obama may very well have doomed the bill if he endorsed it Thursday night. Stephen Saland and Mark Grisanti may be able to survive a vote for same-sex marriage, they can’t survive a vote on Obama-endorsed anything.

    I understand marriage equality supporters want to hear him say it, to know publicly that he isn’t afraid to be on their side, but how can anyone doubt it otherwise. An opponent of same-sex marriage does not unilaterally stop defending DOMA (a decision, even I, a staunch supporter of marriage equality, am not 100 percent comfortable with)

    In the world of personality politics, where people vote “for the person,” certain people need to stay the hell out of things that don’t involve them. He cannot help.

  38. 38
    gbear says:

    If you actually win, you have failed at being a martyr.

    Win.

  39. 39
    lllphd says:

    ya know, fwiw, my take on obama’s overall strategy is this: he fully recognizes that he simply cannot go in like a knight in shining armor on a white stead and instantly correct all the wrongs that face us. whenever you attack on one front, there is reaction, so you must deal with that or risk severe damage. try to take on all fronts at once, and you risk annihilation from the opposition, who would then be in the enviable position of being the victims, holding the dictator card, and not to mention having the corporate media on their side.

    what obama faces is utterly formidable, he knows it, and he knows he will not be able to conquer every ill he found on his desk when he entered office. when you do your best to achieve humbly as much as you can on each front, not placing your opponent in humiliating positions (even when they are doing that all by themselves), you can at least keep to the high road and move on to the next challenge with some sense of closure.

    wish i had time to track down bill maher’s little opener at the table with his guests friday night. he was saying, obama’s always doing this ‘i got it i got it’ thing, and well yeah, ya know, sure he was doing that with healthcare and that turned out ok, and with the budget stuff last winter, sure… but …i dunno……; (voice trailing off).

    it epitomized for me the sputter of the far left – wait; no, strike that. i consider myself far left, left of almost everybody, except maybe barney sanders. let’s say the noisy whiny left who cannot show enough adult patience to allow for reality to sink in and recognize the limitations that simply and undeniably exist. it disturbs me to say this, but it’s no better than a flip side of the rightwingnuts, and it does not further the common good.

    i’m not saying obama’s been perfect, and i do question numbers of things he’s done. and i don’t feel saying that we don’t have the information he does is a cop out, because it’s simply true. i’m hoping – and trusting – he’ll continue to show his remarkably keen capacity to balance all these spinning, loaded plates with such grace and sensitivity, and come second term, will behave more according to his deepest principles, because at that point, not only does he already have some achievements behind him, but he’ll have nothing to lose.

    except – and i add a cautionary note here that pains me like nothing else in this would – his life. and he is painfully aware of that; just watch how, for the first time in his public life, he choked up when lamenting the death of young christina green.

    the bottom line for me wrt obama has always been his impeccable integrity and his sincere sensitivity. i can leave most of the details of leadership to him; that’s why we elected him.

    (sorry for the longwinded rant, but i’m just sick to death of the childish whining; enough already. let’s take what we got and do what will work.)

  40. 40
    Reality Check says:

    The “progressive” coalition is cracking up:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....ia=siderec

  41. 41
    kdaug says:

    @ JGabriel

    A sentiment that could just as easily be expressed by a states rights conservative.

    I think he’s tacking to the center, and will continue to until next November.

    whether it’s Congress or SCOTUS

    It will be both. Lots of Southern/Midwestern states are going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming.

  42. 42
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    In the world of personality politics, where people vote “for the person,” certain people need to stay the hell out of things that don’t involve them. He cannot help.

    This.

    Note that the National GOP will push for anything that they thing might hurt Obama’s electoral chances in 2012. ANYTHING. No matter what the cost, even to themselves longer term than 2012. They will gladly assault their own faces with chain saws if they think it will help defeat the near guy in 2012.

  43. 43
    Citizen_X says:

    gocart mozart @ 19:

    If you actually win, you have failed at being a martyr.

    I think you’ve identified an important political principle there. (“The poutrage paradox”?)

  44. 44
    Han's Solo says:

    I remember thinking during the Bush years that team Dubya’s love of the photo op was tacky and stupid. I mean, who would buy such BS? They held up an aircraft carrier off the coast of California so Dubya could don a flightsuit and do a photo op. Now, if the carrier were in the middle of the ocean I could maybe see it, but it wasn’t.

    It was such a stupid display I thought surely the media wouldn’t fall for something like that.

    Or when Dubya showed up in New Orleans after Katrina and the residents saw the kleig lights and thought, “Hey, great, power, maybe things are finally turning around,” only to see that the lights were following Dubya around and when he left so did they.

    How stupid and gullible do you have to be not to call bullshit on such things?

  45. 45
    scandi says:

    I understand what you’re saying completely. And the rational side of me thinks that it makes sense. I am glad that we have this legislation and I wouldn’t change that for the world.

    But then there is the irrational, emotional side of me that thinks that it really sucks that the most prominent politician in the Democratic party can’t just unequivocally say that he thinks marriage equality is the right thing. I don’t care what Newt Gingrich thinks. I’m never going to change his mind. I want to live in a world where the leaders of my party could proudly state that they believe in the principals of my party.

    My intellectual side and emotional side fight all the time. It would be nice if they didn’t have to.

  46. 46
    eemom says:

    I agree with this but lets not throw away an opportunity for an Obot v. Firebagger war.

    It is almost like this blog owner likes Obot v. Firebagger wars.

  47. 47
    kdaug says:

    @ lllphd

    Nitpick – it’s Bernie Sanders

  48. 48
    Freddie says:

    And what amount of “delicacy” was necessary in the Civil Rights campaign, John? Or do you think that this issue is of insufficient importance to get passionate about? When am I allowed to be unsatisfied with Obama, exactly? Can you write out a list of acceptable times for those of us on the left to complain? You’ve so shrunk the realm of the acceptable in left-wing discourse that I genuinely don’t know what I might say that would be acceptable to you.

    You’re becoming a self-parody with this stuff. I think Obama is deeply wrong to continue to dance on the issue of gay marriage. Constantly saying “my position is evolving” is not a position, and the idea that he hasn’t had all the information in the world necessary to know that fully and unapologetically supporting gay marriage is the right thing to do is bullshit. It’s bullshit.

    Full support for full civil marriage rights and nothing less. That’s what my conscience insists I ask for. So what do you want us to do? I genuinely have no idea.

  49. 49
    amk says:

    Completely useless useful idiots. Now ryan’s curse and medicare, potential political weapons for dems, are distant memories. The repubs don’t have any better allies than emo-prog crowd.

  50. 50
    BTD says:

    Obama was irrelevant to the New York vote.

    But let’s not pretend Obama was acting out of concern for the measure. He was looking out for his own political hide.

    Which is perfectly appropriate. Cuomo did not need him and he needs to win reelection.

    Now, whether his stance is helpful for his reelection is another story.

  51. 51
    Yevgraf says:

    Yesterday, closet case Bitch McConnell was practically in tears while crying out loudly about the need for us to persuade the raters at Moody’s and S&P about the stability of US treasuries so as to avoid a downgrade.

    Those being the same ratings agencies that rated subprimes and their derivatives as AAA.

    Now we’ve got an intransigent GOP fraction that won’t participate in debt ceiling talks unless the middle and lower classes cut their collective throats. Meanwhile, the whiny-assed titty babies of the professional GBT activist world want the progressive side to go into a bruising money siphoning war over gay marriage. The next front will be Minnesota on that one, followed with a redo in CA.

    None of it will matter of course, because the DeMint/Perry appointees to SCOTUS will strike all the statutes allowing gay marriage in 2014 as an affront to the liberty of Christians to define that most sacred of sanctified sancterrific institutions.

    Again, I’d like to see some focus on some issues of economic justice for a while, as that may actually translate out to something larger than pyrrhic gains, kthxbai.

  52. 52
    Martin says:

    If you actually win, you have failed at being a martyr.

    John needs to add this to the masthead.

  53. 53
    Sly says:

    @JGabriel

    That’s an analysis that gives equal weight to the states permitting gay marriage and the states banning it.
    __
    At some point, sexual orientation will have to be granted the status of protected minority, and the federal government will have to pass statutes (or maybe the Supreme Court decide the issue) guaranteeing nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages.
    __
    Ultimately, the rights of minority citizens must be protected at the federal level, and if marriage is a right, then the feds — whether it’s Congress or SCOTUS — will have to weigh in on gay marriage at some point, just as they did for interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

    If DOMA is overturned, it will be on the grounds of Congressional overreach. It’s the only argument that could conceivably pull in Anthony Kennedy. If I had a higher degree of confidence in the consistency of their jurisprudence, I’d put money on the possibility that it would even pull in Roberts, Alito, and/or Scalia.

    Sometimes you have to win on a technicality to advance the larger cause, because at least that keeps you in the fight. Yes, eventually the goal is 14th amendment protection. But there are a number of hoops we need to jump through to get there. It was the same way with race.

  54. 54
    Strandedvandal says:

    You didn’t actually READ that diary did you Reality Check? Go back, read it. The title is very misleading. Unfortunately so, as it gives right wing douchebags and manic progressives an opportunity to scream, Look! The President is losing his BASE!

  55. 55
    Jonas says:

    I call these people Kantians—people who would choose to honor their values even if it means failing to promote them, or even promote the opposite.

  56. 56
    OzoneR says:

    Yesss. Obama’s line that it’s best left to the states was fine on that particular night, when marriage equality was left to a state, and passed. It can be left to the feds some other time.

    The extent in which he is relevant to the cause, he’s been there. He’s stopped defending DOMA and endorsed a repeal of the bill. That’s all he needs to do, everything else is just rhetoric, and political lightning rods need to be careful when wading into debates where they’re not relevant because they make it about them and not about the people the policy is supposed to help.

    Marriage equality passed in New York because it wasn’t about anyone by LGBT New Yorkers. There was no Andrew Cuomo bully pulpiting, there were ads showing respected figures endorsing same-sex marriage, families of gay New Yorkers saying they want to see their loved ones marry, firefighters and WW II vets telling us why they support marriage equality.

    We win when the policy is about the people, not A person.

  57. 57
    amk says:

    @ gocart mozart 19 – Very clever.

  58. 58
    OzoneR says:

    If DOMA is overturned, it will be on the grounds of Congressional overreach.

    Well that IS why DOMA is unconstitutional. Marriage is a state issue, now the state constitutional amendments and statutes may be unconstitutional, but that’s for SCOTUS to decide separately. DOMA is unconstitutional because Congress has no place in this debate.

  59. 59
    ruemara says:

    Not to be nitpicky, BTD, but if Obama hadn’t had asked Patterson to step down, things may not have gone the way they have. And he took shit for that move too. Just to be clear.

  60. 60
    Elizabelle says:

    lllphd — liked your comment 39

  61. 61
    someguy says:

    Cole, I don’t like the imputation that the line-crossing Republicans did this out of a sense of conscience. Every indicator is that each one of them had some other motive for it.

    Be glad they did it but don’t mistake Republican pols for morally functioning human beings ever.

  62. 62
    cleek says:

    Every indicator is that each one of them had some other motive for it.

    every action someone undertakes has a motivation.

    do you know the motivation for every Dem who voted ‘yes’ ? the real motivation, not the publicly-announced one ?

  63. 63
    KG says:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    Finally, something that legitimately lends itself to “both sides do it”

    Also, according to K-Lo New York is now North Korea because, well, I don’t know…

  64. 64
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    It is almost like this blog owner likes Obot v. Firebagger wars.

    I didn’t really see John making the leap. It was per usual his idiot readers.

  65. 65
    Valdivia says:

    @lllphd –you said exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

  66. 66
    Johnny B says:

    Welcome to our Party, John. They always enjoy defeat, more than victory.

  67. 67
    cmorenc says:

    Let’s hope the GOP’s/wingers’ own ideological-purity-correctness squad will be more fiercely determined to inflict electoral destruction upon its own politicians who do things blasphemous-from-the-one-true-way than the Dems’/progressives ideological-purity-correctness squad is on ours.

    The future of the country depends on it.

  68. 68
    daveNYC says:

    So the person who wrote the editorial seemed to have totally missed yesterday’s front page NYT article covering Cuomo’s very detailed, organized, and top down plan to get the bill passed. Cuomo had a plan in place to get this done, and Obama stepping in would have done nothing but fuck things up.

  69. 69
    ktward says:

    What lllphd said here.
    And thanks, lll, for saying it. Seriously- it means one less time-consuming rant that I’ll feel compelled to share … or feel guilty that I didn’t.

  70. 70
    cintibud says:

    “It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than ______”

    Actually, this is often true for all types of human interaction. To give a non-political example, think of a group of friends commenting on another friend’s self destructive behavior. While some folks will want to try a heart to heart talk or the like involving a lot of personal time or commitment, there will usually be someone who says “Well I told him he was being an idiot and he said “Fuck off!” I did all I could do” (and now have a clean conscience).

  71. 71
    Chrisd says:

    …i’m hoping – and trusting – he’ll continue to show his remarkably keen capacity to balance all these spinning, loaded plates with such grace and sensitivity, and come second term, will behave more according to his deepest principles, because at that point, not only does he already have some achievements behind him, but he’ll have nothing to lose. except – and i add a cautionary note here that pains me like nothing else in this would – his life. and he is painfully aware of that; just watch how, for the first time in his public life, he choked up when lamenting the death of young christina green…

    I’m sure you meant every word, but God help me, this reads like a viciously funny Obot parody site.

  72. 72
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Also, according to K-Lo New York is now North Korea because, well, I don’t know…

    I feel genuine pity for that one. I can only imagine her parents were Robert Mitchum from Night of the Hunter and Piper Laurie from Carrie.

  73. 73
    kd bart says:

    “If you actually win, you have failed at being a martyr.”

    So, if Jesus, at the time, had been able to convert the Romans to his way of thinking, he wouldn’t be the figure he is today?

  74. 74
    stuckinred says:

    Alan West said he was chicken shit for not going on an op with the grunts when he visited AF_PAK too!

  75. 75
    Crusty Dem says:

    @lllphd

    try to take on all fronts at once, and you risk annihilation from the opposition

    There’s a joke in here about two land wars in Asia, but I’ll skip it because I liked your comment that much…

  76. 76
    Mary Jane says:

    @50

    But let’s not pretend Obama was acting out of concern for the measure. He was looking out for his own political hide.

    You don’t think it can be both? 1) I believe he completely understands when and where to interject his opinion so an issue can move forward, not used as a political hammer against him. 2) This job isn’t just a paycheck. He realizes progress moves slowly, especially with insane, frothing at the mouth obstruction & hatred by half the country and the entire GOP. It’s critical that we also look out for his political hide.

    Which is perfectly appropriate. Cuomo did not need him and he needs to win reelection.

    Cuomo did not need him. That right there should mark the case closed. And again, we need him to win reelection.

  77. 77
    lllphd says:

    yikes, just caught that; what a flake (bad as bachmann?) – i excuse myself in that i’m here in MA with barney. love ’em both.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    Admiral_Komack says:

    “It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass”

    That’s a nice description of The Professional Left.

    Well, at least Dan Choi can go to New York and marry that hot piece of chain-link fence he’s had his eye on.

  80. 80
    Quiddity says:

    @Chrisd

    this reads like a viciously funny Obot parody site

    This is not a viciously funny Obot parody site.

  81. 81
    Suffern ACE says:

    Next up…if only Obama were a better leader, you’d actually have someone who wanted to marry you. Your love life sucks? You actually suspect that you might be married to a bum? We know where to look.

  82. 82
    Louise says:

    John, thanks for being the voice of reason. This is practically the only political blog I read anymore, and I read it mostly for your perspective.

    Of course, I also enjoy it when you get enraged, so feel free slam those bastards against the wall anytime.

  83. 83
    stuckinred says:

    Admiral_Komack

    More likely the light pole he was hanging on when we got OBL.

  84. 84
    Yevgraf says:

    Also, according to K-Lo New York is now North Korea because, well, I don’t know…

    K-Lo’s gibbering stupid reminded me of the postings of somebody at Free Republic way back when.

    The poster’s nick was “Askel5”, and she was a Chesterton humping fool who constantly went on about the government tyranny involved in the majority position in Roe v Wade. According to that nutty brand of conservatism, by having the audacity to say abortion could be legal, the government actually intruded on the rights of women. Of course, the words cognitive dissonance were lost upon her.

  85. 85
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    COMPLETE AND TOTAL TROLL POST.

    From everything I’ve read, Cuomo twisted arms, kicked asses, and took names right up to the last second. Since when was this a “done deal” that the spineless O could have fucked up with a single word from his silver, audaciosly hopeful tongue?

    Please.

  86. 86
    eastriver says:

    Spot on, JC.

    The only hitch is that Obama never throws his weight behind much of anything. So if his eyes are closed because he’s locked in a game of mental 28-dimension chess, to the rest of us it looks like he’s napping.

    I understand that leading is sometimes stepping aside so as not to interfere with the work of others. But stepping aside at every given moment makes you look like some kind of hillbilly line dancer. (And I mean that as an insult to both hillbillies and dancers in lines.)

  87. 87
    stuckinred says:

    Timothy

    what is your fucking problem?

  88. 88
    Brian R. says:

    what is your fucking problem?

    Co-sign that. Take your meds, dude.

  89. 89
    Shade Tail says:

    stuckinred, he/she/it has the word “troll” right in the name. That makes the “problem” pretty obvious.

  90. 90
    rikryah says:

    it was a STATE issue….the President did what he was supposed to do.

  91. 91
    Ben Cisco says:

    @ Han’s Solo:__
    WIN. Your comment is now my quote of the day.

  92. 92
    slag says:

    Timothy
    __
    what is your fucking problem?

    Umm…He’s an extraordinarily repulsive individual?

  93. 93
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    what is your fucking problem?

    Obama will never live up to the fantasy of Dr Dean taking a noisy shit in the bathroom off the Oval Office, with the door open, while he yells at a meek and quivering Joe Lieberman and John McCain that as soon as those retroactive impeachments are voted on 100-0, they’d better fucking well pass every item Speaker Kucinich sends up from the House, or he’ll burn their fucking barns. Cause that’s how politics would work, if Obama really wanted a progressive agenda.

  94. 94
    JGabriel says:

    Sly:

    If DOMA is overturned, it will be on the grounds of Congressional overreach.

    OzoneR:

    DOMA is unconstitutional because Congress has no place in this debate.

    Unfortunately, I’m not seeing the case for Congressional overreach. Here’s Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    The main sections of DOMA that I’m familiar with allow states to not recognize same-sex marriage contracts performed in other states, and the federal government to not recognize same-sex marriage.

    While states have to recognize each others contract in general, Article IV pretty clearly gives Congress the power to ‘prescribe the Manner’ in which they are recognized and carve out exceptions.

    So I don’t think an argument of “Congressional overreach” can be used to strike down DOMA. I think you have to use a 14th amendment argument based on discrimination against gays and the right of equal protection.

    I could be wrong. I’m not a lawyer. But the “overreach” argument looks kind of weak.

    .

  95. 95
    OzoneR says:

    From everything I’ve read, Cuomo twisted arms, kicked asses, and took names right up to the last second.

    Read again, Cuomo didn’t twist arms, he cut deals, he didn’t kick ass, he persuaded using his popularity. The only ass he kicked were the asses of the gay rights activists whom he thought were completely ineffectual. He put them under the guise of his friends in a private PR firm who make millions of dollars a year fighting progressives on other issues and made them coordinate a message.

  96. 96
    Yevgraf says:

    Obama will never live up to the fantasy of Dr Dean taking a noisy shit in the bathroom off the Oval Office, with the door open, while he yells at a meek and quivering Joe Lieberman and John McCain that as soon as those retroactive impeachments are voted on 100-0, they’d better fucking well pass every item Speaker Kucinich sends up from the House, or he’ll burn their fucking barns. Cause that’s how politics would work, if Obama really wanted a progressive agenda.

    STRELNIKOV!

  97. 97
    amk says:

    @ 93 Jim, Foolish Literalist – lmao. Nailed the firebaggers’ wet dream. If Dr Dean could do all that just sitting on the john, imagine what he could do sitting in the oval office.

  98. 98
    gwangung says:

    Read again, Cuomo didn’t twist arms, he cut deals, he didn’t kick ass, he persuaded using his popularity. The only ass he kicked were the asses of the gay rights activists whom he thought were completely ineffectual. He put them under the guise of his friends in a private PR firm who make millions of dollars a year fighting progressives on other issues and made them coordinate a message.

    It occurs to me that twisting arms works pretty well when you come from a position of overwhelming strength and a unified power base.

    That does not sound like the Democratic Party of the past five decades (even including 2008-10).

  99. 99
    lllphd says:

    kdaug at 47, i don’t see the ‘reply’ option coming up like it used to (been weeks and weeks since i’ve commented), so i thought perhaps (magical thinking?) the ‘link’ feature would work, as had not noticed it before.

    but alas, my reply to you, at 77, made no mention of your comment.

    so, lizabelle, ktward, valdivia, and crusty dem, thanks so much for the kind words. i’d had no idea it was so long, but did not have the time to edit. so appreciate the positive feedback and like minds.

    and crusty dem, i hear ya on the ‘wars on three fronts’ point, tho i think i’d place at least 2 of those (we really can’t forget how the neocons enabled qadaffi) in the ‘what was on his desk in jan of 09’ category.

    g’day, all!

  100. 100
  101. 101
    Marc says:

    There is a deep irony here, by the way. Cuomo has been taking a lot of other positions that you’d expect leftists to be extremely unhappy with. These include attacks on unions; an emphasis on spending cuts; and opposition to tax increases on the rich. I dislike all of these positions while agreeing that Cuomo was great on this particular issue.

    It’d be nice if folks on the left who have problems with Obama could make the same sorts of distinctions. But the loathing of him runs so deep, as we’ll see here, that a passionate minority can’t see any good in the man.

  102. 102
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    I don’t know, I don’t read this blog and its comments with the idea that I just want to hear what I already think, nor that I’m going to clam up just because the Bots will be mean if I object to something.

    So, uh…fuck you guys.

  103. 103
    kd bart says:

    Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    So, the toilet off of the Oval Office is the “Bully Pulpit”?

  104. 104
    shortstop says:

    I feel genuine pity for that one. I can only imagine her parents were Robert Mitchum from Night of the Hunter and Piper Laurie from Carrie.

    Have I told you lately that I love you?

  105. 105
    OzoneR says:

    It occurs to me that twisting arms works pretty well when you come from a position of overwhelming strength and a unified power base. That does not sound like the Democratic Party of the past five decades (even including 2008-10).

    or ever.

    Twisting arms has never worked, and it has been tried. Eliot Spitzer tried to do it in his first year as governor, it failed miserably. The big difference between Spitzer and Cuomo is Cuomo cuts deals while Spitzer flung shit. To get a vote, Spitzer would publicly bash a State Senator, call him names, belittle him, etc. It never worked. Cuomo would call said Senator into his office to have a long conversation about what he can do to get his vote, and how he can help.

    Cuomo didn’t twist arms, he lavished them with Rolexes and bracelets made of fine diamonds.

    Obama is a lot more like Cuomo than people are willing to admit, the biggest difference is Obama is a national figure under constant attack from powerful people with at least 40 percent of the country opposed to him even if he supports kissing puppies. Cuomo has basically no opposition, he even has the New York Post’s support.

    Incidentally, I expect to see Cuomo’s approval rating drop a notch in the next month. He used a lot of political capital this week. I expect the media will spin in as “Cuomo overreached!”

  106. 106
    gogol's wife says:

    Yevgraf at #96: I knew you must have gotten your name from Dr. Zhivago, because I never met anyone in real life with that name.

  107. 107
    shortstop says:

    I don’t know, I don’t read this blog and its comments with the idea that I just want to hear what I already think

    No, and if you ever heard what you already “think,” you’d immediately fly screeching to yank those goalposts. Reflexive contrarianism is not a coherent political or moral philosophy.

  108. 108
    Suffern ACE says:

    I actually had to reread this post after going to the Howler. I had no idea that the link actually went to the New York Times. Cripes. I thought it was some Avarosis piece making certain that in our hour of victory, we’re pissed at Obama anyway so that his readers can never be happy about anything. Cripes.

  109. 109

    A marriage should be a sacred exchange of vows between a drunk guy and a cocktail waitress and sanctified only by an Elvis impersonator. My dad is more of a traditionalist and still thinks that a marriage should only be between a man and as many woman as he can afford.

  110. 110
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Yevgraf at #96: I knew you must have gotten your name from Dr. Zhivago, because I never met anyone in real life with that name.

    I had to google it. I see it’s from Pasternak but also an allusion to Red Dawn, a Hollywood film which I have never seen but which I am aware serves as the basis for a well-known internet tradition.

    Wolverines!

  111. 111
    Brian R. says:

    Reflexive contrarianism is not a coherent political or moral philosophy.

    Sssh! Don’t tell the people behind Slate!

  112. 112
    drkrick says:

    ya know, fwiw, my take on obama’s overall strategy is this: he fully recognizes that he simply cannot go in like a knight in shining armor on a white stead and instantly correct all the wrongs that face us.

    Boy, does that statement work on a lot of levels.

  113. 113
    boss bitch says:

    From everything I’ve read, Cuomo twisted arms, kicked asses, and took names right up to the last second.

    stop reading people who make shit up.

  114. 114
    gwangung says:

    Twisting arms has never worked, and it has been tried. Eliot Spitzer tried to do it in his first year as governor, it failed miserably. The big difference between Spitzer and Cuomo is Cuomo cuts deals while Spitzer flung shit. To get a vote, Spitzer would publicly bash a State Senator, call him names, belittle him, etc. It never worked. Cuomo would call said Senator into his office to have a long conversation about what he can do to get his vote, and how he can help.
    __
    Cuomo didn’t twist arms, he lavished them with Rolexes and bracelets made of fine diamonds.

    This sounds like negotiating away your position. Hm. Where have we heard this before?

  115. 115
    boss bitch says:

    There is a deep irony here, by the way. Cuomo has been taking a lot of other positions that you’d expect leftists to be extremely unhappy with. These include attacks on unions; an emphasis on spending cuts; and opposition to tax increases on the rich. I dislike all of these positions while agreeing that Cuomo was great on this particular issue.

    It’d be nice if folks on the left who have problems with Obama could make the same sorts of distinctions. But the loathing of him runs so deep, as we’ll see here, that a passionate minority can’t see any good in the man.

    Read again, Cuomo didn’t twist arms, he cut deals, he didn’t kick ass, he persuaded using his popularity. The only ass he kicked were the asses of the gay rights activists whom he thought were completely ineffectual. He put them under the guise of his friends in a private PR firm who make millions of dollars a year fighting progressives on other issues and made them coordinate a message.

    Just a couple of comments that need repeating.

  116. 116
    gogol's wife says:

    Jim at #110: You’re right (I’ve never seen “Red Dawn”), but Milius totally stole it from Dr. Zhivago. And I don’t see any characters in “Red Dawn” named Yevgraf, although there is a Yuri. I suppose the quotation regarding H. Dean could refer to either Pasternak’s or Milius’s Strelnikov.

  117. 117
  118. 118
    Valdivia says:

    @bossbitch 115

    co-signing the repeating of these comments.

  119. 119
    Jennifer says:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    It’s not almost like this, it’s exactly like this.

    I teed off on both Maddow and Maher at my blog (click nym linkee if you like) for this exact reason. Because, other than making you feel good, what exactly does it actually accomplish to have the president publicly state that he favors marriage equality?

    Nothing. Nada. Not one damn thing. Other than make it harder for him to win re-election. I’m sure New Yorkers supportive of marriage equality would have been thrilled to hear the president come out in support. But he’s already got New York in the bag for 2012. How would it have played in say, Iowa or Missouri or Colorado or North Carolina?

    Idjits. They’d rather have a “pure” loss and forfeit gains like repeal of DADT than suffer the horrid abuse of not getting an affirmative statement from the president while attaining their goals.

  120. 120
    gogol's wife says:

    I cosign Valdivia’s cosign.

  121. 121
    grandpajohn says:

    As a retired teacher, I understand the importance of numerous repetitions of key and basic facts , but I do wonder how many repetitions of one very basic fact do we need to keep emphasizing to educate the whining extremes of the left, who are becoming as looney as the teatards ,and that fact is simply this;Obama was elected president, not dictator, he doesn’t get to rule by fiat.He doesn’t get to make the laws, congress does a congress that now has a republican controlled house thanks in part to many of these same bitching liberals not voting, or not helping to get out the vote just to teach Obama a lesson, some lesson huh?
    Now I know this has been stated here many times but it seems that it is to the point it should be headlined here everyday.
    Also as has been observed above, do these morons really think that it is a good idea for the president to involve himself in state and local politics?

  122. 122
    Yevgraf says:

    Jim at #110: You’re right (I’ve never seen “Red Dawn”), but Milius totally stole it from Dr. Zhivago. And I don’t see any characters in “Red Dawn” named Yevgraf, although there is a Yuri. I suppose the quotation regarding H. Dean could refer to either Pasternak’s or Milius’s Strelnikov.

    My name is based on Pasternak’s character – nothing from Milius (Red Dawn was winger porn).

  123. 123
  124. 124
    Jennyjinx says:

    Note: I haven’t read any comments before posting this.

    I prefer that Obama stay out of it. Let the states’ legislatures duke it out. I’d also prefer that this issue never come up for a vote on the ballot (look how well that’s turned out so far).

    I want to see this ultimately end up before the SCOTUS, just like Loving v. Virigina. I believe, considering the national IQ level, that the only way to put this issue to bed is by way of the Supreme Court. Then in 30 years this country will start moaning that teh gays can’t stayed married and we were so hopeful they’d show the rest of us how to make a marriage work. Pfft.

  125. 125
    Yutsano says:

    Red Dawn was winger porn

    Released at the tail end of the Red Scare during the reign of His Eminence Ronaldus Magnus. Ugh. Is it sad I know the context of the movie and why exactly it was so popular?

  126. 126
    Catsy says:

    @Timothy:

    COMPLETE AND TOTAL TROLL POST.

    Finally, truth in advertising from Timothy der Trollenschweiner.

    @Reality Check:

    The “progressive” coalition is cracking up:

    Don’t look now, but you just got clowned.

  127. 127
    Allan says:

    Excellent post, John. Very well and succinctly put.

  128. 128
    cat48 says:

    @lllphd—you said exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

    Me too.

  129. 129
    rickstersherpa says:

    I think it is a combinaiton of large helpings of laziness and tribal self-regard at how superior and cool one is over those oh so uncool, ordinary, people. Hence to win our positions we just need the President to make a magic speech and the Republicans in the House and Senate will just melt away. (Instead doing the hard work of organizing precient by precient to peruade people that liberals (whether Republican or Democrat) are not the spawn of hte devil. I am afraid that this has been a prime characteristic of the left ever since the glory years of Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, where the left was unquestionably in the right. The self-congratulations meant that we no longer had to work to get the votes of those ordinary people who had not been right on those issues, or to slow on those issues, (just as they have been to slow on gay issues, but aren’t they coming along?)

  130. 130
    Valdivia says:

    A little late but man that first post of mine at #3 is a grammatical horror. Apologies, not enough caffeine before…

  131. 131

    As a gay man still wanting the full range of human rights to be guaranteed to us under law, let me say that I’m quite pleased with the current progress on these issues. In fact, I believe it’s long past someone else’s turn right now. I’m thinking of the DREAM Act and EFCA in particular. (Although the recent addition of DREAM Act categories to the list of mitigating factors in a deportation decision cheers my heart.) Cap and trade would be nice, as well. I know I’m dreaming, But can’t we all cooperate in advancing progressive causes?

  132. 132
    Danny says:

    @rickstersherpa:

    I am afraid that this has been a prime characteristic of the left ever since the glory years of Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, where the left was unquestionably in the right.

    Try the Vietnam War only. This excess of whining and magical thinking was always a trait of the New Leftians that the vietnam war brought.

    They’ve loved dishing it out against democrats in office ever since LBJ and HH. That’s why the DFH label is so fitting. By coincidence progressives been surprisingly good at loosing elections ever since the New Left first got to run the party by putting McGovern on the ballot in ’72. Ever wonder why LBJ was the last progressive president of consequence before BHO?

  133. 133
    lamh34 says:

    so let me see if I understand, the same Republican Senators who just 2 years before voted against SSM bill that came up are being celebrating because their feelings “evolved” well enough in 2 years for them to all of a sudden support SSM not for political calculation, but just because, but Obama’s “evolving” stance on SSM means he hates the gays…is that right?

  134. 134
    Kelly says:

    Thank you, I agree with this article. *Making another donation to our amazing democratic president’s reelection as soon as I finish this comment*

  135. 135
    Yutsano says:

    Ever wonder why LBJ was the last progressive president of consequence before BHO?

    The firebaggers vehemently disagree. According to them, Obama isn’t fit to clean LBJ’s shoes.

  136. 136
    OzoneR says:

    the same Republican Senators who just 2 years before voted against SSM bill that came up are being celebrating because their feelings “evolved” well enough in 2 years for them to all of a sudden support SSM not for political calculation, but just because, but Obama’s “evolving” stance on SSM means he hates the gays…is that right?

    Also three Democratic Senators…from New York City

  137. 137
    scandi says:

    This reminds me of Friday night. I was in a diner shortly after the news came down. I saw an older gentleman staring at the bathrooms, wondering aloud which one he should go into. Trying to be helpful, I pointed out the men’s room. His reply “well, Obama just declared that gay marriage is legal now, so I guess it doesn’t matter which bathroom I go into.”

    It reminded me that no matter what he does or says, there are always going to be people who assume whatever they want. So why can’t he just say “I support marriage equality.” No one is asking him to declare it legal throughout the land. Just something better than “my position is evolving.”

  138. 138
    Not!ABL says:

    Completely useless useful idiots. Now ryan’s curse and medicare, potential political weapons for dems, are distant memories. The repubs don’t have any better allies than emo-prog crowd.

    +1

  139. 139
    Not!ABL says:

    And what amount of “delicacy” was necessary in the Civil Rights campaign, John?

    i know, i know!: a metric fuck ton.

  140. 140
    Danny says:

    @Yutsano

    It’s a bit more complicated than that. Before I got banned from FDL I discussed this in the comments thread to some post about the legacy of the 60s and got into arguments with people who passionately argued that not only did LBJ deserve no credit whatsoever (perhaps understandable given New Left sentiments at the time re Vietnam screwups), but neither did Hubert Humphrey, or so it was claimed. Bringing up Civil Rights accomplishments, the Great Society and other parts of their solid progressive pedigree did little good. I’m sceptical that there was one single elected president in the 20th century that some of those guys could have voted for. After all, FDR kept the japanese in camps and flew the white flag of defeat on civil rights and gay marriage…

  141. 141
    Yutsano says:

    I’m sceptical that there was one single elected president in the 20th century that some of those guys could vote for.

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    There isn’t. None of them lived up to their progressive ideals because none of them bullied their way into making progress for the country. It’s like, oh I dunno, they don’t understand how progress is made. Or something.

  142. 142
    amk says:

    @ 137 scandi – Ask that nutjob never to set foot in a plane/bus/train. He might catch teh gay.

  143. 143
    scandi says:

    @ 142 amk – If he didn’t catch it from me, he’s probably immune.

  144. 144
    Danny says:

    There isn’t. None of them lived up to their progressive ideals because none of them bullied their way into making progress for the country. It’s like, oh I dunno, they don’t understand how progress is made. Or something.

    “Magic Progressives”, how about it? It’s more appropriate than calling them “The Left”.

  145. 145
    Bobby Thomson says:

    From everything I’ve read, Cuomo twisted arms, kicked asses, and took names right up to the last second. Since when was this a “done deal” that the spineless O could have fucked up with a single word from his silver, audaciosly hopeful tongue?

    You do realize you just undercut the shit out of the point you were trying to make, right?

  146. 146
    Not!ABL says:

    so let me see if I understand, the same Republican Senators who just 2 years before voted against SSM bill that came up are being celebrating because their feelings “evolved” well enough in 2 years for them to all of a sudden support SSM not for political calculation, but just because, but Obama’s “evolving” stance on SSM means he hates the gays…is that right?

    yup.

  147. 147
    Allan says:

    To the Front-Pager at #48

    When am I allowed to be unsatisfied with Obama, exactly? Can you write out a list of acceptable times for those of us on the left to complain? You’ve so shrunk the realm of the acceptable in left-wing discourse that I genuinely don’t know what I might say that would be acceptable to you.

    You keep saying this word “acceptable”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Based on my understanding, you are a front-pager at this blog, and the proprietor, Mr. Cole, gives you and all other FP contributors a virtually unlimited license to use his blog to say whatever you wish to say, on whatever topic, using as few or as many words as you choose.

    You may, for example, write a front-page post of your own in which you expand on this comment’s themes, and this would be “acceptable” to John.

    What Mr. Cole is discussing in his post is political strategy. You may wish that Obama held different feelings on same-sex marriage, and are always free to say so.

    What the readers of BJ will demand of you, however, is that you offer up a strategy for achieving the marriage equality objectives we share within the context of the US political system, existing state and federal laws, the role of the states in licensing marriage, and the current and potential future composition of both houses of Congress and the Federal judiciary.

    So it is acceptable for you to feel that President Obama should feel differently than he does about same-sex marriage, and that he should have already finished evolving about it, and that he should say and do different things than what he actually does.

    It’s also acceptable for you to write about it.

    What is not acceptable is for you to require that Mr. Cole and/or any of his readers receive your written expression of your feelings uncritically, or refrain from disagreeing with you, or from pointing out to you that the statement from President Obama you seem to crave doesn’t actually bring forth the legislative remedies we all seek.

    I’m embarrassed to be explaining this to someone who is paid to educate our young people.

  148. 148
    Jennifer says:

    @ 137 scandi:

    So why can’t he just say “I support marriage equality.”

    Oh, he certainly COULD say it. He could have said it in 2008, and kissed off one or all of the following states: Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and probably several others. And then DADT would still be in place, we would have a McCain Justice Department vigorously defending DOMA, and would have a Vice President Palin constantly harping on why we need a “protection of marriage” amendment to the constitution.

    Would that be better than what we’ve got?

    Besides, what exactly does it accomplish, in any concrete sense, for the president to come out and say “I support same-sex marriage?” Will it become the law of the land automatically if he says it? No? Then what’s the point, other than giving you a thrill to hear him say it?

    Seriously, do you believe the president is an opponent of marriage equality? Based on what – his denunciation of the states that have passed it? His attempts to get the federal government involved in making sure it remains illegal?

    It comes down to whether you’d prefer getting the warm-n-fuzzies from hearing someone say what you want to hear, and actually making progress on the issue. Just as John said (and just as I said at my joint). Somehow your warm-n-fuzzies are not more important – in my mind, anyway – than other people winning their rights, at long last. And I’d be willing to bet that those people who are winning their rights would agree – they’d rather have their rights than a fleeting feel-good moment.

  149. 149
    myiq2xu says:

    What flavor Koolaid are they serving this week, John?

  150. 150
    dogwood says:

    stop reading people who make shit up.

    Guys like Tim don’t just read people who make shit up, they make it up themselves. The whole history of anti-Obamaism is a series of making thing up – schooled in a madrassa, secret muslim, refuses to say the pledge, poor student, pals around with terrorists, Kenyan anti-colonial socialist, drug dealer, homophobe, anti-semite- it goes on and on. It used to be that the right wing machine based their smears in some element of truth. I mean Whitewater was overblown, but the Clintons were actually involved in a land deal that went bad, and Bill did have trouble on the fidelity front. But with the Swiftboat saga they found out you can make shit up from whole cloth and get away with it. The firebaggers are just getting in on the game. There’s money to be made in declaring that Obama is the worst president in history when it comes to ____________. It doesn’t have to be true; it just has to “feel” true, as Colbert might say.

  151. 151
    cat48 says:

    So why can’t he just say “I support marriage equality”

    Honestly, I feel he probably does, but he’s got some problems with some of his normal voting base. The polling for approval of SSM for blacks & Hispanics is grim….around 35% to 40% for each group.

  152. 152
    Huckster says:

    @ 115

    co-signing

  153. 153

    […] failure to lead on this issue would be inarguable, but then you don’t know John Cole: No. No. And A Thousand Times, No. […]

  154. 154
    Trurl says:

    the idea that it was in the bag and Obama shut up about it just to keep from putting the kibosh on, I think is so far unsupported by any evidence.

    Careful. Pointing out a ‘bot’s wishful thinking and faulty reasoning is considered impolite here.

  155. 155
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Honestly, I feel he probably does, but he’s got some problems with some of his normal voting base. The polling for approval of SSM for blacks & Hispanics is grim….around 35% to 40% for each group.

    More brave, audaciously hopeful leadership from Mr. O.

  156. 156
    Epicurus says:

    WTF does the opinion or support of the President have to do with legislation being debated in the New York State legislature? Please….

  157. 157

    Bravo John. Most excellent post.

  158. 158
    Pangloss says:

    The use of surrogates to take on potentially polarizing issues is a tried and tested political tactic. FDR did nothing at all on Civil Rights and allowed/encouraged Eleanor to voice the administration’s support. Was FDR a spineless secret Republican?

    The Obama admin had a huge role in getting Patterson to quietly step aside to allow Cuomo to run for and win NY Gov., even as the NY State Senate flipped to GOP. Would the bill have passed with Patterson in Albany?

    “Magic Progressives” is a perfect moniker. I’m going to start using it.

  159. 159

    Trurl@152

    Let’s see:

    …the idea that it was in the bag and Obama shut up about it…

    vs.

    Cuomo and the NY politicians were very carefully advancing the issue in a delicate manner

    Either “very carefully advancing the issue in a delicate manner” is firebagger jive for “in the bag”, or it isn’t the ‘bot doing the wishful thinking.

  160. 160
    Alan in SF says:

    I guess some people are just more sensitive than others about being told, “Don’t sweat it, we’re only going to continue treating you as second-class citizens for a few more years.”

    I grew up in a time when, going to the beach in the summer, we had to drive for miles past all the “No Colored/No Jews” beaches until we found a place we could go. Try it some time, John.

  161. 161
    Danny says:

    @Alan

    Agreed. We need to stop treating people as second class citizens because of color or sexual preference.

    Instead we should start treating idiots as second class citizens. Idiots like you.

  162. 162
    Mnemosyne says:

    @ Jennifer

    Emotionally, I can understand why people want Obama to say it – a whole lot of GLBT people have been rejected over and over and over again, and it’s only natural that they would want that affirmation from the President of the United States.

    What I don’t entirely get is that the people who go around screaming that “just words!” aren’t enough from the president are the exact same people who want Obama to say very specific phrases rather than show his support through actions like getting the military on-board with DADT repeal and signing the repeal, giving additional rights to gay couples, or recording an It Gets Better video.

    I just don’t get how you reconcile your desire to hear the president say something using the precise wording that you want or else it doesn’t count and complaining that you only get lip service from him and not action.

  163. 163
    Jennifer says:

    Alan – as I noted at my place, I’m sure it gets old hearing “wait just a little longer…” It would piss me off, too.

    But the reality is, we have a few choices on the menu. We have, “I want to hear what I want to hear,” and “I want to see some action and improvement.”

    It would be nice if one of the choices was, “I want everything right now, including hearing what I want to hear.” Unfortunately, that is not on the menu. It should be, and it sucks that it’s not, but…it’s not.

    Unless you can show why you would materially fare better with the addition of a politically risky – at this point in time – statement by the president, I fail to see how such a statement would make any difference in terms of actions and improvements.

    That’s all.

  164. 164
    Mnemosyne says:

    WTF does the opinion or support of the President have to do with legislation being debated in the New York State legislature? Please….

    Nothing, except that it gives Timmy and Trurl another chance to weep in their pillows about how Daddy doesn’t really love them because they didn’t get a Turbo Man for Christmas.

  165. 165
    amk says:

    @ 158 Alan in SF – Then concentrate on those people who put those barriers in your way and stop kneecapping those who’re helping you remove those barriers. Jeez, how hard it is to understand.

  166. 166
    jdb says:

    Please delete the word ‘almost’ from the last two paragraphs.

  167. 167
    OzoneR says:

    So why can’t he just say “I support marriage equality.”

    For the honest answer, go into any black neighborhood in the country, ANY, and talk about marriage equality.

    And then remember, that is his base.

  168. 168
    Alan in SF says:

    Why would anyone think the first black President would speak out in favor of civil rights unless it was politically advantageous? Clowns.

  169. 169

    Alan@158

    I guess some people are just more sensitive than others about being told, “Don’t sweat it, we’re only going to continue treating you as second-class citizens for a few more years.”

    I grew up in a time when, going to the beach in the summer, we had to drive for miles past all the “No Colored/No Jews” beaches until we found a place we could go. Try it some time, John.

    The irony here being that even though the signs are gone, even though political leaders have spoken the right words, there are still those who continue to consider and treat blacks- including the current POTUS- and Jews as second-class citizens, and they still get away with it.

  170. 170
    OzoneR says:

    Why would anyone think the first black President would speak out in favor of civil rights unless it was politically advantageous? Clowns.

    You want to be run out of Jamaica, Queens or Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn on a rail, tell the folks there this is a civil rights issue just like theirs was.

  171. 171
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    For the honest answer, go into any black neighborhood in the country, ANY, and talk about marriage equality. And then remember, that is his base.

    Yes, and as the leader of the country and the free world, such as it is, it is always best and most honorable to play to your supporters’ basest levels of bigotry. Because to do otherwise would be to you know, LEAD, and O doesn’t do leadership, except from behind.

    Really, is there any level to which you Bots will not stoop to make excuses for your Daddy?

  172. 172
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    what happened to the PUMAs and Firebaggers? This type of chum used to draw them in like bees on honey.

    I mean, only the scrubs showed up today.

  173. 173
  174. 174
    Jennifer says:

    Alan – he has spoken out in favor of civil rights. During the campaign he talked about his support for civil unions granting same-sex couples equal legal status.

    But for some stupid reason, the M-word is a lightning rod with the Bufords. They think it means that the government is going to force their priest or Pastor Jim Bob to gay-marry queers in their church, which will make God smite it and them.

    As a result, stating unequivocal support for the M-word rather than legally-equal civil unions is poltically costly, particularly in those communities that are strongly religious. Older white folks in the heartland, black folks everywhere, Hispanic Catholics. Etc.

    It would be different if the president was a dictator and could change the law just by declaring it so. He can’t, so what you’re asking for will not only not advance your agenda, it will set it back when, if he follows your advice, President Bachmann is sworn in and moves full speed ahead on her campaign pledge to outlaw gay marriage in the constitution.

    But at least Obama will have proved he’s not a spineless, politically caluclating wimp, amirite?

  175. 175
    scandi says:

    @ 148 Jennifer:

    If you’d read my earlier comments, you would have seen that 1) just because I don’t like the political realty, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it and b) I just happen to be one of those people winning my rights…at long last. It’s 2011, not 2008. I realize that he’s not going to come out in favor of this until after 2012. I get it. I don’t like it, but I get it.

    But this is not about “warm-n-fuzzies”, at least not for me. I’m very happy that marriage equality has passed in my current state, but I’m moving to California, where it has not. I’ll be glad to come back and sing at my friends’ weddings but until this becomes a reality for the entire nation, there will always be more fighting to be done.

    This isn’t some genial hypothetical. This is my life. It’s the life of my dear friend, who has been with his partner for 11 years. They’ve been “engaged” for three years now and it’s only now that they can get married. And when they do get married in New York state, they still won’t be eligible for the over 1,000 federal rights that are entitled to any straight guy who runs off to Vegas with a cocktail waitress.

    And I think that’s what people (I’m looking at you, John) aren’t getting. It sounds awfully condescending (or at least tone deaf) for you to paint everyone who is out there fighting for equality as a “firebagger” or “professional left” or whatever clever little name you’ve come up with this week.

    Would you tell a woman fighting to keep Planned Parenthood open that she just doesn’t get the political reality? Would you tell an illegal immigrant fighting to get the DREAM Act instated that he should really just settle for what we can do today and not worry about his feelings. I’m damn tired of being a political football, but I’d feel a hell of a lot better about it if I didn’t feel like the people on my own team were lining up to kick the ball.

    And seriously, I don’t feel the president is an opponent of marriage equality. But that doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same way. His “evolving” position just makes it okay for all of our opponents to use his stance as an excuse to rationalize their own bigotry.

    So yes, I do want the president to come out in favor of marriage equality. I agree with John that this weekend was the time to do it, but it is something I’m longing to hear. It won’t necessarily give me the “warm-n-fuzzies”, but it will go a hell of a long way to the gay community to know that they have a president who supports them…even when it’s not politically convenient to do so.

  176. 176
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Nothing, except that it gives Timmy and Trurl another chance to weep in their pillows about how Daddy doesn’t really love them

    Could you be any less self aware. YOu are projecting big time, of course. YOU and the rest of the BJ Bots are the ones who love Daddy O NO MATTER WHAT he does or does not do, cause he is…your daddy and you love him bestest.

    I don’t look to the presidency for daddy fulfillment. I thought the Ronny Ray Gun years proved the stupidity of that approach.

  177. 177
    kay says:

    I think there is some support for the idea that an Obama announcement or intervention might have harmed rather than helped, in terms of GOP support.

    There’s this.

    Ken Melhman pressured ten GOP Senators on DADT, and when he was invited by the WH to appear (publicly) on passage, he declined. He then went on to lobby state GOP (and conservative donors) in NY. Does anyone here think he would have declined to appear publicly alongside a GOP President?

  178. 178
    Mnemosyne says:

    YOu are projecting big time, of course.

    Yesss, Timmy, I’m the one projecting here. That’s why I’m the one who says things like:

    Yes, and as the leader of the country and the free world, such as it is, it is always best and most honorable to play to your supporters’ basest levels of bigotry.

    Because nothing says “playing to basest levels of bigotry” like giving more federal rights to gay couples and repealing DADT. What a fucking monster that guy is, taking action where he can but not saying the precise phrases that you want him to say.

    Well, that’s what you claim you want him to say. If Obama made a speech tomorrow and said he is in full support of gay marriage, you would bitch and moan because he didn’t say he was “wholeheartedly” in support of gay marriage and if he didn’t use that precise word, that means he didn’t really do it at all. Because bitching and moaning about Obama is your only schtick.

  179. 179

    scandi@172

    I’m damn tired of being a political football, but I’d feel a hell of a lot better about it if I didn’t feel like the people on my own team were lining up to kick the ball.

    You aren’t the football. You’re a player, but you’re a player bitching, after a big regular season win against a divisional rival, that the coach didn’t make sure you got the ball enough.

  180. 180
    OzoneR says:

    Yes, and as the leader of the country and the free world, such as it is, it is always best and most honorable to play to your supporters’ basest levels of bigotry.

    Funny, and here I though a good leader always plays to his base.

  181. 181
    Danny says:

    @Scandi

    I don’t buy this “it’s about my life so I get to say whatever I want and no one gets to call me on it”. This coalition is one where we all – black, gay, woman, latin, poor, wasp – help carry each other.

    If it’s suddenly ok for anyone to start pissing inside the tent demanding #44 come out and support gay marriage right this minute while:

    1) More progress on gay rights has happened in the last 3 years than in a very long time.
    2) The 43 preceding presidents NEVER came out in support.
    3) He just went from only supporting civil unions to practically advertising he WILL support gay marriage and he dropped the admins defense of DOMA. That’s an improvement – right? That deserves encouragement – right?
    4) Congress won’t pass anything because “progressives” stayed home in 2010.

    …then the coalition falls apart. Then we will indeed devolve into a chaos of interests groups, fighting among ourselves; always to weak and fractured to get anything done.

    Gay rights has gotten plenty enough progress in the last three years – in comparison to the preceding 100 years – to be fairly content, even happy over the victories delivered.

    I won’t apologize for saying that even though I’m not gay myself, no matter what appeals to suffering and discrimination are made. Because I – WE – were not the ones doing the discriminating. In fact we fought alongside you, shoulder to shoulder. And so did the President.

    Being a victim does not equal a get out of jail card for being a jerk off.

  182. 182
    OzoneR says:

    The 43 preceding presidents NEVER came out in support.

    This reminds me of the day after Obama’s inauguration, someone reminded me that he is only the SECOND president to be openly supportive of abortion rights. Clinton was the first.

  183. 183
    Mnemosyne says:

    Would you tell a woman fighting to keep Planned Parenthood open that she just doesn’t get the political reality?

    I would if she kept saying that PP was being closed because Obama didn’t take a stand and it would all be fixed if he gave the word rather than fighting the legislators who blocked the funding.

    Would you tell an illegal immigrant fighting to get the DREAM Act instated that he should really just settle for what we can do today and not worry about his feelings.

    I would if he kept saying that Obama was personally blocking him from going to college instead of taking action to get it through Congress.

    And seriously, I don’t feel the president is an opponent of marriage equality. But that doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same way. His “evolving” position just makes it okay for all of our opponents to use his stance as an excuse to rationalize their own bigotry.

    I’m more concerned about the people on our side who are using this as an excuse to attack the president. Republicans are going to do the opposite of what Obama does so, if anything, his lack of public support may actually help some of the behind-the-scenes negotiating in places like New York. (Okay, that’s the Obot in me talking.)

    I’m not going to say that you shouldn’t want public affirmation, because you absolutely should want it, and get it. I just don’t think that demanding it specifically from the president right fucking now is really the best strategy, and could actually hurt the effort that’s going on now.

    (I don’t think that’s what you’re actually arguing, but our resident trolls are.)

  184. 184
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    How many Republicans who were supporting the vote would have backed away, simply because Republicans could not give Obama a “win.”

    Most rank and file commentators still haven’t come to grips with this. Today’s republicans vote against their own hand crafted legislation just to deny obama a victory.

    Lindsey Graham actually co-wrote the carbon tax legislation, but when it looked like it was going to pass, he flip-flopped and voted to kill his own work.

  185. 185
    Mnemosyne says:

    Also, too, for people who aren’t here very often, this is the typical Obot vs. Firebagger argument about what’s more important, taking a public stand that means you go down in flames or actually getting shit done. I’m in the “getting shit done” camp myself.

  186. 186
    jayackroyd says:

    I’m pretty unhappy with Obama, but John is on target here. The idea is to pass good legislation, and Obama helped the cause by not shouting out.

  187. 187
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    Why do people who dislike obama want his affirmation?

    makes no sense.

  188. 188
    pamelabrown says:

    I want to thank you for this post, John Cole. I’m gay and I’m hounded out of the conversation in some diaries at GOS. Some extremist are fracturing our coalition: I’m seeing signs wherever I go on the internet.

    I KNOW we will get our rights and I also know by being out of the closet and building relationships with my neighbors and community is already working to build critical mass in support of my and my partner of 16 years right to “marry”.

    Again, thank you, thank you and thank you!

  189. 189
    ruemara says:

    Let me see if I’ve gotten the jist of this argument. President Obama needs to talk about his support of gay marriage, otherwise, he’s spineless coward who hates gays. It’s not about moving government towards equal rights, it’s about hearing him speak about marriage equality. That’s what makes him valid. He says things you want to hear. The actions you’d like to have appear to be secondary. In fact, it would probably be better if he agreed to be on a DC pride float. No wait, he needs to come out of the closet and propose to RahmSherrod Brown to gay marry him. But you’re not ok with him saying anything because it’s just words anyway. But he does need to officially say he supports gay rights, while singlehandedly repealing DOMA & DADT in a manner and fashion that makes sense to people who are not involved in law or military methods. But he should also obey the constitution without fail, except where he shouldn’t then he’s spineless if he doesn’t push back by commandeering the media because he can always get press coverage.

    And he needs to, as the first Black President, step up to the Civil Rights stage as a leader. Yeah, I recall my school days, learning about Presidents Martin Luther King and Shirley Chisholm. Then there was Presidents Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King. Presidents Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem. If there was one thing I recall, it’s how Presidents were always the leaders of popular movements to grant rights to minorities, because all the people agreed they deserve their rights. We had some great presidents back then, not like now. And people always understood that there were unfair conditions of privilege that somehow escaped the founders attentions and needed to be protected. Yep, better presidents and better people back then. I say we primary Obama with Grom Hamsherscream. Then, we repeal rich people.

    *Edited to add: And I wear an onion in my belt, because that was the fashion at the time.

  190. 190
    boss bitch says:

    Why do people who dislike obama want his affirmation?

    so they can reject him.

  191. 191
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Guys like Tim don’t just read people who make shit up, they make it up themselves. The whole history of anti-Obamaism is a series of making thing up – schooled in a madrassa, secret muslim, refuses to say the pledge, poor student, pals around with terrorists, Kenyan anti-colonial socialist, drug dealer, homophobe, anti-semite- it goes on and on.

    Fool. I know it is important for your black/white view of the world that you pretend to believe I am a virulent Obama hater from way back. As an observer, I clearly felt O was the lesser evil than McCain, and I was glad to see him elected just for the visual/historical positive of the U.S. having elected an AA prez. I figured he was substantially full of shit, but just had no idea how full until he got rocking, first off with the kiss fest with the pharm companies and of course it’s been downhill from there.

    Oh, and fuck yourself, douche.

  192. 192
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    If Obama gave a speech declaring his support for gay marriage this is what would happen.

    Bloggers would say, “so what”; “words are meaningless”; “this changes nothing in my state”; “he’s just throwing bone to the base”; “he doesn’t mean it”; “I would have thanked him if he did it during his first day in office, but not now, too much time has passed”.

    And I know this, because that is what happened after DADT was repealed. Commentators actually said “it’s a bone to the base”, and “it’s meaningless because it took so long”.

  193. 193
    Allan says:

    Greg Mitchell was very excited to report that the US gay community demands that Bradley Manning be released, because Wikileaks tweeted a pic of a group with a banner in the SF Pride Parade.

    And of course, Wikileaks and some people with a sign represent the unified vision of some 30 million gay Americans.

    ::headdesk::

  194. 194
    Shade Tail says:

    scandi:

    So yes, I do want the president to come out in favor of marriage equality. I agree with John that this weekend was the time to do it, but it is something I’m longing to hear. It won’t necessarily give me the “warm-n-fuzzies”, but it will go a hell of a long way to the gay community to know that they have a president who supports them…even when it’s not politically convenient to do so.

    Well, you know what, Scandi? It’s my life too, and the life of my sister-in-law. And that’s as much as I’m willing to say because this is a very personal matter that I’m still working through. And quite frankly, I don’t appreciate you seeking to fuck up our lives because you have your head in the goddamn clouds. Everything is political. *EVERYTHING*. You can’t ignore that, or else we will never see equality.

    So stop being obsessed with the president’s words. Talk is cheap. Action is what matters, and by that measure, Obama has been the most LGBT-friendly president we’ve ever had. You want to trade that all away just for a few comforting words? You want Obama to lose the next election to future-President Bachmann simply because he said something that you want to hear, but which would alienate the still-bigoted half of the country?

    My sister-in-law deserves better than that. So do I. So do you.

  195. 195
    scandi says:

    Gay rights has gotten plenty enough progress in the last three years – in comparison to the preceding 100 years – to be fairly content, even happy over the victories delivered.

    And while I can’t speak for the entire gay community, I can say that is the perfect example of the frustration I feel.

    Silly gays, you’ve gotten as much as you’re going to get right now, so just shut up and be happy about it.

    Now of course I’m going to get twenty more comments telling me that I’m just bitching, or butthurt or not being a team player. Fine. I’m a big boy and I can take it.

    But what you smart, politically tuned-in people seem to forget is not everyone is smart and politically tuned-in as you. The majority of the country is not hearing that he’s all but declared his support for marriage equality. They hear that even our “liberal” president thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And that supports their own view.

    And while I understand the political aspects of his stance, I can’t help but think that if he did come out in support, fully and unequivocally, it would set a great example for all of his constituents who didn’t support it. Who knows, maybe they’d think that if their leader can make this stand, maybe they can too.

  196. 196
    ruemara says:

    Allan

    Does the fact that he actually committed a crime mean nothing to these people? He didn’t just whistleblow on a horrible (frankly, murder to my mind) of a journo, he actually released thousands of diplomatic cables. There was no rhyme or reason beyond releasing things for some sort of vendetta? justice? ?? It’s not just ok because you agree that 1 thing he released is wrong and because he’s gay.

  197. 197
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    if gay marriage is such a crucial issue, why didn’t anyone support Kucinich during the 2008 primaries?

    He was they only candidate who supported it, and yet he received no support.

    rank and file commentators didn’t seem to have a problem with St. Edwards and Ralph Nader (of all people) opposing gay marriage.

  198. 198
    eemom says:

    @ ruemara

    Grom Hamsherscream. Then, we repeal rich people.

    fer teh Win.

  199. 199
    eemom says:

    @ Mike Kay

    Really? Nader opposes gay marriage?

    It is actually possible for him to be yet more of an asshole?

  200. 200
    Jennifer says:

    @ 94 scandi – you’re right to be offended with the “you’ve gotten enough these past 3 years.”

    You should have it all, right now. It’s not fair that you don’t.

    But having the president say so at this moment in time won’t change that; it will most likely in fact set the agenda back, because it will become a campaign issue and it will hurt him, perhaps enough that people who are your complete enemies will win the White House.

    So yeah, it sucks. But which do you want, because the reality is, you can’t have both progress and the words you want from the president right now at this very instant.

    It’s not fair, I get that. But I can’t understand this fixation on hearing the words as being more important than looking at the actions.

    And FWIW, I agree that after the election, Obama needs to be pressured to come out in full support of marriage equality. But not before then. There’s too much at stake – not only for the gay rights agenda, but for everything else as well.

  201. 201
    RalfW says:

    I swear, it is almost like these idiots don’t understand politics, don’t understand risk and reward, and do not understand strategic thinking.

    Remember, John, these people manage Newspapers. They wouldn’t know strategic planning if it was sold to them for four million bucks by a consortium of IBM, Accenture, Price-Waterhouse and the FSM.

  202. 202

    Mike Kay @ 196
    eemom @ 198

    I can’t stand Nader, either- at least not as a candidate for the presidency- but I think Mike’s mostly wrong on this.

  203. 203
    ABL says:

    If Obama gave a speech declaring his support for gay marriage this is what would happen.

    Bloggers would say, “so what”; “words are meaningless”; “this changes nothing in my state”; “he’s just throwing bone to the base”; “he doesn’t mean it”; “I would have thanked him if he did it during his first day in office, but not now, too much time has passed”.

    And I know this, because that is what happened after DADT was repealed. Commentators actually said “it’s a bone to the base”, and “it’s meaningless because it took so long”.

    spot on. when one stops trying to view the EmoProgs as rational actors, their “nothing is ever enough; obama pre-sold us out!” bullshit becomes less irritating and more comical.

    these folks are whiners. they live to whine and they live to lose so they can be perpetually disappointed.

    there are bloggers who have never had anything positive to say about obama. NOTHING. ZIP. ZERO. NADA.

    i cannot take seriously any progressive blogger who has never not once praised obama for any action he’s taken. they are the rush limbaughs of the left.

  204. 204
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    because that is what happened after DADT was repealed

    In the real world, of course, DADT has NOT been made inactive because it has to be CERTIFIED by the delicate, sensitive military brass. And naturally, now that Gates is retiring, that process will mysteriously be set back another half to full year.

    Change we can believe in!

  205. 205
    ABL says:

    ruemara @ 189 wins the internet and my heart.

    onion belts were so hot right then.

  206. 206
    MomSense says:

    @Yutsano

    “There isn’t. None of them lived up to their progressive ideals because none of them bullied their way into making progress for the country. It’s like, oh I dunno, they don’t understand how progress is made. Or something.”

    Ding!Ding!Ding!

  207. 207
    scandi says:

    @ 194 Jennifer

    I understand that timing is as important as messaging. I’m not offended or outraged by Obama’s words. I do think that people still need to push for him to change them.

    There is always going to be a struggle between what is right and what is possible. I accept that sometimes we have to settle for what is possible. But I will always think it’s imperative to continue to push for what is right.

    And I’m very happy to pressure him -after the election- when I know we have allies like you.

  208. 208
    Cerberus says:

    Or maybe Obama’s speech was so empty and because he couldn’t think of anything to say in bland generalities, he ended up just speaking this mish-mash of actually kind of offensive diminishment of the gay rights struggle and comparing it exactly to the anti-gay-rights struggle because all of life is a game.

    If he said something vapid and unintelligible about courage or hard struggles or how he saw a lot of heart in the room, it’d still be bad, it’d still be crtiticized (because activists for gay rights are working on cultural bigotries as well as political victories and are trying to push all politicians to stop viewing the bigoted position as the “safe position”, but then you wouldn’t understand that, because you don’t understand politics as much as you claim otherwise).

    But no, he decided to go back even on the tepid horseshit of yesteryear where he would say something on the lines of go gay people, no marriage for you and give us this poorly thought out abortion of an attempted speech where he rambled on how awesome State’s Rights were.

    Which rhetorically surrenders at least two non-connected fights for no damn reason, pisses off a large collection of gay donors from whom he was actively soliciting donations from, and additionally, now gets to look like an idiot in front of a demographic he was actually starting to repair damage with what with the DADT victory and all.

    Overall, there is no aspect of this incident that wouldn’t have been improved by him just canceling the fundraiser.

    Too politically risky, delicate negotiations making your speechwriters tie themselves in knots, and so on?

    Then don’t do it.

    Reschedule the fundraiser until after the vote where you are free to speak more thoroughly or just do a short speech on how you are humbled by the strength and courage of the people at the dinner, but don’t come up with some mumbling tepid shit that’ll deliberately insult your target audience, an audience for whom you are asking large contributions from and who are also a strong ally demographic you’ve already got bad blood with.

    It’s bad politics.

    And frankly John, fuck you.

    Seriously, you’ve started to drift from “firebaggers suck” to “all activist suck”. You’ve started to reflexively hippie bash and you do so from such an ignorant shit-eating perspective that it’s not like you can claim some greater position in this argument.

    You have started basically calling for the end of all activism that is cultural or social, arguing that everyone’s needs are secondary to near-sighted political victories and cheerleading the “slightly better team” instead of pushing the “slightly better team” to be slightly better than they are.

    Obama gave a shit speech, a sadly insulting speech. He didn’t need to step into the debate and while people always try and get politicians to support gay issues by shaming their cowardice (you know, how the activists actually changed the minds of the Republicans who voted for gay marriage you power-worshipping ignorant fuck), that’s just what is done. And yet he did speak and made himself look like an idiot and now he’s going to have to do some serious repair work.

    For no good reason.

    So you know what?

    Fuck you.

    It was a great run, you had a nice few years of trying out the whole liberal shtick, but here comes the inevitable end run back into groveling before power, punching the hippies because they just aren’t important like politicians are.

    Because all of the work was Cuomo and Obama and not the tireless activists who have spent years of their life shaming and threatening enough Republicans into jumping ship and supporting the right decision even though every partisan bone in their bigoted cowardly bodies wanted to flee it like they have a number of times before in how many times this issue has narrowly failed.

    Because you want to claim being above the “circular firing squad” when you’re one of the few people actually doing it.

    Those firebaggers, as you seem to have expanded the term?

    They are upset with the moderate and conservative decisions that Obama and Democrats make and they still beat out the street for what we got. They are upset and protesting Democrat conservatism and moderation as part of the protest against all conservatism and moderation.

    Whereas you?

    You punch hippies, constantly unendingly punch hippies and then whine about how they are the ones attacking allies instead of enemies. The ones who focus only on fellow liberals rather than the enemy of conservatives.

    At least they’re punching in one direction. Rightward.

    So what does that say about you?

    Seriously, go fuck yourself.

  209. 209
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    I can’t help but think that if he did come out in support, fully and unequivocally, it would set a great example for all of his constituents who didn’t support it. Who knows, maybe they’d think that if their leader can make this stand, maybe they can too.

    Oh SCandi, you silly goose. That would be LEADING, that wold be setting an example, that would be INTEGRITY, and we can’t have that in an Obama White House. Wouldn’t be prudent.

    Half measures are the best we can hope for, and should accept them gratefully as crumbs from the master’s table.

  210. 210
    scandi says:

    Sorry, meant that for 199, not myself. :o)

  211. 211

    Cerberus @ 207

    Did he oppose it? No. Did it pass. Yes.

    Outrage noted.

  212. 212
    kay says:

    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)

    On May 6, Mehlman traveled to Albany to attend a meeting with the leaders of New York’s GOP-controlled legislature, and make his pitch. “There’ s a strong Republican and conservative case to be made in favor of the right to marry,” Mehlman told the room. “If we are all endowed by a creator with unalienable rights including the pursuit of happiness, how can that not include marrying the person you love?” And like any good campaign strategist, he buttressed his argument with poll data: nearly 60 percent of New Yorkers said in recent polling that they support same-sex marriage. The GOP should not, he hinted, wind up on the wrong side of history.

    The article I linked to goes on from there, Tim. Did you know anything about that? Did you know that Melhman raised more than a million dollars from conservative donors? Did you know that the fundraiser he helped organize was like a “reunion for Bush 2004 staff”? Did you know that he met with GOP reps in the statehouse, and (apparently) persuaded some of them to vote his way?

    Is it possible that you are not aware of the risks associated with your demand that Obama jump in? Is it possible that the people actually doing the work to secure X number of GOP votes on this or DADT know more than you? Because they succeeded. What they did worked.

  213. 213
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Cole’s excellent trolling post has had its desired effect: We are now above 200 comments on this thread.

    Impressive!

  214. 214

    Timmeh @ 208

    As noted by others elsewhere in this post, civil rights movements have never been led by POTUSes, but rather by non-political citizens.

    scandi said earlier he felt like a political football (I, of course, disagree with the comparison), but there’s some point where, if a politician got out in front of this, the argument is taken from the realm of morality and thrust into the arena of politics. This is what you need to avoid. Make it about morality, on it’s own merits, rather than about all of the other baggage a POTUS- any POTUS- would bring to the argument.

  215. 215
    RalfW says:

    Meanwhile, the whiny-assed titty babies of the professional GBT activist world want the progressive side to go into a bruising money siphoning war over gay marriage. The next front will be Minnesota

    The Minnesota GOP voted to put that on the ballot. I think they are whiny titty babies of the worst, I’m a rich-white-male viiiictiiiim sort, but professional LGBT activists here did not, in any way, ask for this bruising, money-siphoning war.

    Oh, and we think we can win.

    So that, combined with NY marriage 2011, will be an excellent 1-2 punch against the wedgeist opportunist hater sons of the confederacy.

    Of course by wining, we’ll loose our martyr status. Fine.

  216. 216
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Kay, you are such an awesome insider. You know all about the secret activities of the very serious people, don’t you?

    And yes, I knew about the vile Mehleman’s behind the scenes moves because it was like, on all the blogs.

    So let’s see: Poor O couldn’t say anything pro SSM, even though he desperately cares about my civil rights, because if he did a bunch of pissy republicans would say “oh no, O is for it, I can’t be for it too?”

    Is that the excuse?

    Is there any situation in which O would do the right thing simply because it is right, or is it always behind the scenes, super secret, double special 40 dimensional chess with you?

  217. 217
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    Silly gays, you’ve gotten as much as you’re going to get right now, so just shut up and be happy about it.

    I don’t want you to shut up. At the same time, I wish you were logical. You yourself say Obama’s words will not give you “warm and fuzzys”, yet, at the same time, you long for his words. This is contradictory.

    And you are a perfect example of what the reaction will be. Obama could call for gay marriage today, and people like you will say, “so what, words are cheap, it doesn’t change a single law, and he doesn’t really mean it anyways, he’s only saying it because we made him”.

    Why bother doing anything if this the reaction ya get every time you do something. People like positive reinforcement. If you repeal DADT, if you pave the way for a court invalidation of DOMA, it would be nice to get some positive response before returning to making insults.

    a stream of righteous anger and threats, and nothing else, will lead people to tune your segment out.

  218. 218
    Danny says:

    @Scandi

    And while I can’t speak for the entire gay community, I can say that is the perfect example of the frustration I feel.

    You’re right – you can’t speak for millions of gay americans.

    Silly gays, you’ve gotten as much as you’re going to get right now, so just shut up and be happy about it.

    My time for teh outrage: I didn’t fucking say that you fucking tool! (gay or not)
    Don’t put words in my mouth.

    As a matter of fact, more has gotten done in the last three years than arguably any other three years during the 21st and 20th century. You’re free to provide any other three years when you “feel” more were done for your rights.

    I would never talk about “silly gays” doing anything. That’s an insult. But i feel perfectly justified in flaming people who willingly deny reality. No matter what their sexual orientation is.

    Now of course I’m going to get twenty more comments telling me that I’m just bitching, or butthurt or not being a team player. Fine. I’m a big boy and I can take it. But what you smart, politically tuned-in people seem to forget is not everyone is smart and politically tuned-in as you.

    It’s not about being “smart” and “politically tuned-in”. It’s about knowing the fucking record and helping to spread knowledge instead of ignorance. You could be helping, seing how you are “tuned-in”, but you’re not.

    The majority of the country is not hearing that he’s all but declared his support for marriage equality. They hear that even our “liberal” president thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And that supports their own view.

    Bullshit, the country went from opposition to gay marriage to tepid support (on paper) during these very last three years. Obama’s public stance on Gay Marriage & Civil Unions is the most LGBT friendly EVAR so by your own theory of presidential mind control Obama is the POTUS that’s done most EVAR in that regard as well.

    And while I understand the political aspects of his stance, I can’t help but think that if he did come out in support, fully and unequivocally, it would set a great example for all of his constituents who didn’t support it. Who knows, maybe they’d think that if their leader can make this stand, maybe they can too.

    Who knows, indeed..

    The very same magical thinking that makes a certain kind of progressive shoot himself in the foot over and over.

    Well then wouldnt it set a great example if the president came out for immediate amnesty of all undocumented immigrants right this moment; if he came out in support of the abolishment of the death penalty right this moment; if he came out in support of repealing the second amendment right this moment?

    How far would we get on all those issues as a result of him doing that? How far did we get in 1988 when Dukakis came out against the death penalty? How great an example did he not set? How far have we not come since then?

  219. 219
    Cerberus says:

    @210

    My point is that it had nothing to do with him (fuck, it’s supposed to be the Obama-haters who view him as having mystical powers over everything).

    Also that his speech was really really bad.

    It didn’t oppose the bill, yes.

    But it ended up equally praising anti-gay activists by arguing that it was great just to see debate and democracy full stop as if it didn’t matter which side was debating what.

    It pissed off NY gay donors at a time they suddenly had a big reason to spread the money around (whatever there is in a depression) now that EQNY and other big state gay organizations got a huge win.

    It also ended up being a sour note to the gay community exactly in Pride season thus souring a demographic who were starting to feel a little more respected by their president after the successful passing of DADT.

    Given that he’s probably not going to put much effort into improving relations as he starts the usual pre-election slide into moderation (not a slam against him, but that’s the standard pattern, especially for Democrats, because presidential elections end up being all about the “undecided” voters in the “swing states”). This is a loss of money, volunteers, activists, and potentially voters needlessly.

    In short, it’s bad politics as well as being insulting cowardice from the “street” view of things.

    And the attitudes of deliriously happy hippie punching on this blog is a much bigger issue.

    The complete war not just with the usual sector of idiots you’ll get in the internal argument that will always be the political left (we’re the anti-authoritarians, there’s benefits there as well as downsides), but also with anyone who actually understands activism or energy spent on anything other than short-term political goals and making elected officials look better than they are ignoring that that’ll just make them drift to the right because there’s no pressure to move against the status quo and risk the backlash of doing so.

    But I guess, why would any of you care to hear those points, when you’re too busy trying to sell run-of-the-mill, morning news hour hippie-punching as some sort of principled stand against the firebagger army trying to destroy Obama.

  220. 220
    ABL says:

    I love how any post that states a position with which one does not agree automatically becomes a trolling post to some folks.

    John- BWD front-paged this post which I find hysterical, bizarre, and awesome all at once.

  221. 221
    kay says:

    And yes, I knew about the vile Mehleman’s behind the scenes moves because it was like, on all the blogs.

    But you dismissed it? Why? It’s what happened. Not what you imagine might have happened, had the President followed your strategy. What happened.

    What we don’t know is what would have happened had the President followed your advice. We’ll never know that, which is nice for you.

  222. 222
    Jennifer says:

    @ 212 Timothy Troll – yes, an impressive number of comments – and you’ve only contributed what, 10% of them?

    @ 215 Timothy Troll – “counting” is not 40-dimensional chess. Here are a few facts: marriage equality has just gained majority approval. Do you think that means that a majority of people in say, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas now favor marriage equality? Or does it mean that nationwide, a random sampling of people are now supportive? And that sample pulls from age groups which are much more supportive than average – younger people – who don’t tend to show up to vote. It also pulls from regions which are more socially progressive, like the northeast and west coast. Places where Obama is going to win anyway.

    Here’s your 40-dimensional chess: the number 270, which is the number of electoral votes Obama has to win for re-election. If he doesn’t get that many, say hello to the nominee of the clown-car party as your next president. And to get to 270, he has to win at least a few states where marriage equality is still not supported by a majority, or anything close to one.

    But hey, I’m sure President Bachmann will be much more courageous on the issue of gay rights than THIS wimp has been.

  223. 223
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    I’m sure President Bachmann will be much more courageous on the issue of gay rights than THIS wimp has been.

    perhaps so.

  224. 224
    Danny says:

    And Jennifer @ 199

    While I generally agree with you, a hearty fuck you as well for not quoting my whole sentence. “Fairly content”, in comparison to the preceding 100 years.

    How can anyone ever be allowed to feel pride about doing anything that’s right but not enough as long as this is how the discourse is gonna play out?

    Once again, fuck you and your granting of just outrage.

  225. 225
    scandi says:

    a stream of righteous anger and threats, and nothing else, will lead people to tune your segment out

    Clearly it’s not been tuned out as we seem to be having a rather spirited debate here.

    And I guarantee you that I would be most ecstatic to hear our president’s support today. I’m not a blogger, but I would be celebrating it on facebook and with my friends, just as I did on Friday when the bill passed.

    I am not John Aravosis.
    I am not Andrew Sullivan.
    I am not Jeremy Hooper.

    Stop assuming that because some gay bloggers have opinions that differ from yours that we are all the same.

    I don’t think it’s a contradiction to want to hear words of support. I won’t be getting any validation from them, but I do feel it could positively affect the debate.

    There are so many people out there who need leadership on this issue. And sadly, the only leadership they’re getting is from the opposition. What they’re hearing from our side is hemming and hawing. Not that there aren’t decent people fighting the fight. But support from Lady Gaga is just never going to be as effective as support from the POTUS.

  226. 226
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    @eemom:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    “I keep telling gay and lesbian groups if you consistently use that word ‘marriage’ you’re gonna lose ground. People will support civil unions, but they won’t support that word ‘marriage’ because of it’s ecclesiastical definition.” ~ Nader. He continues, saying, government shouldn’t provide marriage at all (gay or straight), only civil unions. So there you have it. He’s against gay marriage, but he’s also against straight marriage, and allowing the religious rackets to do what ever they want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVot7CB-IQ0

  227. 227
    Cerberus says:

    ABL @219

    It’s not a trolling post.

    People want to believe it’s a trolling post, because that would make it better, because we could laugh along at how John doesn’t actually hold activists in contempt and believe that the political interactions between the highest levels of the political system are the only ones that matter and that because he decides he wants to go hippie-punching that there couldn’t might be some actual genuine criticism beyond his usual “firebagger” strawman.

    Yes, there are a lot of racist ass “liberals” out there who hate Obama reflexively for no good reason. And a number for whom Obama’s centrism and tendency to surrender good policy as the opening of negotiation leaves a bad taste in their mouth and they therefore can’t respect the attempted political calculations.

    But this speech by Obama was unnecessary, unasked for, and really went down like a lead balloon in the LGBT community and I’m not just talking bloggers.

    And not just because “he didn’t lend his support”.

    But because it was offensive.

    Just like this post is offensive.

    This post revels in its privilege, punches down on the people who have been killing themselves for years to make this victory happen, hard constant lobbying, shaming, candidate priming, social movement, etc…

    Getting those few Republicans to do the right thing for once in their miserable lives.

    And this post is a giant shit on that. And it’s a giant shit on anyone who would dare want to fight for any other issue other than spending every waking hour looking “respectable” and getting Obama re-elected.

    Including your work on anti-racism.

    Well, I’m going to work to get him re-elected. I’m going to work on getting my congresscritters re-elected and new Democrats elected as well.

    But fuck being deliberately insulted by someone who doesn’t even understand the scale of wrong they are arguing.

    He’s serious.

    That makes it so much worse.

    And I’m getting really close to needing to abandon this blog, because John seems to be perfectly pissing me off way too fucking often with unnecessary hippie-punching idiocy like this where he yells at actual activists for caring about anything than the horse-race of Ds and Rs.

  228. 228
    General Stuck says:

    Jeebus Cole. I’m just glad this blog is yours and not mine. I would have either banned everyone, or opened a vein by now. threads like this one put me in mind of huffing Scarlett O’hara’s breezing through with the diva vapors, on the set of Gone With the Bullshit

    Obama can tune out the blogs, and so can I. Your happy ass is stuck with it, all day every day. At least until you post an obligatory mea culpa Obama sucks thread.

    It’s just too hot for this kind of nonsense.

  229. 229
    Allan says:

    It’s been fun debating the power of Obama to enact laws by reading the scripts his detractors write for him, but I have to go to Costco for a few pallets of household staples, then get ready for a meeting with real Democrats who actually organize and register voters and work to send Obama a better Congress than the one with which he’s presently saddled.

  230. 230
    Jennifer says:

    @ 223 Danny – I wasn’t quoting you. I was quoting scandi.

    But I still think your entire sentence was bullshit. Nothing short of full equality is ok, and if I was GLBT, I’d be righteously pissed about that and offended by any statement to the effect that I had gotten enough for the time being.

    There is no “enough for right now” until there’s 100% equality under the law. I completely grasp that aspect of things. I just differ in my view of what is more important – words or progress. It’s not about just accepting what you can get right now – it’s also about the best way strategically to move to that 100% equality.

  231. 231
    Marc says:

    Cerberus:

    The grown-up argument was that the NY Democrats needed republicans to vote for equality. Involving Obama could have backfired, making this a red/blue team contest and ensuring a defeat. If he had done what activists demanded it would have been harmful to getting the bill passed. That is John’s specific point.

    on the matter of his speech, there is absolutely nothing that Obama could say to please you; you obviously detest the man intensely. I don’t buy the way that you’re characterizing this, and you’re not convincing anyone who is not already convinced of the essential evil of Obama.

    In words you’d understand: you’ve got no goddamn right to preach to me.

    I’ve been working for liberal causes since I was in middle school. We win with coalitions. Individual members of those coalitions don’t get their way on everything. This isn’t some bullshit king of the hill game where a “good” leader has to destroy his opponents. It’s not just that you and yours are factually wrong about Obama, although I happen to believe that it’s true. It’s that the politics you’re advocating make enemies out of friends.

    You don’t get to call others nasty names and then whine about how people are being mean to you when they react angrily. And that’s what you’re seeing here: a lot of longtime activists and liberals who are sick to death of the self-indulgent, destructive, and noisy antics of a collection of bullies who dominate online conversations among liberals.

    Enough.

  232. 232
    Berto says:

    Can one of the Obamabots explain why Obama voted for TeleComm immunity?

  233. 233
    Cerberus says:

    Jennifer @221

    Hey, you know what would be great then?

    Some sort of informal collective of community-minded queer activists who were trying to do things like say push collective support of gay-rights issues and public perceptions of gay people, regardless of conformity, as full human beings worthy of equal treatment.

    They could even do things like critique public figures being cowardly on gay rights issues and shame them for choosing the status quo so the idea of support for gay issues actually grew and people started to associate bigotry as what it was and the unfortunate moderate stance many politicians have to take as cowardice thus prompting political motion forward on the issues and making more politicians feeling more lonely not supporting gay rights than supporting it.

    I know, crazy concept.

    But I bet if such a kooky collection of people existed who could fill that void so it wasn’t all about the president, then they would be worth supporting at least in concept, instead of being attacked for daring to critique the President and have blog posts devoted to how they are nothing, don’t understand politics, and need to shut up and let things run as they do because they aren’t as important as governors and presidents and weren’t at all responsible for turning the votes of the needed state senators.

    Oh, wait, of course they exist and John spent a giant rant telling them to fuck off because Obama made himself look stupid for no good reason with a speech that really didn’t need to happen if that was what he was going to say.

    Gay activists are working on the culture problem and have been responsible for making support for gay issues go up rather relatively fast. Getting political victories and making it possible for more politicians to feel “safe” and status quo-ey supporting gay issues more and more.

    And yet, this whole post is a giant deliberate dump on them.

  234. 234
    boss bitch says:

    I can’t help but think that if he did come out in support, fully and unequivocally, it would set a great example for all of his constituents who didn’t support it. Who knows, maybe they’d think that if their leader can make this stand, maybe they can too.

    you can’t help but think that because the liberal blogosphere keeps telling you that. If Obama changes anyone’s mind about gay marriage it might be those who are on the fence already. The rest of Americans who oppose gay marriage have held that belief since they were young. They learned it in church, school or from their families. You can’t erase that belief with one declaration from the president.

  235. 235
    Cerberus says:

    Allan @228

    Oh, how impressive, big activist.

    Like we’re not doing the same things AND organizing half a dozen social activist movements, organizations, and important visibility and education pushes.

    Also big man bragging about this on the same week as THE TWO BIGGEST PRIDE FESTIVALS IN THIS COUNTRY.

    Fuck!

    Obligatory disclaimer, I love Obama, I want more Democrats, but for fuck’s sake, you people are the most overprivileged POSEURS I have encountered outside of a Hipster convention.

    Oh gee whilikers, you have important activism work to do. The only important activism work in the world.

    Well, congratulations white boy. Congratulations that the one damn problem you have in this world is not enough Democrats and you don’t have to divide your activism with the basic fucking struggle to not be killed, to have your personhood recognized, to afford yourself basic human rights and dignity, and that you don’t have to fight and claw to make your issues even remotely possible even by the standards of the “good” party.

    It probably feels good.

    I wouldn’t know, I was bouncing every which way this week just trying to do the most I could for the abused and battered group identities I belong to.

    This post and its supporters are actually giving me a fucking headache with the aggressiveness of their overprivileged “tough guy” and “real activist” personas.

  236. 236
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    @scandi:

    I little balance would go a long way.

    The president needs to be criticized when he’s not doing what you want (I don’t begrudge this), but he should also be acknowledge when he does do what you want. DADT is perfect example. Instead of acknowledging the biggest civil rights victory in 50 years, loud mouths on blogs just dumped on him, saying, “he didn’t want to do, he only did it because we made him”, etc., etc. It was sad to see a glorious day, one not seen in decades, sullied with ugly, repulsive blog internet posts by so-called gay activists.

    I truly want gays to be equal. And we need each other.

    But at some point the negatives will outweigh the positives and we’re gonna get up and say “we’re gonna have to start seeing other people — you’re too high maintenance and you’re just not that into to us”.

    It’s plain human nature. You can’t expect people to give up their nights and weekends to canvass in a cold, snowy November against an evil ballot measure, when significant segments are kicking them in their nuts.

  237. 237
    Allan says:

    They could even do things like critique public figures being cowardly on gay rights issues and shame them for choosing the status quo…

    We all remember how MLK got LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act by handcuffing himself to the White House fence and calling Mike Mansfield a “pu$$y who will be bleeding once a month”.

    Those were good times!

  238. 238
    scandi says:

    @217 Danny

    My time for teh outrage: I didn’t fucking say that you fucking tool! (gay or not)
    Don’t put words in my mouth

    .

    My post was a bit clumsy. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, but I see after re-reading it that I did so and I apologize.

    But honestly, the impression I get from a lot of the commenters here is that any critique of the president or John Cole on gay rights is tantamount to treason.

    I’m trying to explain a perspective that me (and some other gays) are getting from the administration and I get condescending insults in return.

    I believe ABL had a similar problem a few weeks ago with posts about racism and the general consensus seemed to be that people were wrong for telling her how she should feel about it.

    MILK is playing on Bravo at this moment. They just had a scene where they’re chanting “gay rights now, gay rights now” not “gay rights after the election in 2012”. I joke, but I think there is room in our party for both those points of view.

    And finally I remember why I don’t normally comment (at least seriously) on blogs. It just eats up too much time. I have to run now to get a mani/pedi and bring about the destruction of civilization (if I can fit it in before drinks at Industry).

  239. 239
    eemom says:

    @ General

    Cole’s is a blog trolled by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    It helps to cultivate a whimsical view of lil Timmeh and his ilk as something Shakespeare might have devised.

  240. 240
    Allan says:

    I’d love to stick around and chat with you more, Cerberus, but if I don’t get to Costco my husband is going to be very upset with me. I take it you’ll be needing some toilet paper to wipe all of Cole’s shit, and those eggs, off your face?

  241. 241
    Cerberus says:

    Marc @230

    I’ve got no right to preach to you?

    I’VE got no right to preach to you?

    YOU are the fucking idiot who is replacing me with a goddamn strawman.

    I don’t hate Obama. I love Obama. I have praised him when he’s done good. I have defended him against racists and assholes. I have defended him against the right and the racist left. I have repeatedly on this blog in this commentary for FUCKING YEARS said as much.

    But you people don’t care, because this is HIPPIE-PUNCHING.

    This is straight-up fucking hippie-punching and it doesn’t matter what people actually think. What they are actually saying or what they are actually arguing, because that’s not the point.

    The point is feeling smugly superior because all those people just hate Obama and want validation they won’t care about and are just looking to tear Obama down and blah blah blah.

    An undending war against a cardboard kickstand you have named firebagger and for whom you will continuously argue against regardless of what is actually said.

    I will repeat it:

    I

    DO

    NOT

    HATE

    OBAMA

    I

    LIKE

    OBAMA.

    I

    WANT

    TO

    RE-ELECT

    OBAMA

    I

    AM

    ACTIVELY

    WORKING

    TO

    DO

    SO

    So, Marc?

    Fuck you and your bullshit strawman horseshit. You want to talk to me? You talk to me.

    But I think we all know that you and the others on here don’t want to actually talk.

    You want to punch hippies.

    And you want to feel like that’s some privileged stance for productive activism.

  242. 242
    Danny says:

    @Jennifer

    So who gets to wear the crown of outrage within our frail coalition then?

    Will it be the women who sure saw some chipping away at their freedom of choice during the years? Will it be the environment where AGW is progressing without taking note of shifting political realities in congress? Will it be millions of undocumented workers who are allowed pretty much no rights and didn’t get the DREAM act? Will it be blacks many of whom still live in poverty, are discriminated against, and has to stomach being used as bait on FoxNews to scare up whitey every freaking day? Will it be gays, lesbians and transgendered people?

    Who gets to be the ones demanding everything, now, or else? Everyone deserve everything now. No one is going to get it. I know it, you know it.

    What you’re up to is playing a fine little game of kabuki, dancing around patting some random person on the head who happens to be gay and saying: “because you happen to be gay, it’s perfectly alright for you to be angry at whomever you chose to be angry at – even your friends – whatever the record says, and it’s also perfectly alright for you to speak in the name of every other gay person in this country”.

    I find that patronizing, and pissing on the diversity of opinion that exists within the gay community.

    I think there are few gays who feel that they have the civil rights they deserve. I’m not so sure that the majority doesn’t feel glad about the progress that’s been made in the last three years.

    You may have quoted scandi but he quoted me and was talking about me and you were agreeing.

    But that wasn’t what I said an you don’t get to put words in my mouth, because of sloppiness or whatever.

  243. 243
    Cerberus says:

    Mike Kay @236

    Actually they did. The blogs and the activists who chained themselves to the fence were very supportive of the bill and celebrated the victory just like the NY gay marriage bill got a lot of good press.

    And if you noticed the rift on the exact gay blogs that had been ripping Obama a new one was actually closing and while they would still snipe (because Obama and the political system aren’t perfect and the battle is far from over), the invective went down like a shot. Phrases like “close the gAyTM” were starting to disappear and there was a lot more positive support for Obama’s efforts and nasty invective for Republican attempts to last-minute block DADT implementation.

    In short, it did happen.

    A lot of trans blogs also praised hate crimes legislation and its trans inclusion.

    There are celebrations of wins and congratulations to Obama when he does well (though there are going to be the racists for whom Obama can never do well).

    But hey, sorry for ruining the narrative.

    Right, gays not respectful enough of straight semi-allies and just hate Obama and the entire community wouldn’t at all care about new support because they don’t at all trumpet things like that.

    Allan @237

    Remember how MLK’s marches shamed a lot of ambivalent support including LBJ’s. And how at the time they were viewed as shameless in-your-face displays attacking the foundation of moral values and trying to distract the nation with petty minor issues in the wake of overwhelming large scale issues like the Cold War and that their pushing of the issue was threatening party discipline especially among the Southern democrats.

    Or actually, yes, let’s talk suffragettes and how their actions including “in-front of the White House” protests and other in-your-face “bullshit” actually did sway over a president and legislative body made entirely of MEN to start to feel politically dangerous to stand for the status quo in preventing women from having the right to vote.

    Or let’s talk this last election when a lot of activists pressured and marched and did stupid glitterbombs and worked to root out and discover the corruption on anti-gay politicians and successfully made it so it was too toxic for a majority of state senators to vote against gay marriage.

    But yes, let’s reduce that to banal hippie-punching.

    Yeah, sure, MLK sure wasn’t radical. Fuck, he was the president of the United States and wasn’t an outside activist saying things way beyond the scale of what an elected official of that time would feel safe saying.

    Fuck, we acknowledge that activists then pushed politicians into better decisions, growth and social change leading to political possibilities, but all of a sudden it’s “that’s stupid”, “that’s meaningless” and so on.

    And somehow, you think this somehow “serves” me and leaves “egg on my face”?

    What are you, 9?

  244. 244
    Danny says:

    I’m trying to explain a perspective that me (and some other gays) are getting from the administration and I get condescending insults in return.

    I believe ABL had a similar problem a few weeks ago with posts about racism and the general consensus seemed to be that people were wrong for telling her how she should feel about it.

    Well I didn’t dish out any insults towards you before you used my post as an example of people telling “silly gays” what to think.

    Yeah sure I remember that with ABL and I agree with her most times, and think I did then as well. There’s a fine distinction here but individuals who are black, women or LGBT can also hold opinions and act in ways that other black, women and LGBT individuals consider unreasonable (a majority even). In the end reality, actions and opinions differ and they do matter. Pretending that Obamas record on LGBT issues is weak or that his public stance is historically weak or getting worse rather than improving is wrong as a factual matter. Pointing that out is not disrespecting you or any other gay american.

    MILK is playing on Bravo at this moment. They just had a scene where they’re chanting “gay rights now, gay rights now” not “gay rights after the election in 2012”. I joke, but I think there is room in our party for both those points of view.

    If they had chanted “gay rights now or Jimmy Carter is a traitor” fewer people would have gotten that warm fuzzy feeling watching it on the silver screen. Fewer people would have seen Milk and sympathized more with LGBT rights.

    Just saying…

  245. 245
    Jennifer says:

    @ 242 Danny – Don’t you think your time would be better spent on outrage against someone who isn’t in agreement with you? Really. I’m sorry that you misread my paraphrase (“you’ve gotten enough these past 3 years.”) of this statement in scandi’s comment (“And while I can’t speak for the entire gay community, I can say that is the perfect example of the frustration I feel. Silly gays, you’ve gotten as much as you’re going to get right now, so just shut up and be happy about it.”) as being directed at you.

    I’m in the do what works camp, and in this case happen to agree with you, Danny, that what works is not some statement by the president which doesn’t actually result in any concrete action or progress.

    At the same time, I feel what scandi’s saying. Because I know how long this has been going on and how often EVERY group that ever had to fight for its rights was told, “not right now.”

    That’s where I part company with scandi, because I don’t equate having the president say what I’d like to hear with any actual progress. It would be nice to hear it, but if the end result is halting progress and even perhaps seeing it turned back, then it’s worse than useless. But that doesn’t negate scandi’s perfectly justified, IMO, disgust with any suggestion that “this is enough for now,” which is obviously how scandi interepreted your post. My post wasn’t about what you said. It was about telling scandi that I grokked the disgust with the “you have to wait some more” POV that scandi seemed to think you suggested.

  246. 246
    Marc says:

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. The key tell here is the nonsense “hippy-punching” line. Whenever I see it I know that the person involved doesn’t have an actual argument.

    If you have a real argument you don’t need a handy “always right” blanket argument to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. That’s what the “hippy-punching” crap is about. It’s a way of not having to bother to answer someone; it’s a way to brush off what they’re doing as not worthy of response. In other words, lazy. Atrios-level lazy.

    MLK worked *with* democratic politicians. He didn’t spend all of his time attacking liberals for not going far enough while ignoring his, you know, actual enemies.

    There is a level of protest that is healthy. There is a level of protest that backfires and sets the cause back.

    You’re making believe that if I identify a tactic in column B (you know – the destructive, counterproductive variant) that I’m unaware of tactics in column A (of the “speaking truth to power” variant.) Oddly enough, I can distinguish between the two.

    And that’s the problem with the empty and glib “hippy-punching” nonsense. You’re not being told that all protest is wrong. You’re being told that it’s possible for some protests and tactics to be actively bad things. And you’re not interested in any discussion.

  247. 247
    Cerberus says:

    And because I don’t actually enjoy the taste of bile in my mouth, this video summation of the gay marriage passing in NY was funny enough to make me laugh in this state of raw anger so maybe it’ll get a chuckle from one or two others as well.

  248. 248
    Yevgraf says:

    I’m still eager to see the Gay EmoProg activists do a better job of maybe being a little more into the rest of us – being more vocal about issues of economic justice and the class thing, instead of sitting on their hands and enabling their fiscally conservative, gay glibertarian brothers to continue to act on behalf of the Kochs of the world without consequence and without outing.

    I used to wonder why I always heard some grumbles from the L side about working with the rest of the GBT coalition, but not anymore. Given the amount of progress which has occurred with regard to the goal of fraction of a fraction (gays who wish to marry), but no progress on economic justice, it occurs to me that there may be some ratfucking going on.

    And if anybody wants to bitch at me about that, call Mehlman – I’m sure he knows all about it.

  249. 249
    ronin122 says:

    Oh look, GOS has a highly rec’d diary for the purpose of saying Obama = Bush on this issue, isn’t that cute?

  250. 250
    scandi says:

    @Danny

    Well I didn’t dish out any insults towards you before you used my post as an example of people telling “silly gays” what to think

    no, you’re absolutely right…oh wait

    Being a victim does not equal a get out of jail card for being a jerk off.

    How could I possibly see that as condescending or insulting?

    You’re trying awfully hard to find outrage in my rather mild statements. I would like to point out that while I don’t agree with you, I never called you a fucking tool. I apologized for putting words in your mouth. You can take it or leave it.

    I believe it was Lincoln who said (and I might be paraphrasing here) that when you look for the troll in mankind, expecting to find it, you usually will.

  251. 251
    Danny says:

    Don’t you think your time would be better spent on outrage against someone who isn’t in agreement with you? Really.

    What I’m saying is I’m not content with playing the role of being your token peace pipe in making nice with scandi before trying to convince him he’s wrong.

    I didn’t say anything that merited his outrage; he himself acknowledged that already. You however seem to be of the sort that rather digs in than cuts losses. So while I’m fully aware that we’re on the same side, I can’t quite let it slide unless you apologize. It’s a matter of common courtesy to acknowledge peoples positions and manners for what they are rather than making stuff up – even by mistake.

  252. 252
    Danny says:

    @scandi

    That didn’t refer to you but rather the people you were defending. Good we got that cleared up.

  253. 253
    scandi says:

    Thanks, Danny. I accept your apology.

    SMOOCHES!

  254. 254
    Danny says:

    Yes, you’re right. I do apologize for that, as it was not very clear when I read it again. That was what I meant though.

  255. 255
    Cerberus says:

    Marc @246

    Well, you could have read my comments for my arguments. You could even read my blog or read my long history on this website to see that my claims of non-Obama hatred are accurate.

    Or you could have fucking eyes and see that the immediate dismissal of fringe leftist voices or anything left of what is currently seen in the media as what is “politically possible” is the fucking definition of hippie-punching.

    It’s what the term means, so yes, this current post is full of it.

    I have also, as I stated before, stated my objections and where they lie. You don’t give a shit, because you are arguing against a strawman and want to look clever.

    MLK worked with Democratic politicians?!? My word, what shocking news. So did the activists in NY, including the ones that Obama disrespected to their face. So did “chain yourself to the fence” apparent-laughing stock here Dan Choi. Dan Choi worked closely with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on DADT. Most of the street activists are working with Democrats to one degree or another, especially in the final stages, when things are closer to politically winnable. Hell, even the glitterbombers are sitting down with Democratic politicians when they are allowed to do so and explain their issues and why they feel that more political movement is necessary.

    The point that is actually actively being resisted is the idea that the political system is everything.

    That it is an autonomous system unconnected to the public and that it is what matters above all.

    Social movement has been studied and the most successful strategies are often the most radical and the myth about the successful moderates saving the day are based on the takeovers and final battles that occur when the fight isn’t about visibility or growing respect, but trying to earn a political victory as soon as possible.

    This is where “not challenging the moderates” is seen as the most important task and there is an attempt to bury radical voices and the contributions they made to the history of the movements including how they pushed the more conservative groups to start fighting for battles that were written off.

    Fights, most famously, like Women’s Suffrage and (insert big reveal here) Gay Marriage.

    It’s the assumed nature that bad protest is that which challenges, that which is radical or pushes too hard from the left causing backlash.

    And yet the recorded history shows that the erosion of liberties, the slowing of gain of public support, and so on stem from the introduction of moderation and the surrender of key values for what looked like politically sound reasons.

    The most famous modern example is of course abortion access which has seen massive political erosion owing to its main defense being rather moderate and not pushing both allies and opponents into being more accepting of women’s rights and women as people.

    The radical and the moderate have their places, I don’t want to argue that the moderate is always poison. The moderate has their use in being “safe” and often the radical is viewed as the moderate once the fight is won (like how MLK’s radical stances on poverty and war and even his radical statements on race were muted in favor of his more accessible and hope-focused speeches).

    But the moderate alone cannot push.

    The moderate, the safe person, the political machine cannot move without the energy of the incensed. The radical demands that will only become common wisdom a century down the line, because those are the seeds that get people to question exactly what they support, acknowledge the existance of those outside their comfort zone and question what they are used to as the status quo and how fair that really is.

    Education and visibility. This is cultural motion and this cultural motion is what changes what is seen as political.

    And what is seen as bad in the contemporary is hailed as the greatest protests ever in hind-sight.

    Including MLK’s freedom marches.

    They were viewed as terrible terrible ideas.

    They alienated Democratic southerners, they were too brash for socially-supportive Republican northerners, they made white people incredibly nervous and they mixed in other battles that were unrelated like anti-war activism and economic justice issues as well as even some support for definite no-gos like rights for gay citizens, including having a gay citizen be the Number Two for the whole group and a big face in the movement.

    The Freedom Marches and MLK were bad wrong terrible activism as seen during their time. They even viciously attacked presidential allies for not lending enough support to their causes and shamed the party in support of their rights.

    All bad tactics by your viewpoint and the viewpoints of their peers.

    And yet you’re using them as an example of a great protest movement. The thing we should emulate.

    Because what MLK actually did has been neutered by how he’s been taught. A moderate who had some hopes and dreams and then shook LBJ’s hand.

    Not as the radical rabble-rouser he was seen to be in his time.

    The problem with “good” and “bad” protests is that we never know until the end and often it’s a combination of all of it. A “bad protest” will never chase off anyone who genuinely supports the issue and who wouldn’t be looking for the first chance to bail anyways.

    And that’s the hippie-punching bit as well.

    It’s blaming those damn dirty hippies having bad protests for desires to stop thinking about and supporting liberal social policy. One with privilege doesn’t want to think about how much anger there is over waiting, about how much minority groups are getting screwed, how they’re viewed socially, how someone who is growing may still view them despite themselves.

    Because people in fact don’t actually want to change. It’s scary, it makes you feel like crap over what you got away with before, everything is changing and things you used to take for granted are now off-limits or frowned upon and there’s all these issues one has to pay attention to and it’s hard and frustrating and burns you out and gah.

    People like to punch the radical and hew as close as they can to the center, the safe, the “good” protest in contemporary setting, because that’s retaining all the social protections given therein. One isn’t strange, one isn’t at threat, and one doesn’t have to change all that much to make it all better.

    And I think that answers a lot of people feeling bitter because the gay community didn’t react “big” enough for DADT. Because the issues needing addressing, some which are still on the education and visibility stage are so numerous that the work didn’t end. Also, the bill is just a landmark of any fight, preceded by years of making it so socially acceptable that even politicians had to support it and followed by years trying to fight conservatives trying to make the victory hollow and meaningless. The fight always goes on and the moderate gets the joy of only living in the moment of victory.

    Leaving the radical to do everything else.

  256. 256
    myiq2xu says:

    Obama was irrelevant to the New York vote

    He didn’t have to be. Leaders lead.

  257. 257
    Genine says:

    Call it hippie-punching but I really don’t understand some of the outrage.

    Saying Obama shouldn’t have inserted himself into the NY debate = Obama gave a great speech and gay rights activists need to shut up.

    Saying we should have effective strategic messaging and have coordinated protests = gays need to shut up and sit down.

    I guess I just don’t understand English words anymore.

  258. 258
    Jennifer says:

    Danny – I did apologize. I said I’m sorry you misinterpreted my response to scandi as referring to your comment. It didn’t.

    AFWIW, my post to scandi that caused you umbrage was written and posted BEFORE scandi’s acknowledgement that you didn’t say anything to merit his outrage. Though that’s beside the point, since I wasn’t addressing you, or your intial post, in the first place.

  259. 259
    irmaladuce says:

    Honestly, I feel he probably does, but he’s got some problems with some of his normal voting base. The polling for approval of SSM for blacks & Hispanics is grim….around 35% to 40% for each group.

    Bullshit. There is not one single black democrat in the whole of the United States that would vote against Barack Obama if he publicly declared his support of SSM. It’s not black conservative democrats he has to be circumspect to woo, it’s the white ones.

  260. 260
    Cerberus says:

    Yevgraf @248

    Actually that was a huge recurring theme at a lot of Pride this year that I’ve seen at least. As was a huge intermingling of other lefty groups trying to cotton on with the gay rights struggle to give visibility to their movements and establish common ground.

    In the Trans Pride I marched next to Anarchist Transpeople for Economic Justice and the main chants were about economic justice issues and racial justice issues as well as the transgender rights issues. And in the regular Pride Parade, I marched right behind Local 2 and the big alliance between unions and LGBT people in the Hyatt fight.

    So, yeah, it’s been happening for awhile.

    Should there be more work?

    Of course, that’s the daily struggle, right?

    But it’s definitely there and growing.

    Oh, wait, you were just trying to shame the gay groups about the “really important issues” because you actually believed the press that they are a bunch of rich white gay guys who are waiting to become Libertarian as soon as they can marry.

    Sorry, please continue.

  261. 261
    kd bart says:

    #242-I do believe that the Muslims have that crown pretty much wrapped up.

  262. 262
    Danny says:

    @Jennifer

    I wont accept your apology since you didnt really offer one, and I got stuff to do.

  263. 263
    shortstop says:

    Yesterday at the Chicago pride parade I was having the usual excellent conversations with groups of people standing next to (well, really on top of and under; it was more crowded than I’ve ever seen it) our group. Lots of expected exultation about New York, Illinois’ first month of CUs, DADT repeal. People wearing Yankees caps were not assaulted, which tells you something about the lighthearted mood of the crowd. There was also a certain amount of heated discussion about Obama and LGBT issues, including some very harsh critics from the school of “He’s betrayed us! He needs to speak out [followed by utterly blank looks when others around them ask if they’ve ever been outside of Chicago]!”

    As this discussion is winding down, the OFA group marches by waving “2012–are you in?” signs. Joined by literally everyone else around us who was criticizing Obama, the loudest and most vehement detractor turns to the marchers and starts clapping and whooping and hollering. Take from this single non-datum what you will.

  264. 264
    Genine says:

    @irmaladuce #259

    That is a major assertion there and not necessarily a true one. Unfortunately, I know quite a few African Americans who wouldn’t vote for Obama if he came out in favor of SSM. They wouldn’t vote against him. They just wouldn’t vote for President. I have no reason to think they’re lying.

    It pisses me off to no end- but there is goes.

  265. 265
    Cerberus says:

    Genine @257

    Well, yes, arguing that critiques of Obama’s speech content and overall lack of support on an issue important to people equals blanket critique of Obama and a demand that he insert himself into the debate ends up serving as a blanket argument against critiquing Obama.

    I tried to argue that his content sucked and did more harm than good and still people were fighting the strawman of the protestor whose every whim revolves around whether Obama supports an issue or not.

    Additionally, arguments for “strategic messaging” and “coordinated protests” are used as arguments for “being on message”. Being on message means by definition the silencing of rogue arguments.

    That’s what all this “bad protest” and “not helping” posts are about. Trying to shame the “off message” people because they are seen as counter to having a movement with stronger message discipline.

    But “message discipline” is not going to work with the political left. They are by definition the anti-authoritarians and the disparate minorities hurt by the continuation of the status quo. As we’ve seen in the past, attempts to narrow it down for discipline just end up alienating marginal cases, erasing a large section of life experiences, and requiring many follow up fights because people weren’t socially primed for accepting the weird, just the slightly different.

    So yes, those who are maginal cases, in groupings that have been repeatedly cut out of previous battles for “message discipline” and “strategic messaging” are going to object to the well-recorded history of what happens when leftward battles focus more on being on message than the fight itself.

    And here is also the breaking point that occurs over and over again and what is infuriating about this and John’s previous “bad activism” post.

    It’s the deliberate attempt to yes, in fact silence those who are radical or out there or weird or “unsettle the moderates” because their purpose doesn’t seem to have short-term payoff for narrow-focus political issues.

    So yes, those who are in fact being told to shut up because they are “not helping”, “doing it wrong”, “wasting their time”, “destroying political chances”, “not understanding politics”, and so on?

    They’re going to feel like they are being asked to shut up.

    Because they are. That’s what it means.

    We like to view it as they just go away and things are awesome, but that erasure is silence and silencing. It always has been; it always will be.

    And that’s why it comes up. Because that’s the request.

  266. 266
    Jennifer says:

    @ Danny – aight then. I need to shamble on over to some other blog and be History’s Greatest Monster over there for awhile, anyway.

  267. 267
    Danny says:

    @Jennifer

    “Aight”? It’s the 21st century, sister.

  268. 268
    shortstop says:

    “Aight”? It’s the 21st century, sister.

    That’s not an antiquated word. It’s “all right” minus the middle consonants (the way many folks pronounce it) and falls in the same category as “prolly” and “zackly” — in other words, a little bit of intertubes slang.

  269. 269
    Ross F says:

    Good article from the LGBT news:

    http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6385

  270. 270
    Genine says:

    @265 Cerberus

    Well, that seems to be a lot of twisting things around to suit a particular frame of mind. When someone says to me, let’s attack congress, present a strong front and use tactics that have gotten the other side’s pols to listen to them I don’t hear “shut up and stay on message.”

    Do you know when I hear “shut up and stay on message”? When someone says “shut up and stay on message.”

    Like I said, apparently I don’t understand English.

    I have heard no one on the blog (admittedly I don’t see every comment) say that gay rights activists need to sit down, shut up and no do anymore. If I’m wrong, so be it. I’ve seen people express happiness over the progress we are making but no one has ever said “stop, that’s enough.”

    I just find it interesting how people read things.

  271. 271
    Cerberus says:

    Seriously, though, I need to take a break from this shit.

    I support Obama, I will support Obama, I am organizing on his behalf and on behalf of the Democratic Party and I will continue to do so.

    But you people?

    Fuck you with chainsaws.

    You are steeming wasteland of overprivileged moderates who want to pretend they are the rightful heirs to the crown of liberalism because they happen to support a moderate party that is only made to seem liberal by the sheer utter horror of its foes.

    It’s not about O-bots and Firebaggers. You guys aren’t actually O-bots. You’re just assholes.

    Conservatively-minded assholes and so please, continue your never-ending war against the evils of liberals, I’m sorry, just the narrow category of Firebagger that is never expanded to cover everyone to the left of Harry Reid. It’s successfully convinced me to…

    Support Obama and hate you guys.

    Cause that’s what happens to people who actually support a position. They may disagree, bitch and whine and push and prod, but they aren’t going to be swayed or cowed in fear by what a bunch of assholes on the internet do.

    You guys are vile in the name of Obama, but that’s not on Obama. It’s never been on Obama. It never will be on Obama, because as much as you people try and borrow his mantle to lend your overprivileged whiny lives and opinions some validity and weight, you can’t actually do so.

    And the sooner you get on the street and do something, the sooner we can stop living in shit world and live in awesome world. You know how the Republicans got all their candidates to become anti-tax zealots?

    Hint, it wasn’t by electing Republicans and praying.

    It was a steady stream cultural drumbeat until it was common sense to the brain-dead in this country. Its counter is education, individual, and personal fucking growth.

    Or you can all keep punching hippies, until that somehow makes you feel like an actual activist.

  272. 272
    Cerberus says:

    Genine @270

    You’re right, you don’t.

    Words have context.

    Phrases have historical context.

    And history repeats with alarming frequency.

    This is why its worth understanding sociology, the history of political movements, queer theory, feminist theory, ethnic studies, etc…

    Because words aren’t just the dictionary definition and few people want to look like scum-sucking assholes on purpose.

    And fuck educating you people.

    READ A DAMN BOOK.

  273. 273
    ShadeTail says:

    Cerberus:

    Seriously, though, I need to take a break from this shit.

    Yes, you do. Considering that you concede that progress requires more than just voting and praying, you’re being incredibly hypocritical. You lash out at the people actually affecting progressive change, and then whine about *them* indulging in hippy-punching? That is just fucking dumb.

    So please do take that break, and don’t come back.

  274. 274
    Danny says:

    @shortstop

    Oh we knew about aight back in the 90s :)

    Lauryn Hill: “Aight! Aight! Aight!”

  275. 275
    Genine says:

    @Cerberus

    I understand all of that, thank you very much. I can also tell allies from enemies. I don’t blindly lash out at people. I also give people a chance. I don’t treat an entirely new or different set of people based on what different people did. (Or I try not to. I’m not perfect, not by a long shot.)

    And I are not conservative by a long shot. I am so very left, I am happy with each step made towards progress and I work to take more steps.

    I protest and volunteer my time and money (when I have it) towards those ends. I don’t bash people who disagree with me on tactics. But if that’s what makes you happy- go for it.

    So if thinking Obama should have stayed out of the New York debate and that we should work together to bring progress and coordinate with each other makes me an “over-privileged asshole” so be it.

    And emo-progs whine that they have no allies.

    Whatever.

  276. 276
    OmerosPeanut says:

    John Cole, again proving that he gets “it” better than more official commentators. Keep up the good blogging!

  277. 277
    irmaladuce says:

    @Genine: Puh-lease. When it comes to politics, black voters are democrats before we are anything else. That is why pro-life black people vote Democratic, and anti-immigration black people, and black people who think the Lord created the Earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago. And yes, anti-gay marriage black people vote Democrat. As long as the GOP remains the party of racists, every put upon minority in the Demcratic coalition has a friend in the black community.

    Black people are not standing in the way gay rights. We are not the reason Barack Obama can not come out & say that he supports gay marriage. You can lay that on anti-gay white Dems & Independents. As well as the white Republicans that would demogogue any such statement all the way to election day.

    It seems like some of you here have convinced yourselves that gay marriage is universally supported by white people. It’s not even universally supported by white Democrats. And white people are still the majority. They are still running it. I wish gay marriage advocates quit scapegoating black people & deal with the real enemy.

  278. 278
    LT says:

    You are steeming wasteland of overprivileged moderates who want to pretend they are the rightful heirs to the crown of liberalism because they happen to support a moderate party that is only made to seem liberal by the sheer utter horror of its foes.

    Love it.

  279. 279
    Genine says:

    @irmaladuce

    I didn’t scapegoat anybody. I am black. I was just taking issue with your broad assertion there was NO black democrat in the whole United States that would vote against Obama because of SSM. That’s a hyperbolic statement that I feel is detrimental in a number of ways.

    So ALL I mentioned was the assertion. Nothing else.

    Chill.

  280. 280
    LT says:

    SHow can someone possibly write a post like this and not mention that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage? Or did, and does, but doesn’t…

    I guess the important thing is that someone wanted something more from Obama – and this must be noted, mocked, and crushed! Because…well, I’m not sure.

  281. 281
    LT says:

    It’s so bizarre to me to watch people who support gay marriage dance on this issue like this. If you support it – why not just support it? What the fuck does support fucking mean to people here? How long are you willing to do this dance? How many years? Because it sure seems completely open-ended.

  282. 282
    irmaladuce says:

    @Genine My statement is broad, and it true. Listen, I understand where you are coming from — yes, yes, black people are not a monolith. But try to get beyond Race 101 and take a look at how politics in America actually works.
    I would really like for somebody to point to ONE Dem who has lost ANY support in the black community because of their support of Gay marriage.

    ETA: I guess it is far easier to quibble with me than to deal with these white “progressives” who want to blame those backwards ethnic minorities for the slow progress of gay rights.

  283. 283
    Genine says:

    @282 irmaladuce

    I know what you were trying to get at, but how one says things is very important, imo. No need to give an opening.

    And how do you know what I do and do not deal with? I deal with people who want to blame blacks for gay rights set backs often. I volunteer with a number of groups. You’re making a lot of assumptions.

  284. 284
    Allan says:

    @Cerberus:

    Seriously, though, I need to take a break from this shit.

    Finally, something on which we can agree.

  285. 285
    irmaladuce says:

    I volunteer with a number of groups.

    That’s real nice. But I am talking about your behavior in this thread. Here we have multiple people trotting out the racist, fucking ahistorical lie that Democrats will lose black voters if they publicly support SSM, and you want to pick a fight with me. I am not making any assumptions. I am responding to what is happening right now, in front of my face.

  286. 286
    General Stuck says:

    What the fuck does support fucking mean to people here? How long are you willing to do this dance? How many years?

    When there are enough American voters out there that won’t show their current reps the door over support for legalizing gay marriage. Just like most everything else is done in a democracy. Though the supreme court could also step in, but are mostly wingnuts, so that is unlikely.

    Obama, as POTUS, has made it clear he would sign a repeal of DOMA, if congress saw fit to vote that way. That is the sum total of his involvement as president. DADT was a bad law within his direct involvement being CiC of the military. DOMA is a civilian law, and that is squarely in the lap of congress.

    Presidents just cannot get or stay immersed in the emo issues of the culture warring in this country. Other than signing or vetoing bills and making it known where he comes down on gay marriage and federal law in this case. He is not your priest or therapist, not even your personal inspiration. He is president, and a politician. And a pretty fucking good one getting anything done in this snake pit of a country.

    Your comment, and others in this thread, remind me of a quote in the article Cole linked to at NYT’s

    Firm support for gay marriage is, on the other hand, likely to help him among his cheerless base. Mr. Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and is presiding over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He signed the United Nations declaration on gay rights, and allowed the Census to count same-sex relationships. But he has been absent from the biggest and most difficult drive of all.

    I swear, if I didn’t know better I would say this was spoof. And if it isn’t, then it should be. It made me laugh out loud at the cog dissonance.

    I am quite certain that Obama favors SSM, and like with DADT, is quietly behind the scenes, lobbying CC;ers to consider repealing DOMA. And I am equally certain that Obama is not a political hero type, and nor are the congress persons, when public opinion on this emo issue for many, is not yet on the legalizing side of gay marriage. Though that is changing as we speak.

    And as Cole rightly points out, some folks don’t like to consider the politics in politics, or else that might ruin the levitating superiority for carrying the flag of righteousness, haughtily bypassing the sausage grinder of governance, that the rest of us are left to factor into, matters great and small in importance to the realm.

  287. 287
    Genine says:

    @irmadaluce

    You call me pointing out a problematic assertion “picking a fight”?

    Okay, then.

  288. 288
    boss bitch says:

    He didn’t have to be. Leaders lead.

    New York has a goddamn leader and that is Governor Cuomo. Its just hilarious that the people most likely to label others Obots and use terms like “Dear Leader” can’t seem to pick up a protest sign (or wipe their asses) without demanding that Obama inspires them to do so.

  289. 289
    boss bitch says:

    Obama is not the fucking Pope.

  290. 290
    LT says:

    Stuck:

    When there are enough American voters out there …

    Wow. I don’t who or what pushed your face into dogshit enough times to make you believe that your opinion means nothing – but I’m sorry it happened.

  291. 291
    General Stuck says:

    I don’t who or what pushed your face into dogshit enough times to make you believe that your opinion means nothing – but I’m sorry it happened.

    If you don’t get a handle on your obsessive projecting LT, not to mention the mind numbing whinging on every comment you post here, people are going to start talking about, WtF is wrong with that dude, and what kind of glue is he sniffing.

    SHow can someone possibly write a post like this and not mention that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage? Or did, and does, but doesn’t…

    Easily the stupidest fucking comment of the day on BJ, maybe even the blogs in toto. And right in keeping with the stupid churned out at the NYT’s piece.

    Though this comment was a contender for the honor of stupid.

    It’s so bizarre to me to watch people who support gay marriage dance on this issue like this. If you support it – why not just support it? What the fuck does support fucking mean to people here? How long are you willing to do this dance? How many years? Because it sure seems completely open-ended.

    This is a blog you moron. There is no dancing on blogs.

    Go get your mind right dude. And don’t be such an idiot.

  292. 292
    No one of Importance says:

    Democrats will lose black voters if they publicly support SSM

    I don’t get the logic of that argument, even if black voters were a monolith (which they patently are not.) Do we really think black people are so fucking stupid that they would vote Republican to punish a SSM supporting Dem? Vote for the Confederate party over an issue they likely don’t feel that passionately about (abortion is a far more divisive issue and yet Obama’s position on that didn’t hurt him, did it?)

    All the evidence is that black and minority voters are a lot more clued up and informed than either party give them credit for, and won’t vote for a black/minority candidate who doesn’t otherwise speak to their beliefs, and are completely aware of the danger of allowing bigots in by default.

    Talking about black voters as if they are sheep, like assuming women will vote en masse for Bachmann because of a shared gender, is bigoted bullshit. It’s racism. Knock it off, people.

    I understand the frustration with Obama, but man I would rather have a religious leader who is prepared to fight for gay rights, including SSM where it’s politically possible (and I believe he is, whatever he says) than have a mealy-mouthed atheist like Julia Gillard who, in the face of overwhelming polls and her own party’s voting, says that Australia can’t have SSM because of ‘history’ and ‘convention’. As someone on Twitter pointed out, if history and convention were all that mattered, she wouldn’t be PM right now.

  293. 293
    OzoneR says:

    I don’t get the logic of that argument, even if black voters were a monolith (which they patently are not.) Do we really think black people are so fucking stupid that they would vote Republican to punish a SSM supporting Dem? Vote for the Confederate party over an issue they likely don’t feel that passionately about (abortion is a far more divisive issue and yet Obama’s position on that didn’t hurt him, did it?)

    No, they just won’t show up

  294. 294
    dogwood says:

    New York has a goddamn leader and that is Governor Cuomo.

    There you go. What’s so weird about all of this is that I was really happy to see the NY Senate pull through, and it didn’t even cross my mind to think about the president making a statement or inserting himself into the occasion. Under this goofy federalist system we have marriage licensing and requirements are under the powers of the states. For that reason DOMA seems unconstitutional. Until the SCOTUS weighs in, it will have to be governors and state legislators who will lead and concerned citizens who must keep working on changing popular opinion and holding local and state officials accountable.

  295. 295
    General Stuck says:

    I fear some people on the left just don’t like Barack Obama very much as their president, or maybe his blackety black self.

    And they just have a devil of a time expressing that sentiment, and feel the need to wrap it up in all sorts of weird and enigmatic bullshit, that ends up making them sound like fools. When a simple “Can’t stand the fucker” would do, and then to just STFU on trying to place the yoke of all that is not right with mankind and the little blue planet we live and shit on. And find themselves a candidate to make them happy and fulfilled.

  296. 296
    OzoneR says:

    Oh look, GOS has a highly rec’d diary for the purpose of saying Obama = Bush on this issue, isn’t that cute?

    Yeah. I especially love who it doesn’t matter that Bush supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage while Obama is ok with letting states legalize it if they want to, but that’s not a relevant difference because an amendment would never pass.

    I really fucking hate the netroots, they’re so fucking useless, it’s pathetic.

  297. 297
    No one of Importance says:

    @OzoneR

    No, they just won’t show up

    There you go again, treating black people as a monolith. If ‘they’ turned out in droves for Obama despite his support for abortion, why would they not vote because of SSM? Dems/left wingers don’t tend to be single issue voters the way right wing voters are. ‘They’ aren’t more rabid on SSM than any other left-leaning group. Saying otherwise is racist.

  298. 298
    OzoneR says:

    Some of this GOS responses are mind boggling

    why isn’t anyone outraged… (0+ / 0-)
    that it took the president REFUSED until feb 23, 2011, to direct the doj to stop defending doma?
    could this not have been a promise fulfilled on DAY ONE? maybe even during the inaugural address?
    now THAT would have been a fierce advocate™
    fierceness takes a lot of things. TWENTY FIVE MONTHS, however, isn’t one of them.

    Yeah. he should definitely come out for gay marriage now, that’ll get those critics of his on his side again

  299. 299
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    @allan #229:

    It’s been fun debating the power of Obama to enact laws by reading the scripts his detractors write for him, but I have to go to Costco for a few pallets of household staples, then get ready for a meeting with real Democrats who actually organize and register voters and work to send Obama a better Congress than the one with which he’s presently saddled.

    Blah, blah, blah, allan the activist Changing the world. Which one of the folks you’re meeting with are you also sleeping with this time around?

    Furthermore, also, too, and additionally: Would the awesome Dem congress you are going to single handedly elect be anything like the entirely Democratic congress Obama had in his first two years when “WE CAN’T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE MEAN REPUBLICANS WILL FILLIBUSTER!” excuse ruled the discourse?

  300. 300
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    @eemom:

    It helps to cultivate a whimsical view of lil Timmeh and his ilk as something Shakespeare might have devised.

    Now, now…back in your crate, your pustulent, scabrous old crone. Please die there. Painfully.

  301. 301
    Trurl says:

    I fear some people on the left just don’t like Barack Obama very much as their president, or maybe his blackety black self.

    It’s not the wars or the protection of torturers or the Wall St. ass-kissing or, god forbid, the unemployment rate. All leftist dislike of Obama is based on his skin color – which apparently none of us noticed in 2008.

    And the pathetic thing is you actually believe this.

  302. 302
    General Stuck says:

    Now, now…back in your crate, your pustulent, scabrous old crone. Please die there. Painfully.

    Now now, Timmy, Lassie won’t come home back so long as you talk like this.

  303. 303
    irmaladuce says:

    @OzoneR: When has that every happened? Name one Democrat who saw a decline in black support due to a pro-gay marriage stance. Or really, a leftist position on any hot button social issue.

    God. This zombie lie is going to drive me insane.

  304. 304
    OzoneR says:

    When has that every happened? Name one Democrat who saw a decline in black support due to a pro-gay marriage stance.

    We haven’t been in that situation yet. New York is only the fourth state to legalize gay marriage through legislation, if you count Maine, they’re all white New England states. This is the first test case. I’d keep on eye on what happens with State Sen. Shirley Huntley, because she is getting her ass kicked in her Queens district over this vote, also Assemblywoman Naomi Rivera in the Bronx, her district overlaps Ruben Diaz and she admitted, even while voting yes, that her district was against it. It’s entirely possible they could lose primaries to more socially conservative Democrats.

    But beyond that, their districts aren’t at risk of going Republican. If they do win primaries, they get reelected, we’re talking about Obama, who CAN lose to a Republican if socially conservative black votes stay home.

  305. 305
    OzoneR says:

    If ‘they’ turned out in droves for Obama despite his support for abortion, why would they not vote because of SSM?

    They’re much more against gay marriage than they are abortion.

    Seriously, even black voters will ADMIT their communities are staunchy against gay marriage. Go to Jamaica, Queens, go ahead.

  306. 306
    General Stuck says:

    All leftist dislike of Obama is based on his skin color – which apparently none of us noticed in 2008.

    Now don’t lie. Or else you’ll end up in hell, or maybe NO QUARTER. I said “or maybe” due to Obama’s skin color. Not “every” leftist that dislikes Obama is for that reason. But there are more than a few, imo.

    You, however, sound more ratfucker than anything else.
    The stank is unmistakable. Plus there is a point on the circle of ideology, where the far left and far right are so close, they can piss in each others Wheaties. and provide mutual reach arounds.

  307. 307
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    You are steeming wasteland of overprivileged moderates who want to pretend they are the rightful heirs to the crown of liberalism because they happen to support a moderate party that is only made to seem liberal by the sheer utter horror of its foes.

    Righteous, Cerebus

  308. 308
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Who had the over-under at 300 posts? Come forward and collect your prize.

  309. 309
    Corner Stone says:

    @OzoneR

    Seriously, even black voters will ADMIT their communities are staunchy against gay marriage. Go to Jamaica, Queens, go ahead.

    Ooooookay. boss bitch, lamh34, ruemara, lysana, AxelFoley, Midnight Marauder, Ivan, Admiral_Komack etc, etc
    Where are all of you to refudiate this nonsense? This vile and disgusting trashy insinuation?

  310. 310
    General Stuck says:

    Who had the over-under at 300 posts? Come forward and collect your prize.

    Used to on a ghey thread, we got 500 comments easy, and even more when Cole pulled the watb card, like with this post. I don’t know what to think of it all, except, one of these days, Obama is going to do something right, and the shit will really hit the big hot air fan.

  311. 311

    myiq2xu @ 256

    Leaders lead.

    And executives execute. AFAIK, Obama is the chief executive, not the chief leader.

  312. 312
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    When you guys talk about blacks and gay marriage, you’re forgetting that blue-collar white union democrats (john edwards small towners) are the ones who really freak out over teh gheys.

    Ask a union trucker or union plumber how they feel about DADT and gay marriage and see what ya get.

  313. 313
    irmaladuce says:

    Poll after poll shows that most black people are opposed to SSM. Black homophobia is a real issue. It’s just not a voting issue. Poll after poll shows that too, as would a cursory look at the voting habits of the black community — if Ozone & his ilk of political masterminds could be bothered to look before spouting off on the internet. We have too many issues to deal with to get get all het up about whether or not %3 of the population gets marriage rights. That’s an activity for folks with too much time & privilege on their hands.

    Democratic politicians of all races can & do count on that support, but the “true progressives” are particularly delusional if they think black voters would abandon the black president over the issue of gay marriage.

  314. 314
    Corner Stone says:

    Bah. Too tired.

  315. 315
    pattonbt says:

    First, Cheers, NY! Congrats on getting this done and lets hope this is a real turning point. While I think it is, I also believe there are more hard yards ahead and there will be many painful setbacks between now and full equality. But in the long game, I think this issue is “won”. That may not be solace for those who are still denied, and to those all I can say is you have my unwavering support.

    As for the rest, I guess I do not understand Obama on this issue (SSM). Overall, I think he is a decent advocate on GLBT issues and has done some things which deserve praise, but there is more he can do. I also respect the limitations of power and know no matter how much I want things to be the way I want them, I am OK with the gains we get. And overall, I think in the case of NY, he did the right thing by staying out of it.

    But I think he missed an opportunity at the conclusion to advance the SSM cause better and at little or no political cost. He could easily publicly applaud this decision, celebrate a little bit and throw public support (from afar) behind further state level SSM initiatives.

    If, as many here say, his SSM stance (evolving) is political only, I would disagree that he need bother with the pretense. He supported it publicly before, then didn’t and is now evolving. So no one who cares enough to vote on that issue alone will buy the *wink, wink* doesn’t support in real life, just political life lie he is trying to maintain.

    My take is, no matter what Obama says publicly, the larger narrative is already written “Democrats = support gay rights” and “Republicans = hate, hate, hate”. So Obama waffling just makes visible the “political necessity” lie which, since it’s a *wink, wink* “but he’s a Dem so they support it really” lie, the lie becomes politically useless, unnecessary and counter productive. Again, this is my opinion.

    I believe Obama will lose or gain no sizable chunk of votes no matter his public stand on SSM. And by the lie being so obvious, it actually is self defeating.

    Now, if it turns out that Obama is actually personally conflicted on the issue, then he needs to accept where his party stands (and where future history and right versus/wrong stands) and suck it up and come on board.

    But we all here seem to be saying Obama, in private, agrees with SSM (and that is my opinion too) and in that case I do not believe I should grant him political cover on this issue given what I believe the political repercussions would be if he simply stated he was for it.

    Hope that makes sense, but it probably doesn’t.

  316. 316
    AxelFoley says:

    @ John Cole:

    It’s almost like they just want to cheer and feel good about themselves rather than have good legislation pass.

    Ya think?

  317. 317
    AxelFoley says:

    @ eemom:

    It is almost like this blog owner likes Obot v. Firebagger wars.

    That’s why I keep coming back. That, and the free beer.

  318. 318
    AxelFoley says:

    @ amk:

    The repubs don’t have any better allies than emo-prog crowd.

    Nothin’ but the damn truth, rightchere.

  319. 319

    Now, now…back in your crate, your pustulent, scabrous old crone. Please die there. Painfully.

    Since it’s apparently okay for Timmeh to say stuff like this, is it okay for me to hope that he dies in a violent, one-car accident?

  320. 320
    amk says:

    So, JC how long before you drop the hammer on good old timmeh (the one with his constant death wishes upon everyone who disagrees with his 24×7 stupidity) ?

  321. 321
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Since it’s apparently okay for Timmeh to say stuff like this, is it okay for me to hope that he dies in a violent, one-car accident?

    Haven’t been around long, have you? eesmarm is the author of some of the most vile insults ever hurled on the Intertrons. The old cooter earned every ounce of bile she receives. In other words, she soweth what she reapeth.

    I’ll drive with my eyes closed tomorrow, in hopes your wish may come true.

    And fuck off, dipshit.

  322. 322
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    So, JC how long before you drop the hammer on good old timmeh (the one with his constant death wishes upon everyone who disagrees with his 24×7 stupidity) ?

    Hey shit breath: Cole has a comment/banning policy. Read it and learn.

    It would take me too long to list the obscene, sexist, misandrist, homophobic, and generally hateful insults hurled at me by eesmarm and ABL in past threads, long before I picked up their ball and ran with it.

    Feel free to search the archives.

    But then, you probably agree with them on most things so you’re ok with that.

    So fuck off.

  323. 323

    @Tim:

    Re: Filibusters

    It wasn’t an excuse, you jackass. It’s what actually happened.

    Here’s a handy chart, if you won’t believe your lying eyes. I saw this chart a lot on Rachel Maddow’s show. The 110th Congress had two and a half times as many filibusters as normal.

    If you want to know why all the bills Nancy Pelosi got through the House died, there’s your reason.

  324. 324
    OzoneR says:

    Where are all of you to refudiate this nonsense? This vile and disgusting trashy insinuation?

    They know its true. I don’t know of one black person who supports marriage equality who would disagree that black homophobia is a huge problem.

  325. 325
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    The 110th Congress had two and a half times as many filibusters as normal.

    Which the weak ass Dems/Harry Reed did nothing in the way of aggressive rules changes, to sabotage. You can bet your Obot ass that if the Repubs were in charge and the dems were fillibustering at anywhere near that rate, some kickass rule changes would come down the pike and heads would roll. As in making the motherfuckers actually fillibuster instead of just SAYING they’re going to fillibuster and calling that good enough.

    So by your Dem establishment reasoning…what good does a dem congress do? The republicans still run the show.

    There is always some REASON (excuse) why the republicans kick the dems’ ass and drive the overall narrative; being in charge is just SO hard…whaaaa

  326. 326
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    I don’t know of one black person who supports marriage equality who would disagree that black homophobia is a huge problem.

    I often think of that in regard to my gay brothers and sisters who are black. Jesus, as if the gay wasn’t enough of a fabulous cross to bear; they also get to shoulder the loathing of most of their own racial community.

    It is amazing that people who themselves have been oppressed can harbor such bigotry. WTF?

  327. 327
    Joe Buck says:

    John, you’re arguing with a straw man here. You’re claiming that those who argue that Obama should get on the right side of gay marriage are insisting that he do it in a particularly ineffective and destructive way, and then using your imaginary opponent as a reason to claim that Obama is doing exactly the right thing by carving out a nuanced position where he officially opposes gay marriage, but is OK if states allow it, and DOMA should be repealed as soon as Congress tries to get around to it.

    But Obama could do considerably better than that. He could use his considerable rhetorical gifts and his personal background to make a persuasive case that could sway the folks in the middle, which would make all the difference when it comes to winning state referendums. Instead, the Prop 8 people were able to argue, correctly, that “even the liberal” president Obama opposes gay marriage.

    A dear friend of mine who I’ve known since childhood is now making plans to marry her long-time partner now that this is legal (they live on Long Island). I’m happy and delighted about the New York victory. But on too many issues the president is just sitting there with his finger to the wind. Why, when Congress is blocking everything he does, can’t Obama get back to what he does best: campaign, not just for himself, but for a whole set of issues that will get the people who voted for him in 2008 excited again.

    It doesn’t matter if not everyone agrees. People respect principle, and moderate Democrats have suffered by appearing to stand for nothing. Marriage equality is simply right, just as the right to marry someone of a different race is right.

  328. 328
    4jkb4ia says:

    John!?

    These are New York State Republicans? Part of the reason that they voted for it was because the fundraisers in their own party would protect them from the conservative base? As it is now, they have given a huge political victory to Andrew Cuomo? Now I am really sorry that I chose to read about the important topic, Derek Jeter turning 37, instead of this yesterday. Also too, Bai on Huntsman was OK. “Republican elites are desperate for an anti-Romney and it is not really about anything Huntsman actually stands for” was a decent theme.
    More to the point, the state was ready for this. They could have gotten it passed the last legislative session but this is Albany and they aren’t functional. Republican control of the State Senate IMHO is not such a secure thing that gay marriage could not have mobilized voters against them if Cuomo remains popular.

    Now, you have some semblance of a point that even if New York is ready for this, if Obama talks about it the issue becomes nationalized and there is nanoscale chance that anything is going to happen on a national level, even repealing DOMA. So after Obama’s gay supporters feel warm and fuzzy they realize that their activism is better placed elsewhere.

  329. 329
    dogwood says:

    I fear some people on the left just don’t like Barack Obama very much as their president, or maybe his blackety black self.

    I doubt race has much to do with it save with a few outliers, but you are right that the opposition goes beyond policy into the personal. I don’t know how you can work up such intense vitriol over a politician you don’t know from Adam, but people do it all the time.

    What’s most interesting to me is the unique nature of the GLBT civil rights movement. It’s heroes aren’t household names like Rosa Parks or MLK. The heroes of this movement are our neighbors, co-workers, friends and relatives who came out over the last 20 years. They were courageous and tenacious; they changed hearts and minds. We still have a long way to go, but we are getting there, and that’s a good thing. A couple of weeks ago I attended a benefit for a local gay man who needs help with medical expenses. He and his partner have been together for 20 years. It was held in the gym of the local Catholic church, and the turnout was stellar. Over 20 grand was raised. Twenty years ago half of the people at that benefit wouldn’t have showed up, and they certainly wouldn’t have brought their children- the place was crawling with kids of all ages. Is this enough? No. But it’s progress and I’ll take it.

  330. 330
    amk says:

    @ timmeh – your emotional growth is stuck at 3rd grade level. You need to go see a psychiatrist, stat.

  331. 331
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    I AM a psychiatrist, you twit.

  332. 332
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Joe Buck, your comment is eminently reasonable, which is why the Obots will descend upon you like a plague.

  333. 333
    eemom says:

    @ lil timmeh

    eesmarm is the author of some of the most vile insults ever hurled on the Intertrons.

    wow, Timlet. That is quite a distinction for an old toothless crone like myself to have achieved.

  334. 334
    eemom says:

    @331

    OMFG. Say it ain’t so.

    I mean, even Hannibal Lecter was smarter than a bag of hammers.

  335. 335
    4jkb4ia says:

    @327:

    Meh. For an issue like this, knowing someone who is gay is more powerful than having the president talk about it. When LBJ talked about civil rights, he was able to say that the cause of civil rights should be the federal government’s cause– it did not belong only to troublemakers and without the federal government it was going nowhere. He was also taking up an existing movement. Obama can say at best, “Give people in Utah and Wyoming the same rights that people in DC have.” If there is no movement in Utah and Wyoming to make that happen he is speaking to the air.

    (The little voice that told me not to come here to write about Tomic was smart.)

  336. 336
    amk says:

    @ timmeh – That makes it imperative that you see a real psychiatrist stat, you poor deluded thing.

  337. 337
    dogwood says:

    For an issue like this, knowing someone who is gay is more powerful than having the president talk about it.

    Very true. This is why I’m worried about the next election. Eventually this will go to the SCOTUS and I don’t want Mitt Romney or any other Republican putting some federalist society clone on the Court. Read a bit of Elena Kagan’s dissent in the Arizona campaign finance decision at LGM today. Despite what all the naysayers on the left predicted, she’s good. But she’ll be pissing in the wind for the next 30 years if we don”t get our act together.

  338. 338
    OzoneR says:

    People respect principle,

    No, they most certainly don’t

  339. 339
    OzoneR says:

    Why, when Congress is blocking everything he does, can’t Obama get back to what he does best: campaign, not just for himself, but for a whole set of issues that will get the people who voted for him in 2008 excited again.

    He often does, and the response is usually “yeah, well, we don’t believe you” or “they’re just words” or no one hears him at all because Anthony Weiner tweeted his penis or Sarah Palin said something stupid.

  340. 340

    @ Timmeh, I’ve been around longer than either you, or eemom.

  341. 341
    4jkb4ia says:

    Read a bit of Elena Kagan’s dissent in the Arizona campaign finance decision at LGM today

    That was awesome-sauce.

  342. 342
    4jkb4ia says:

    OK, I read it. Did not take long. What stands out is that the Republicans in the State Senate were very conflicted, were not described as paying any attention to national politics (didn’t have to–their constituents mostly didn’t support this), and a few were peeled off by intense moral suasion from Cuomo.

  343. 343
    dogwood says:

    That was awesome-sauce

    Yeah, she’s a potential star, and I’d like to see her writing majority opinions in the future. If this Court moves any further to the right, it really won’t matter much what happens in future elections.

  344. 344
    4jkb4ia says:

    This is where you have the interplay of state and federal laws. Collins and Snowe will be with you on DADT, but they can see for themselves that Maine has turned down gay marriage. You are asking them to be much braver.

  345. 345
    ruemara says:

    Dude I’m from Jamaica Queens. The man is right. Homophobia in the black community is a problem. My mother was dangerously veering into wingnuttery before 08 and luckily she woke up, said wtf, these people are idiots, i vote Dem. She doesn’t think that gay marriage bans are the answer, will fully support anti-discrimination laws and that’s as far as it goes. Gayness is something you pray to be delivered of the evil spirit that has caused it. Can’t be affected by laws because it’s spiritual warfare. It doesn’t stop her from loving her gay friends and being patiently tolerant of me, her apostate, queer supporting, raging liberal. Watch Boondocks sometime, you might get the gist of things from the satire. There are combinations of benign indifference, religious intolerance and cultural distaste going on here. Sucks, but that’s the fucking facts. And I think the one big difference that makes a black conservative over a conservative democrat is that much fewer blacks would vote for a law to deny someone their free rights.

    After reading about the machinations that allowed the bill to pass, btw, not with some huge majority, but a majority, I’d say that a certain knowledge that powerful families with money were promising some level of backing for Republicans who voted yes on this. If it didn’t affect people with money, I doubt they would have discovered principles.

  346. 346
    Marc says:

    @327: In the abstract, reasonable. But nothing about the current Republican party is reasonable. Obama making a high-profile case of a state vote would ensure that every single republican voted against him.

    Name a single case since the 2010 elections where this has not been true.

  347. 347
    Mawm says:

    You are full of it. Obama has been MIA on LGBT issues. He had nothing to do with DADT repeal. Reid saw how many LGBT went for the GOP in 2010, and he rammed it through during lame-duck. Besides, DADT is not repealed. There are still LGBT being discharged.
    If he had stopped defending DOMA in 2009 or 2010 it would have made a hell of a lot difference. Instead, he waited until after the Reps won the house back. Now we have to deal with the House defending the law, but this was a conscious decision on the administration’s part. Let the Reps defend DOMA, just more reason to fear the scary Republicans.

    Also, you’re argument that Obama was really trying to help the marriage equality effort in NY by NOT making a statement before the vote is debunked by the fact that he didn’t make a statement AFTER the bill passed.

    By your logic, Obama can NEVER lead on this issue, because he would mess things up by his very presence. Doesn’t that make him useless on the issue no matter what his motivation is?

  348. 348
    AxelFoley says:

    @jayackroyd

    I’m pretty unhappy with Obama

    Considering all he’s got done in two years, I’m always amazed anyone who’s not a conservative could say this.

  349. 349
    4jkb4ia says:

    For emphasis, with the civil rights movement you could emphasize what were existing federal constitutional rights such as the right to vote. The gay rights movement has none of these yet.

    (Oh look, it’s raining again. Isn’t that special.)

  350. 350
    MintyGel says:

    Obama is a religious Christian. Like it or not, he sees marriage between a man and a woman as a covenant. This is why he has repeatedly said, he favors civil unions. That is his personal view. And it is nice that he doesn’t say that when votes like marriage equality come up. And you won’t see him out actively supporting this either.

    DADT is supportable, as it is a non-religious issue. Watch Obama on these things: Might makes right (his view on American exceptionalism), ends justify means (drone wars), ingroup/outgroup (Yer for us or against us: sanctimonious purists). He will tack religious on these issues which is why some progressive are insisting he’s a conservative. He’s not. He’s a religious liberal. As are most moderates in the Dem party.

  351. 351
    AxelFoley says:

    @ Berto

    Can one of the Obamabots explain why Obama voted for TeleComm immunity?

    Can one of the trollbots explain what this has to do with gay marriage?

  352. 352
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    @ruemara #345:

    It doesn’t stop her from loving her gay friends and being patiently tolerant of me, her apostate, queer supporting, raging liberal.

    Ruemara, I’m curious about something. I came out at the ripe old age of 37. By the time I got to be about 45 I was tired of being “lovingly tolerated” by my family. I told each of them individually that they needed to find a way to get over their ingrained homo-hate, just as I had had to do, and EMBRACE/ACCEPT me for the totality of who I am, realizing my sexuality is as integral a part of me as their heterosexuality is of them. I was so over having them pretend I had no personal/love life, etc. If I couldn’t have a family who embraced who I was without secret reservations and prayers that I would some day convert, etc., then I could do just fine without a genetic family. Then I lovingly disengaged from each of them, after lovingly telling them exactly why.

    Within two years, both brothers and my mom did 180’s (dad is deceased and sister was already on board), and things are so completely different and comfortable now. I am treated like a whole person by them and it’s been very healing for all of us.

    People do grow by leaps and bounds if one requires them to do so. And you know, if my family members had decided to go with the hate, I would have been OK with having them out of my life. Not thrilled about it, but knowing I was better off than with their constant subliminal disapproval as it was before. YMMV, but after 45 years of “we love you, BUT…” I was ready to let go of that shit. I just wondered how you felt about what I told you here in regard to your own situation with your mother.

    Oh, wait a minute…now that I re-read your comment, I’m thinking you are NOT gay after all. Well, hell, I’d still love to hear your take on this.

  353. 353
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    Can one of the trollbots explain what this has to do with gay marriage?

    Sure. Goes to the issues of credibility, trust, integrity in general. Areas in which Obama is lacking.

  354. 354
    AxelFoley says:

    @ OzoneR

    No, they just won’t show up

    You really think black folks won’t vote for Obama if he came out in support of gay marriage?

    I guaran-damn-tee you we’d still vote for him regardless of how he felt about it.

    Again, black folks, unlike many whites, don’t tend to vote against their best interests.

  355. 355
    AxelFoley says:

    @ Timmeh:

    Sure. Goes to the issues of credibility, trust, integrity in general. Areas in which Obama is lacking.

    With your credibility in doubt, whatever.

  356. 356
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    With your credibility in doubt, whatever.

    Ooooh, wow, that was really good. A really awesome zinger. You’re amazing.

  357. 357
    Lawnguylander says:

    I told each of them individually that they needed to find a way to get over their ingrained homo-hate, just as I had had to do, and EMBRACE/ACCEPT me for the totality of who I am, realizing my sexuality is as integral a part of me as their heterosexuality is of them.

    When you told them that you spend all your free time trolling this blog, wishing for people you’re arguing with to die, pretending to be a psychiatrist, etc., how’d they take that? Trolling this blog seems to be about 50% of your totality so I hope they accept that half of you. Or are they harboring secret reservations about how you spend your time and secretly praying you’ll find a less embarrassing hobby? If so, fuck those intolerant assholes.

  358. 358
  359. 359
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    When you told them that you spend all your free time trolling this blog…Trolling this blog seems to be about 50% of your totality.

    It’s true, I do spend ALL of my time commenting here. As I write, I am sitting in an unchanged, soiled diaper; three days now since I’ve been out of this chair.

    Also, could you please explain your concept of “trolling?” I mean, other than as someone who disagrees with your point of view having the temerity to post comments? And then to answer comments aimed at them?

    Thanks. I’d like to know so that I can mock you further.

  360. 360
    Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted) says:

    BTW, would you like to schedule an appointment?

  361. 361

    […] I hadn’t seen that Cole made the same argument a few days back: Cuomo and the NY politicians were very carefully advancing the issue in a delicate […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] I hadn’t seen that Cole made the same argument a few days back: Cuomo and the NY politicians were very carefully advancing the issue in a delicate […]

  2. […] failure to lead on this issue would be inarguable, but then you don’t know John Cole: No. No. And A Thousand Times, No. […]

Comments are closed.