what are barack obama's flaws?

I never said it was chess; it's probably draughts at best.

Something else has just occurred to me: I would prefer Obama to agitate for the ratification of ERA, because legally it would make it so. much. easier. to argue for all the rights LGBTs want if we are all completely equal regardless of gender, under the Constitution.

ERA would be wonderously good, but even for feminists it appears to be a dead issue right now. Obama would look silly reviving it on his own without any political groundwork laid for it.

right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

This is clearly an exceptional period in government. Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR. Make a list of the shit Obama has to deal with and the challenges this country faces right now. It's absolutely incredible. Obama is gearing up to take on the largest policy issue of this age - health care. There are millions of people in this rich country without adequate health care, and thousands of people right now are suffering and dying unnecessarily as a result. Most every measure of wellness and health in this country has plateaued, and relative to other developed countries, is declining. Obama is addressing this clusterfuck after no one has wanted to touch it for 16 years, and he needs to nail it. No distractions, no bringing up wedge issues that could hurt him. Discipline.

Obama may very well not care much about gay rights. That's a shame, and if true, I hope he changes his views. That doesn't change the reality that this is a truly exceptional period in our country and political landscape and a very important opportunity for sweeping change. Obama has a major mandate and a terrible economy to justify overhauling whole elements of society and government. Like I've said before, if he fears having his larger agenda derailed by this issue, and that's his calculation, I can support that.

Any period of history in which you're living is "exceptional," you White House apparatchik.

Okay.

he has a powerful majority in congress - and if history dictates he won't have that same majority after mid terms - so i really don't see how actively pushing for gay rights - let alone striking down the kind of tone taken in this brief - would derail his health care efforts

lex is right - it's always going to be something. next it's gonna be when we withdrawal from iraq, or we have to deal w n. korea or iran or whatever. if he wants to do it - and he should - he should just do it, and he doesn't have much an excuse, because it's one thing to push the issue aside and it's another to let this type of language permeate his administration

i want him to abolish student loan debt

and luckily for him the iran election allows for this to slip under the radar even on mainstream liberal blogs

We'll know him by his deeds. There's no use in trying to suss out how this is being "gamed".

im baffled for the same reasons shakey is

also because im a libtard

did anyone here read the article i linked to??

it makes sense to be baffled by his lack of leadership on this issue -- i am also

but it makes no sense to treat this particular case as the specific 'problem,' because taking a stand on this case is just straight-up a bad way to go about pushing for gay rights.

im not making some captain-save-a-ho argument here, just asking that folks take a look at the context of this particular case

if you guys think dude is teflon on gay rights i think you're totally wrong -- framing this shit the right way matters, and trying to change things by executive fiat isnt going to do as well politically as pushing for legislation. period. its that simple

Phrasing DOJ arguments in language as anachronistic and hostile as possible, using arguments as risible and specious as possible, isn't going to do well politically. Period. It's that simple.

deej, this is serious strawman bullshit. No one's arguing for executive fiats.

alfred you're totally missing the point here

im going to ask again, did u or did u not read the article i linked to upthread

basically, what not-defending DOMA in court would have amounted to was executive fiat, yes. of course in terms of the righteous nature of the cause its 'wrong' but in terms of the most effective end result, i think there's a really good argument for pushing for legislative change instead.

& there is no way to defend DOMA in court without being anachronistic and hostile! thats what DOMA is! what else are you expecting here?

deej as i said it's the cumulative effect of a bunch of individually defensible stuff that people are justifiably angry about - if this, even with its offensive and hostile wording, hadn't come after a) failure to explicitly support "gay marriage" b) rick warren invitation c) perceived turnabout on DADT - then maybe it'd have been forgiven as a necessary "part of the game". and all those things are individually defensible too. but it's adding up to an indefensible whole, and it's not being balanced by any positive pro-gay rights action, or even rhetoric, apart from that "fierce advocate" weak sauce which is just a flat-out lie.

Law Dork:

Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees*, such a lawyer needn’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files.

Unlike the Obama Administration’s brief filed in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell case turned away by the Supreme Court this week, last night’s filing in Smelt v. United States goes too far (pdf). It’s offensive, it’s dismissive, it’s demeaning and — most importantly — it’s unnecessary. Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

deej, how tasty do the bottom of Obama's boots taste?

yah i agree the optics are totally bad (as is the content, in a vacuum) but as i said i totally agree that so far obama has a long way to go to prove to the lgbt community that he means what he says ... i still think its important to have the right context for this shit though, like this is bad in a 'treading water' way, not in a 'drowning' way

xxp

hey alfred
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html

how does trying to enable a sarah palin presidency by not voting for obama in FL taste?

"I suspect obama will drag his feet on gay issues so im going to enable a VP candidate that believes in witches!"

& for the 90th time i dont see how u can say im kissing obamas ass here since im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

An election in which the GOP had no chance and the Democratic candidate had already waffled on FISA and gay marriage tastes a lot better, esp. with a side of fries.

Fair enough.

(xpost)

while the more...over-dramatic anti-obama hissy fits i've read really irk me, i think what's worse is reading people dismissing them as flouncing gays - what you're seeing is people suddenly realising that all that stuff about hope and change still, once again, doesn't apply to them. and the creeping suspicion that obama simply doesn't see this issue as one of morality and civil rights.

you know, i think that "fierce advocate" line makes me more angry than any of the other stuff. it's like...no. NO. don't fucking LIE, man.

im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

― autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

where did i say that?? im saying that their filing in this case is ok because if they'd done it any other way it would be counterproductive, and that they SHOULD be pushing for gay rights legislation. as i say in the sentence you just quoted back to me

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

i personally am against going to the moon

^another palin enabler

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:46 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im saying its horseshit that they are not pushing for legislation. how about we focus on that instead of what some former bush appointee said in his asinine but ultimately pointless DOJ defense of DOMA?

i dont know where u guys are getting this parody of my position here -- i was the one comparing inaction to MLK's 'letter from a birmingham jail' upthread, remember?

Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR

Statistics, please?

ok, wrong word -- I think Reagan and Carter "did" at least as much, for good or ill.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Netanyahu_speech_an_important_step__06142009.html

NOTHING TO DO W/ OBAMA'S FLAWS

Dr Morbius: Anti-Peace

Rep. Keith Ellison on Obama and the progressives: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8657/

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/16/howard-dean-obama-anti-gay-language/

Obama to give benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees

there's some docu on don't ask don't tell on a lot of public access stations this evening, according to a feature on NPR, if anyone's interested

half-assed damage control imo, but at least something

It's either that, really poor timing (ie, it was already in the works and the DOJ clusterfuck beat it out the door) or some combination ("shit, let's push this out now instead of waiting until September").

honestly surprised fed employees don't have this already

what are barack obama's flaws? ― HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD

^^^ Kinda unsettling to see that one in New Answers

still a valid flaw tho

really hope the right-wing blogosphere doesn't find out O has a V