SLDN not impressed with punt on DADT by Obama nominee Stanley

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:00:00 AM EST

The President nominated Marine General Clifford Stanley (Ret.), to serve as Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, a position that would be responsible for implementing a reversal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the Pentagon.

There were high hopes that Dr. Stanley's testimony would shed light on how he would handle the change in policy, but it's clear that the following was not what Servicemembers Legal Defense Network expecting.

From Stanley's testimony:

Homosexual Conduct Policy

The current Homosexual Conduct Policy, commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," went into effect in February 1994 after months of congressional hearings and debate resulting in the enactment of a Federal statute. Although there have been some changes in how this policy has been implemented, the basic policy has not changed. President Obama has made it clear that he intends to work with the military and with Congress to repeal the policy.

What is your view on repealing or changing this policy?

If confirmed, I would work closely with the service Secretaries and Chiefs to provide the Secretary of Defense the best advice possible on the way forward regarding this issue.

In your view, would changing this policy have an adverse impact on unit cohesion and good order and discipline in the military? If Congress revises the Homosexual Conduct Policy statute and if confirmed, I would work closely with the services to ensure the revising of this policy is done in a way that maintains our highest state of military readiness.

If confirmed, what role would you play in efforts to repeal or change this policy?

If Congress changes the law and if confirmed, I, as the Under Secretary for Personnel & Readiness, would be responsible for leading the implementation of the change in the policy within DoD.

If the policy is changed by Congress, would you recommend a phase-in period for implementation of the new policy?

If the statute is changed and if confirmed, I would consult with the service Secretaries and Chiefs to ensure the implementation of the new policy is done in a way that maintains our highest state of military readiness.

If confirmed, what role will you play in implementing a new policy?

If the statute is changed and if confirmed, I would lead the effort to implement a new policy while carefully considering the advice of and working closely with the service Secretaries, the service Chiefs, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would ensure that this change is done in a way that maintains our highest state of military readiness.

Statement by SLDN Executive Director on Dr. Stanley Confirmation Hearing

SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis responded to the confirmation hearing for Marine General Clifford Stanley (Ret.), nominated by President Obama to be Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. This office historically handles "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" within the Pentagon.

SLDN is disappointed Dr. Clifford Stanley punted on several questions regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" this morning. When given the opportunity by Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to support his commander in chief's position to overturn the ban, Dr. Stanley did not do so. However, as is the case with most nominees, Dr. Stanley did not delve into any of the policy issues in his portfolio. We look forward to Dr. Stanley becoming fully aligned with President Obama on repeal. The President has said the right words but some of his chief lieutenants may not have heard those words. The fact remains that a 2010 repeal has never been more promising.

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) opening statement today on repeal was troubling. The Senator said he believes the law is "working successfully." The facts and record show DADT is not working. More than 13,500 service members have been discharged under DADT and thousands more leave the services every year because of the ban. Nearly a quarter of service members, according to a recent report by the RAND Corp., know a member of their unit is gay. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to make the case to the Senator that the law is not working and that 58 percent of conservatives support allowing gays to serve openly.

You can also read Dr. Stanley's interesting written responses to DADT questions (pgs. 6-7) here: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2009/November/Stanley%2011-19-09.pdf

Blend Exclusive: LGBT Liaison & WH Deputy Director for the Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:30:00 PM EST

I had a chance to sit down with Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (aka the LGBT liaison) Brian Bond at the ENC Conference on Saturday, before his keynote address before attendees. In the White House food chain Bond reports to Valerie Jarrett, the senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Bond has been in contact with me several times over the last year to set up a meeting, but given my lack of proximity to DC and my schedule, it just hasn't happened until now.

Brian has been an elusive "get," by the way, when it comes to LGBT media, but Matt Hill Comer of Q-Notes published a Q&A with Bond (via email) on policy questions you should click over to read. There are some standard talking points there, but here's a summary of what was covered by Matt...

• Bond says the administration "will not waiver in their support for equal rights"
• Asked about a timeline for a DADT repeal, Bond said the policy "will be repealed sooner than people think," that Obama has already begun to talk to the military and Congress, "but Congress will need to actually repeal it and we are committed to working with both the House and Senate."
• On DADT, Bond says he "would hope people will take the president at his word and give him the time to do this right."
• Bond said the administration has been working on a host of non-legislative issues, including pro-LGBT changes and initiatives in several agencies and departments.
• Bond says, "...it took over a decade to get hate crimes done, I don't think it will take near that long to accomplish the repeal of DADT, and passage of ENDA"

So read the Q-Notes piece, my interview and watch the video of the keynote and assess for yourself if there's anything to read into his comments.

The Pam's House Blend interview.

(transcript below the fold.)

With that in mind on Saturday, I decided to take a different tack with Brian Bond. The interview I conducted focused on the strained relationship between new media/bloggers/advocacy journalists (I'm being charitable here), and the total disconnect between the Obama campaign's new media competence and the Obama White House's blindness, gaffes and outright unhelpful alliances that have potential to really damage progress for our movement.

What is puzzling is that Brian Bond didn't think he was going to be asked to go on the record with me, but I wasn't having that. Since I knew there would be talking point regugitated to obvious question I chose to ask him more philosophical questions about how this White House relates to new media, the lack of trust in engaging a large slice of the online LGBT community) and why more than one-way, highly massaged communication isn't working, and isn't believable when compared to this admin's actions.

During the course of the interview, Bond offered this definition of his role as White House Deputy Director for the Office of Public Engagement/LGBT liaison:

1) To advocate within the building, and 2) Let the people know where the President stands on LGBT issues and the work we are doing for equality under the law.

Well, given #2 is part of his job description, Bond has been invisible and inaccessible prior to now. His demeanor and openness about the schism, suggests the administration is under pressure to address these communication issues/problems of the White House's own making, but that no one is quite sure how to deal with it, thus this meeting and visibility of Brian Bond.

***

Brian Bond Keynote and Q&A from the 2009 Equality NC Conference

(No transcript yet). The breaking news here is his response to a question about transgender appointments to the admin in the first term. Bond said it will be "sooner than you think." (30:07) There is also a question and challenge (47:50) to the President for accepting the honorary title of Chair of the Boy Scouts, which kicks gays out of its organization .

NOTE: At some point during his Q&A, Bond steps off camera (which was on a tripod unmonitored) to answer questions, so you'll see only the empty podium; eventually he returns so he can be heard and seen via mic. Apologies.

This was chock full of talking points we've heard in the past, he told the attendees at the conference about accomplishments and promises, including:

* Hate Crimes Bill
* Ryan White HIV Funding reauthorization
* A fully-inclusive ENDA
* DADT: it will be repealed (no timeline, of course). Bond said it "cannot be addressed with the stroke of a pen."
* Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act
* DOMA: Didn't mentions likelihood of passage other than "It will take a lot to get this done." Bond said in his opinion that a repeal of DOMA will need to have an inclusive ENDA passed and made into law. That, I also believe, makes strategic sense - but that doesn't preclude a vote to see where pols stand.
* Health Care Reform. Issue of portability and pre-existing conditions are paramount and it's clearly relevant to LGBTs

He emphasized the type of leader Barack Obama is -- he means what he says and will hold true to his promises. He acknowledges that much needs to be done, but that there needs to be patience because the POTUS has only been in office 10 months.

He urged those in the audience to "push us and work with us." If change was easy, he said, we wouldn't need all of the advocacy groups we have -- he mentioned the NBJC, Servicemembers United, and several others, but notably, not HRC.  

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

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:00:00 AM EST

UPDATE: ABC's Jake Tapper covers this, and has the Barnes video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rinse, repeat: Obama admin aggressively defending DADT in court

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:19:51 PM EDT

WTF? Didn't we hear during the HRC dinner that the President was working on repeal as we speak?

In a move consistent with other contradictory behavior on LGBT issues, the Obama administration has directed its Justice Department to file an extraordinary motion to get Log Cabin Republicans' lawsuit against the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law thrown out of court, despite a federal judge's ruling that it can proceed. The 11th-hour move for interlocutory appeal, which seeks to stay proceedings and block discovery, was surprisingly formulated at the same time that President Obama was reassuring LGBT activists that he still firmly opposes the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner earlier this month in Washington, DC.

"After President Obama clearly stated that his highest priority for the LGBT community was to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', it is quite troubling to see this 'about face,'" said Terry W. Hamilton, national Chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans. "This aggressive move by President Obama's Justice Department seriously undermines not only his commitment to our community and to the defense of our nation, but it also casts doubt on the motives of those at the highest levels of LGBT leadership in Washington who refuse to criticize the President over this double speak."

Let's go back to the keynote transcript...

We are moving ahead on Don't Ask Don't Tell.  (Applause.)  We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country.  We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we're fighting two wars.  (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford -- for our military's integrity -- to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy.  Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen.  I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That's my commitment to you.  (Applause.)

The jerking around, no matter what reasoning the WH offers, is unconscionable. Instead of the lofty promises in the speech, and instead of another blindside, he should have had the stones to preempt this repeat two-faced appearance by saying in the keynote some blather about "continued legal defense of this discriminatory policy is necessary" and take the heat right there in the room. Stop the game-playing.

So what does HRC have to say about this, I wonder?

Obama Administration's HUD Policies Would Ban Discrimination Based On Gender Identity

by: Autumn Sandeen

Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 10:15:00 AM EDT

Housing is a basic right and a basic human need and these numbers show just how blatant the discrimination is that transgender people face every single day. Today's actions by HUD will make a difference in a tremendous number of lives.  We are so pleased that the Obama administration continues to express through both action and words that it is committed to making sure that all federal government programs are accessible to all people.

~Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center For Transgender Equality

Words mean things. Words Matter. Actions backing words matter.

From the National Center For Transgender Equality's press release:

The National Center for Transgender Equality praises the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for its announcement today that it will ensure that its programs are available to all, including LGBT people. Today's announcement is historic, since HUD is the first federal agency so far to officially propose guidelines that would explicitly address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The evidence is clear that some are denied the opportunity to make housing choices in our nation based on who they are and that must end," said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. "President Obama and I are determined that a qualified individual and family will not be denied housing choice based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

The proposals announced today include:

• Requiring that all who participate in HUD's programs comply with all existing local and state non-discrimination ordinances;

• Specifying that Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured mortgage loans are given based on the credit-• worthiness of the applicants, and not on other factors, such as sexual orientation and gender identity;
Clarifying that in the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher program, the use of the term "family" includes all eligible lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, couples and families; subsidized housing would be made available to all who need it, without discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

• Also vitally important is today's announcement by HUD that they are commissioning a national study of the discrimination that LGBT people face in housing, the first of its kind. To date there have been no federal studies to evaluate the extent of the problem.

Housing is an iffy, splintery thing for trans people who will be covered by this change in policy. From a forthcomming study of 6,500 transgender people by NCTE and The Task Force:

Among the findings:

• Only 32% of our sample reported home ownership, compared to 68% of the general population;
• 19% report being denied an apartment or home because they are transgender;
• 19% have become homeless at some point in their lives.

This is why these new actions by the Obama Administration is so urgently needed for trans people.

When others in the LGBT community complain that the President Obama has not doe enough for community, I'm going to remember what he done administratively to this point for transgender people, including gender identity protections for transgender people in the federal workforce.  I want him to do more for broader community, and I'm not satisfied at the current progress, but at the same time I'm going to remember this president's administration has done more for trans people than any other president has.

~~~~~
Related:
* Obama Admin to ensure inclusion of the LGBT community in HUD programs
* NCTE And NGLTF: Documenting Transgender Discrimination
* The Words The President (& Others) Won't Speak: "Transgender" & "Gender Identity And Expression"
* Where Is The Executive Order For Federal Gender Identity & Expression Based Employment Protections?
* ENDA: Waking Up Too Early To Possible Trans Subcommunity Erasure
* ENDA: Libertarian Gay & Lesbian Thought Vs. Progressive LGBT Community Thought
* Pam's House Blend tag:

Fourth grader asks the President 'why do people hate you'?

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 03:56:37 AM EDT

This happened at a town hall meeting in New Orleans. A young man stood up and asked a question many adults probably wanted to know, but would never actually stand up and ask in such a straightforward manner --

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Obama: First of all, I did get elected President, so not everybody hates me, now...what is true is that if you're watching TV lately, it seems like everybody's just getting mad all the time. I think that you've got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just called politics, where one party wins and then the other party feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes, and so you shouldn't take it too seriously...

People, I think they are worried about their own lives, a lot of people are losing their jobs right now, a lot of people are losing their health care, they are losing their homes to foreclosure, and they are feeling frustrated, and when you're President of the United States you've got to deal with all of that -- that's exactly right. You get some of the credit when things go good, and when things are going tough, then, you're going to get some of the blame and that's part of the job. I'm a pretty tough guy, are you a tough guy? You look like are pretty tough guy, and so you have to keep on going even when folks are criticizing you because as long as you know you are doing it for other people.

HRC's Solmonese: dinner attendees 'more politically aware', have 'better sense of what's at stake'

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM EDT

UPDATE: see more commentary at the end of the piece.

It's rare to see the whole diversity/class/power dynamic that vexes the LGBT movement opened up since it's a third rail topic that tends to give some with privilege a case of defensive agita. It's likely this unintentional level of candor won't be seen again any time soon.

LEMON: Joe, I got to ask you this. We had a panel last night, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Dan Choi, Hilary Rosen on. And some of the folks who are on that panel said that the HRC doesn't represent the masses of gay people in the country, that it is, you know, one certain group.

Do you think that the group -- how do I put this -- that there is a lack of diversity within the HRC, and if it were more diverse, that that might help the cause?

SOLMONESE: Well, I think that -- you know, I know that -- I think it was Michelangelo who was making some sweeping comments about the number of people in the room and who was in the room, although he did start by saying he couldn't get into the room. So, you know, I sort of take that with a grain of salt. But we're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.

But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...

A couple of things are quite notable. Lemon asks about the diversity issue within HRC. Solmonese can't answer that question without either fibbing or going down a really uncomfortable path, so Joe chooses to answer the question in terms of paid membership, so he can reference the multitude of small dollar donors. Those donors weren't at the dinner, nor are they in leadership positions or on the board of the advocacy org.

The real boo-boo, however, is the claim that the crowd attending the annual dinner is more politically engaged, more boned-up on the issues, and even more incredibly, know more than you folks out there -- living in places where you have no rights whatsoever -- about what is at stake. Well, those who opened their wallets to see the fabulous Lady Gaga and the cast of Glee (after all, the dinner sold out before the President's appearance was billed), surely are in touch with the issues more than you are. Joe said so.

But seriously, there obviously were committed activists in that room, people who deeply care about those without the access and power to effect change in the same way they can. It's too bad that they get scooped up in the criticism of HRC's poor handling of the diversity issue. By raising the value of the attendees as "the players" who know better, he's essentially confirming all of the worst stereotypes. Those skeptics outside of the LGBT sphere who saw that non-diverse audience that night are even less likely to support LGBT issues (more on that below).

Adele Stan, in a piece worth the click, "LGBT Activists Criticize Obama's Speech for What Wasn't There, But Miss a Very Big Thing That Was", she points out that the real landmark comment the President made that went unnoticed - he made the connection between the black civil rights movement and LGBT rights.

[E]ven more importantly, completely overlooked by activists as they battle for marriage rights was a critical turning point: In anticipation of the criticism he clearly expected to receive, Obama compared the movement for LGBT rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more.

This is not a statement without some risk for Obama. It's a comparison often met with resentment in the African-American community -- a comparison few have the moral authority to make. The nation's first African-American president is one of them.

On one level, that's correct - that needed to be said. On another level, it's not enough. If you want to see how much impact that statement really had in the aftermath of that speech, surf over to a blog I respect a great deal, Jack & Jill Politics ("A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), where there is a plethora of politically informed, educated black netizens who are tapped into the progressive blogosphere. The President's comparison went in one ear and out of the other for way too many of the commenters.

It's fair to say that The President needs to repeat that link in equality movements in front of other, non-LGBT audiences over and over to make it stick. In those comments at J&JP you'll see:

* Criticism of the complexion of leadership of too many of our orgs with this dinner a nationwide televised display of the gap in race and class  alienating commenters in the thread, feeding the stereotypes quite nicely;

* black gays called house negroes/having house negro syndrome;
-- it matters not if you have a long record of challenging the lack of diversity in LGBT leadership and political inclusion and representing the community on-air; you've revoked your black card.

* the claim that gays have all the rights that they need and deserve, because they see the snowstorm at the public events, and it follows that all gays are white and have money and don't show up for social justice issues affecting POC. And that means homos need to "get to the back of the line" for rights.

I feel sorry for the poor gay brother in the comments there who can't get a break.

As I told a much more diverse audience at NC Pride:

For blacks and other minorities who have to learn how to integrate in the dominant culture out of necessity, they are often feel frustrated and defensive hearing the lack of knowledge exposed when whites make the tentative steps to engage. The honest truth is that, outside of working alongside people of color, there's a lot of social self-segregation going on (on both sides).

What this lack of cross-community dialogue means for out LGBTs of color is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, white LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back.

I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from "I'll be called a racist" or "it doesn't feel safe to do this" or "it isn't my place to do it. " Well if you're waiting for it to be safe, it isn't going to happen.

So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidated.

They fear the judgment of those in the pews and the pastors spewing anti-gay bile from the pulpit. Some of these minority LGBTs simply cannot envision stepping out of the closet because they don't see a welcoming largely white LGBT community on the other side of the door.

So it's in that context that Solmonese's comments are a tragic, confirmed truth that just slipped out in the interview. Our movement needs to address how our largest LGBT organization can represent the reality of LGBT America, because its representative just let everyone know that in HRC's reality, the right mix - the most effective mix - of people in the LGBT equality movement attended that annual dinner. I'm not sure how the rest of us rate other than as a small dollar GAyTM. Maybe Joe will tell us the next time he's on the air.

UPDATE: I know you all are venting your anger in the comments, but you're missing the point. This isn't about destroying HRC; in order to have the level of influence it has on the Hill, and given where the distribution of wealth exists in this country, you're going to get a demographic like that at the dinner. The main problem here is not that there's something inherently wrong with being wealthy, the problem is that those with wealth, like those in many demos, tend to naturally self-segregate. It's the whole class issue. It's not first nature to ask themselves -- "is it important to make a place for those we normally do not socialize with, activists not of wealth who are integral to the LGBT rights struggle to our events?" When it's raised in an assertive posture as many of you have expressed, there is often a backlash defensiveness akin to ("those ingrates, they don't know what we've done for them"); so serious discussions about how human nature and class/diversity issuse are true problems to solve turn into flamethrowing.

There are truths on both sides. If you don't like how things are managed in your name, get into the game and not just be a keyboard activist. I have. Despite little free time with a full-time job and this blog, I do work locally, I give what I can to causes, I visit schools to talk to LGBT youth -- that's just as important as anything I write here. I may not have the money to drop for a dinner ticket, but I give to my local equality organization, participate in workshops and panels, and try to make a difference that way too. You choose where your dollars go.

HRC funds many programs that do outreach in the broader, more diverse community with those donations; so complaints that it all goes to administrative overhead and salaries, while it may feel good to rip, doesn't exactly paint an accurate picture of the impressive work HRC is and is capable of doing. If you started another organization by scratch, it's likely you'd end up with something that looks much like HRC. What could be different is the outlook of the people running the place -- are there ways to be inclusive of fresh ideas and perspectives that doesn't require a large sum of money to earn a place where the decisions are made? If not, why not? It's apparent that Joe Solmonese's unfortunate comments broadcast to the world revealed how he sees the world of LGBT leadership, influence and visibility. In the wake of the comments it would be good to hear whether the organization plans to respond to the viewpoint of its face of the movement expressed in that interview.

Breaking: White House disavows 'WH adviser' 'Internet Left Fringe' comment

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

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

...But while the administration certainly appreciates progressive new media, it remains wary of it. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in particular, regards the online left as impractical and counterproductive. While Communications Director Anita Dunn and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs both have worked hard to make new media a fixture of the Obama communications strategy, the West Wing favors the old media guard -- granting them access and, in the case of Harwood, anonymous quotes in attempts to advance its agenda.

This is what happens when journalists allow sources to take cheap shots from behind the cloak of anonymity granted for no good reason. The source doesn't have to own it if it backfires, and the journalist gets stuck with the reputation for sloppy and erroneous reporting if they decide to dump it on you. Which is exactly what's happening here.

NBC should release a statement either defending Harwood's reporting on the matter or retract it.   And the White House should identify Harwood's source, because it doesn't do much good to claim "we love you, we really really love you" and still protect the person who said it.

The White House is strongly denying a report making the rounds that it views gay critics and bloggers as part of an "Internet left fringe," with a senior adviser asserting to me that this sentiment "does not reflect White House thinking at all."

Yesterday, CNBC correspondent John Harwood set off a min-firestorm on the left after he claimed that the White House views gay and blogospheric criticism of the administration's foot-dragging on gay rights issues as part of the "Internet left fringe." Harwood claimed that an anonymous adviser said that "those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."

Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:

"That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth."

The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said.

Every standard form of Washington behavior is on display here:  reporters like Harwood with absolutely no standards who grant anonymity to pass along playground insults.  Obama officials -- part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever -- who seem incapable of speaking about anything without cowardly hiding behind anonymity, even for on-the-record briefings.  Snide, Fox-News-mimicking dismissals from the Democratic establishment of any discontent or criticism of the President as coming from the fringe, Far Left.  And particular disdain for any instruments -- blogs, marches and  protests -- which the White House cannot control, which exist independent of the tightly coordinated, Rahm-dominated "veal pen" messaging system to which so many leading progressive organizations have meekly submitted themselves in order to ensure their own continued access, funding and future career options within the Democratic establishment.

The only thing remarkable about the comments Harwood passed on is that anyone would be surprised by them.  In that regard, the furor over Obama's complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area -- from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:    

• Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;
• Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals:  "He's your president, not your boyfriend"); 
• Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,
• Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

I have no idea who the person is who said this to Harwood or how influential or obscure s/he might be, but whoever it is, that person is anything but unusual or aberrational.  Quite the opposite.

Here we go - now I'm a 'half-breed' for criticizing the admin

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:22:14 AM EDT

Here's a prime example of denigrating not what I say, but what I am in terms of identity, from a black woman in the comments of Americablog who is incensed about my criticism of the administration's handling of LGBT issues. She calls racism.

Wow. The racism is flowing here. I am a daily reader of this blog but the way that you guys have attacked our first black President is unfortunate. My god he has been in office for 10 months. Is marriage more important than having a job? Health care?

I am getting quite tired of the white gays and half breeded gays slamming Obama after he has only been in office for MONTHS. Go check out the black blogs and you will see that there is a true divide in who supports Obama and who doesn't.

Of course I had to laugh at "half breed" on a couple of levels. 1) I'm not biracial, I'm the product of two parents who are black (and neither of them were/are biracial), something that people seem to have a hard time grasping is possible these days.

It's only been in the last decade or so that people have even raised the question about me, so I attribute it to more biracial people asserting their status than anything else; and 2) If you're of a certain age, who can forget Cher on top of a horse singing this in 1973:

But note that commenter doesn't question the President's blackness, she claims it even though he is a true "half-breed". This is the level of racial discourse going on out there; it's polluted by racism from without and within, which shows you why honest, reality-based discussions about race are hard to come by. This faux "half-breed" homo will continue trying to have those discussions.

More below the fold.

The White House called LGBTs part of pajama-clad 'Internet left fringe' for asking for civil rights

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 20:51:31 PM EDT

In an NBC report less than 24 hours after the President declared his unwavering support for the LGBT community, the White House has decided to sh*t on citizen journalists on the left who are simply advocating for our civil rights. This is a real shot across the bow. Via Americablog:

NBC News' John Harwood just reported that an Obama administration staffer advisor today called the gay community part of "the Internet left fringe," and therefore the White House is not concerned about the gay community's, and other Democrats', concerns that the president isn't keeping his promises. As part of its report on today's gay march, NBC's Harwood said the following:

Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

Harwood then went on to say that the White House thinks that:

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Wow. Nice to know that asking to pass federal legislation (ENDA) so my fellow North Carolinian LGBTs don't get canned for being who they are is a "fringe" activity. I must remind the White House that North Carolina delivered for him in 2008, and LGBT support was key, and was leaned on for support in a big way.

Nice to know that asking to pass federal legislation related to national security (repeal of DADT) when our military forces are strained and the Obama administration is mulling an increase in troops in Afghanistan is a "fringe" activity.

I guess asking for any of the long list of issues to be addressed before 2012 (since re-election isn't a given in the reality-based universe) is a "fringe" activity.

I guess all of that "support" he doled out last night at the HRC dinner and the fact Candidate Obama said to hold him accountable was conditional if you're LGBT. Or maybe civil rights matters are don't qualify for the "keep up the pressure" policy.

It doesn't matter why this behavior is occurring, really. What one has to take away from this message, naturally not attributed to anyone at the WH -- cowards -- is that bloggers are messing up their playbooks. And the answer is to diminish what influence we have -- it's limited at best. You have to ask why is this paranoid, juvenile message getting tossed out there. All those big brains in the White House and the best they can do is to bring up the hoary pajama game?

Here is the transcript via FDL:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base?

JOHN HARWOOD: As a practical matter Lester I don't think it's a serious problem. we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.

HOLT: But in general when yo look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven't?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Or do I just need to fold my hands in my pajama-clad, Cheetos-stained lap like a good homo?

Time to weigh in...

Related:
* On Obama's HRC keynote -- plus watching our movement in flux
* Joe Solmonese clarifies the 2017 message delivered in HRC e-blast
* Is HRC telling people to sit hands folded for Obama re: progress until 2017?

***

UPDATE: You wouldn't believe some of the excuses flying around on FB and Twitter saying "oh, you shouldn't pay attention to anon sources" or "the WH wouldn't say that" or that this statement somehow is NBC reporter John Harwood making the sh*t up, or that "he didn't say LGBT bloggers" (ok, that one is just lame -- I said in the headline "part of pajama-clad 'Internet fringe'" - AND the reporter's filing a report about NEM, for god's sake, lolol).

Well, sitting in this chair, SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for the statement because it is someone's POV, one believed to be widely held by insiders about progressive bloggers, but never articulated so boldly.

The remarks are an insult to people like me (and readers), who know how complicated governing and legislating are, and many of us do this from a perspective of 1) being in a state where waiting DOES matter and, in my case 2) I blog and work a full time job, at the expense of my own health, not to be a muckraker, but to make a difference. If someone has a different perspective and dismisses me outright, I do have a right to be angry and demand someone own their statement. When I say something it's straight up, you mean to tell me no one has the stones to own their opinions up there? That's pathetic. Anonymous or not, the statement's out there now for all to see.

The bottom line is that it's one of three things -- 1) Harwood is lying or 2) The White House is playing two-faced; or 3) they've got a lunatic loose high level advisor who is off message.

The WH needs to clear it up pronto.

UPDATE 2: I had to change the headline of this post because people appear to be too lazy to read the transcript to see that Harwood's source according to him said "the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe." Someone has to own the quote, which is referring to the NEM pop as "this opposition" and encompassing progressive bloggers generally, and many LGBT bloggers that have been critical are a slice of the progressive blogosphere. I understand people wanting to parse this stuff to death to avoid the fact that SOMEONE said this (or Harwood made it up) and has to answer to the statement.

BTW, we're not the only ones "bellyaching"-- take this scorching review by Time Mag's John Cloud, "Obama's Gay Outreach: All Talk, No Action"" :

Saturday night President Obama charmingly delivered a rather bleak message to the gay community on the eve of its latest march on Washington. In a speech to the world's largest gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama essentially said two things: I'm with you. But I can't do much for you.

...Obama patted himself on the back for his party's passage earlier in the week of a a hate-crimes bill that, for the first time, includes gay and transgender people. And he used the opportunity to tell gay critics who have expected so much of him to express what he expects of them. The hate-crimes bill, he said, had become law only because those who believed in it had thoroughly educated the public about why it was important. "Countless activists and organizers never gave up," he said. "You held vigils. You spoke out year after year, Congress after Congress."

Obama is right, in a civics-class sort of way, because social change can't occur if it's forced from the top-down. But that's also a convenient argument for him, since it defers responsibility from his office.

UPDATE 3: As Jane Hamsher notes, the White House can clear this up quite handily (or face questions about it during Gibbs's next press briefing).

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

Harwood said that "the White House views this opposition as really part of the 'internet left fringe'" so yes, you're right, he did make the connection - based on what he says he was told. By an aide in the White House, knowing he was going on the national news momentarily to talk about the march.

The appropriate thing for the White House to do at this point is free Harwood up to reveal his source. Because if they just deny that the statement was accurate without doing so, it'll always be trapped in that nether region of journalistic privilege. And the "anonymous source" will have achieved their desired objective of getting it out there without having to wear it.

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

Finally, the White House releases the President's speech at the HRC Dinner

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 19:21:02 PM EDT

I wasn't the only one wondering why the President's keynote address during the HRC Dinner wasn't released to the media prior to the speech (embargoed). This is unusual because most major addresses are sent out before so journalists can have accurate quotes in their articles, which are usually written during the delivery. The White House will sometimes re-issue the transcript (as delivered) as well.

None of that happened yesterday, and Steve Clemons of The Washington Note decided to ask the WH what the blazes was going on.

Last night at 5:30 pm, I called White House press and asked to make sure that I got an emailed copy of the remarks which would probably be time embargoed. I left email and phone number as the phone recording requested, but there was no follow up.

I ran into Brian Bond, the capable Deputy Director of White House Public Liaison, before Obama's speech last night and was told that we would get the speech and not to worry.

Thanks to C-Span and MSNBC, folks can watch the speech -- so it's not completely out of public view, and the White House did distribute the "pool reporting" on Obama's 25 minutes at the HRC Dinner in which he reported that he had really made it as the opening act for Lady Gaga.

But nothing yet on the White House web page -- and nothing in my in box about Barack Obama's commitment to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his commitment to pass an exclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which were hight points of his remarks.

This is meant to be a friendly critique -- but while the gay community at the HRC dinner was enormously enthusiastic that Barack Obama was the first President since Bill Clinton in 1997 to speak at its annual event, we don't want the important remarks the President gave hidden so as not to make the weekend news cycle.

Well, I received my copy of it at 11:40 AM ET on Sunday, after just about all of the Sunday talk shows have aired. Make what you want about that. Here are the President's remarks in full.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                         October 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER
Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

8:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please, you're making me blush.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who's doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC.  (Applause.)  To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC.  (Applause.)  Representative Patrick Kennedy.  (Applause.)  David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa.  (Applause.)  John Berry, our Director of OPM, who's doing a great job.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality.  (Applause.)  Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank.  (Applause.)   And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who's in the house.  (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you.  It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa.  (Applause.)  I've made it.  (Laughter.)  I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.  (Applause.)  

For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice.  That's not easy.  For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open.  There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted.  And that's painful and it's heartbreaking.  (Applause.)  And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities.  And you're making a difference.

That's the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship -- (applause) -- for all who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.  It's the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion -- and defiance -- wherever and whenever they could.

It's the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens -- (applause) -- when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.  It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need.  (Applause.)  And it's the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you've fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America.  (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now.  And I'm here with a simple message:  I'm here with you in that fight.  (Applause.)  For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I've received from many in this room.  I also appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough.  I want to be honest about that, because it's important to be honest among friends.

CNN debate on Obama speech between Signorile, Savage, Rosen and Choi

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 04:52:24 AM EDT

They really got into it last night, with Dan Choi serving as the diplomatic optimist, Hilary Rosen as the pragmatic defender of The Patience Agenda, and Michelangelo Signorile and Dan Savage as the critical activists. It's a must-see.

On Obama's HRC keynote -- plus watching our movement in flux

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 22:10:53 PM EDT

However, I have to agree with Sean Bugg, my fellow commentator on the coverage tonight, who made a great point that if you aren't a wonk or activist clued in to the messy politics going on behind the scenes, this speech is a huge home run of support from the President of the United States to a kid out in the sticks who watches it can now feel he is part of the American fabric. In our cynical view of the political system, jaded by the hypocrisy and spinning we see each day, as well as outright lying by pols and advocates, you have to remember how this speech can resonate with non-political LGBTs and straight America. The President actually engaged with a segment of our community in his first term to affirm support for the LGBT community. I doubt you'll see him endure sane, rational criticism from the right on this other than the usual whines from the fringes who already think he's Satan/Hitler/Muslim terrorist, etc. That's progress on its own and it should not be minimized.

So that's my praise. As far as criticism, I don't even know where to begin.  But I'll first share the news that HRC is happy with the speech.

"Tonight, President  Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is 'unwavering.'  He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change.  But these remarks weren't just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where "no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

"And we heard unequivocally  about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That is my commitment to you.'

"Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  'You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.'

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented."

"We were heartened to hear the President say, 'I will end don't ask, don't tell.' But an opportunity was missed tonight. SLDN was disappointed the President did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal.The 65,000 gay and lesbian service members--who put their lives on the line and who remain impatient with the pace of progress--deserve to know when their commander in chief and Congress plan on getting rid of this law."

This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you're a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn't hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces. That correcting a grievous wrong affecting the lives of American taxpayers he wants support from on other issues is ok to shuffle down in the pile of issues. Honestly, it's good to know where you stand -- statements of support without any timelines at this stage in the game is frustrating and very informative. But it doesn't mean we won't continue to press for them, no matter what Barney says.

And, did you notice the "T" invisibility in this address?  No shock there either; I think this may be another education issue. I have to say the money quote from the speech that made me laugh out loud was the President running down a string of accomplishments and one he referred to was how he invited the homos to the Easter Egg Roll. Yep I can take that to the bank here in NC and do something with that bit of equality.  BTW, the Bushes had gay families participate in those festivities as well, the first time they just didn't want them photographed with Laura. The second time seemed to be pretty irrelevant.  Oy. Funny and sad, but it's progress, right.

Ironically, I give President Obama points for having the cojones to state that we are impatient -- and should be. He's man enough to say to continue the pressure, whereas the messages delivered by Joe Solmonese and Barney Frank in the past few days have been protective of the President and scolding of the grassroots and the LGBT Netroots. It's quite a stark disconnect that says more about our professional advocates than it does about the President.  

An aside -- I think the major schism between our orgs and the grassroots and Netroots  has reached a perfect storm with this weekend. The juxtaposition of this dinner, where we see a different view of progress, as ovation after ovation for the President suggested full support of the Patience Agenda, versus the people attending the march. Many of those marching on Sunday don't have the access to power or fat wallets to be considered for courtship by the Obama's 2012 team and the Dem party.  

Open Thread - HRC Dinner and Presidential Keynote

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 19:35:40 PM EDT

We also have a widget for you to watch the speech via livestream on CSPAN 1 (either Windows Media or Real Player). President will be on around 8PM, but you never know how these longish, talky events will run.

While I may physically be in Austin, I'm going to be right there with you all virtually courtesy of SiriusOutQ's live coverage of the event doing commentary there. I'll be checking in the chat room to see your comments as well, so it will be an interactive affair.

Is HRC telling people to sit hands folded for Obama re: progress until 2017?

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:28:32 PM EDT

In one of those "what does he really mean" moments, Joe Solmonese sent out an HRC e-blast to supporters that suggests he's willing to cut the President slack until he leaves office in 2017, after an assumed second term in office.

The missive could also be interpreted as cheerleading the passage of hate crimes as sufficient progress to celebrate for now. If this the message that is being telegraphed as the party line, it proves the org is definitely not in touch with the grassroots discussion out there about what the President needs to say tomorrow night.

Hate crimes is an accomplishment, but what would affect LGBT citizens most profoundly is if the President would state imminent movement on ENDA, or even DADT repeal. That's real progress. Surely he can say something about the battle going on in Maine to reverse marriage equality. None of this mentioned in this e-blast. And cutting slack until 2017, if that's indeed the message, means yet again, that those who have the luxury to wait (they have non-discrimination measures where they live and work), don't understand the day-to-day peril working LGBTs live under in terms the vulnerability of being fired or losing the chance for employment because of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

That said, don't go by me; you parse this document and see if there's some other way to interpret this missive, passed along by Americablog.

More below the fold, including a snippet of The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld column, "View from the Hill," about the dinner.

Muliti-tasking: will be on SiriusOutQ's live coverage of the President's speech at the HRC Dinner

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 15:40:32 PM EDT

SIRIUS XM Radio will broadcast extensive coverage of the National Equality March in Washington, DC this weekend including live coverage of President Obama's keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner on October 10. The Equality March is an event organized to fight for equal protection for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

Political and cultural commentator Michelangelo Signorile will kick off the coverage on his daily call-in show October 9 live from Washington, DC beginning at 2:00 pm ET. Scheduled guests include Lt. Dan Choi of Knights Out; activist Urvashi Vaid, Executive Director of the Arcus Foundation; and David Mixner, former LGBT liaison to President Clinton. Mixner originally conceived the National Equality March. Both Mixner and Vaid are scheduled speakers at Sunday's Equality March event.

OutQ News will present a live special covering President Obama's keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner beginning at 8:00 pm ET on October 10. OutQ will air the speech live in its entirety, and OutQ News Director Tim Curran and his guests will offer reaction and commentary. Scheduled guests include blogger Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend and Sean Bugg, co-publisher of Metro Weekly, a gay and lesbian newsmagazine in Washington, DC.

WaPo: Obama's HRC speech will focus on 'incremental advancements as evidence of progress'

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 00:49:46 AM EDT

Oh man, if this is the stale message that the President is going to serve up to the dressed-to-the-nines crowd at the HRC annual dinner, how will they react? And how will that reaction compare to that of the marchers on Sunday? Via the WaPo:

[W]ithin the gay leadership in Washington, established politicians and a freshman class of bolder legislators disagree as to whether the Maine campaign should be central to a larger federal push for equality. Those frustrated voices are lobbying Obama to include a reference to the Maine referendum in his speech. Any failure to do so would be the last straw for many gay activists fed up with the small-bore approach of the Obama White House, the Washington-based gay lobby and the Democratic Party's gay elders.

(A Democratic source familiar with the White House's thinking on the speech said Obama will stress incremental advancements as evidence of progress.)

Sean Bugg:

Incremental advancements? Like, say, appointing gay ambassadors...just as Clinton did back in the 1990s? Or offering domestic partnership benefits to federal employees...except those aren't actually full benefits because federal law bars providing full benefits to gay and lesbian partners in order to "protect" marriage, and where the hell has the Obama administration been on removing that law as it pledged to do? Or any of the other little micro-initiatives that dot the Obama list of accomplishments on LGBT issues, initiatives that are all super in and of themselves, but do nothing to address the fundamental inequality forced on us by federal legislation and policy?

Sean closes with what we're all thinking -- "If that's what we're about to get served up as dinner on Saturday night, we should be sending that dish right back where it came from."

Obama to nominate openly gay ambassador

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 19:37:10 PM EDT

I just got off of the phone with a White House source and it's official that David Huebner will be nominated as the ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa the first openly gay ambassador nom for the admin. Of course the cat's already out of the bag due to the quick keyboards of Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate up with a story, as well as Karen Ocamb. Kerry:

Huebner is a partner in the Shanghai law office of Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton and heads the firm’s International Disputes practice and its China practice. He has also served as a mediator and arbitrator and specializes in dispute resolution.

Huebner co-chaired the board of directors of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in 1997 and has served as legal counsel for the organization for a number of years. He has also taught international business and intellectual property classes at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law.

If confirmed, Huebner will be the third openly gay ambassador to serve, the first being James Hormel (Luxembourg, under Clinton) and Michael Guest, (Romania, under George W. Bush).

As he's openly gay, that means by default the mad dogs of the right wing are likely to go froth at the jowls again. Karen spoke with Dean Hansell, who serve on GLAAD's board with Huebner, and noted:

Neither Hansell nor I know if Huebner is Jewish – but the wing-nut Religious Right think he is. He’s on the Zogs Nightmare (ZOG = Zionist Occupied Government) website list of Jews and Homosexuals – “proving, once and for all, that the radical homosexual movement in the United States is a Jewish movement.” You know the rest.

"Including remarkable people like David Huebner in our country's diplomatic corps sends a strong message that competence, talent and experience are what matters most, and that sexual orientation should not be a barrier to public service.  The truth is that LGBT people serve America in every branch of government and the military, and they do so because they love their country as much as anyone else.  David Huebner's nomination is one step further down the path that will one day end in all people being able to serve openly."  Huebner was a participant in the Presidential Appointments Project, which was established by the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute and supported by a dozen other national LGBT organizations in an effort to increase the number of openly LGBT presidential appointees.  More than 1,600 people have applied through the program to date.

"The selection of David Huebner as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa is not only good for the LGBT community, it is good for America," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The appointment of openly gay and lesbian Americans, by this Administration, continues show their dedication to diversity and making decisions not based on someone's sexual orientation, but based on their qualifications.  We congratulate David on his appointment and look forward to his service to our country."

"As the American people have learned from my experience, sexual orientation has nothing to do with ones ability to represent our country abroad in the foreign service," said Jim Hormel, the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador appointed to Luxembourg by President Bill Clinton and a founder of the Human Rights Campaign.  "I am pleased that President Obama has chosen David Huebner who will serve as an excellent ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa."

Breaking: President to speak at HRC Annual Dinner held during the National Equality March weekend

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 13:21:52 PM EDT

The NYT:

Mr. Obama's appearance on Saturday at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, represents a significant show of support for gay rights at a time when many prominent gay and lesbian activists have been questioning the president's commitment to their issues.

Many gay rights activists have become increasingly vocal about their frustration over what they see as tepid support from Mr. Obama. While the president has professed support for overturning the ban on gays in the military and called the law that precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages discriminatory, he has not engaged on gay rights issues as actively as some had hoped.

The Justice Department is defending the federal marriage law, known as Defense of Marriage Act, much to the dismay of many gay rights advocates. And Mr. Obama has been noncommittal about when he will move to end the "don't ask don't tell" policy. In June, he acknowledged their irritations at the slow pace of change at a gathering of about 250 gay rights leaders who had been invited to the White House.

While it remains to be seen what Mr. Obama's appearance at the dinner will do to his standing in the eyes of gay rights activists, his speech may mollify some of their concerns.

They can't claim to be out of town while there are thousands of LGBTs out there representing the people this administration continues to make sit and watch the finger-pointing between the White House and the Hill about how they can't do ANYTHING right now.

Honestly, the President would earn even more credibility if he showed up at the march to speak to those who couldn't afford a ticket to the HRC dinner -- those are people who are more profoundly affected by lack of protections in the various states they will travel from to the march. But that won't happen for obvious reasons.

Karen Ocamb@LGBT POV, pretty tongue in cheek:

But one has to wonder if Obama's appearance at a fundraiser for what many perceive as a  mostly rich white gay male organization will help or hurt him in the long run, especially since he hasn't really come through on his campaign promises.

...I wonder if someone will jump up and challenge him just as Lane Hudosn challenged former President Bill Clinton on marriage equality at the Netroots Nation convention.

On the other hand - maybe Obama will announce he's signing a stop-loss order for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And since HRC is honoring Judy Shepard, perhaps he'll announce that he's personally stepping in to push the hate crimes law attached to the Defense Appropriations bill, now in the conference committee.

Or he'll clarify his Justice Department's approach to defending DOMA in the courts.

Or he'll come out in favor of full marriage equality - a position he publicly held in the 1990s.

"We are honored to share this night with President Obama, who has called upon our nation to embrace LGBT people as brothers and sisters," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  "It is fitting that he will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Senator Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation - equal rights for the LGBT community, and for every person who believes in liberty and justice for all."

These events are simply out of reach of the vast majority of average LGBTs. It's the truth. That's why I also said it's too bad the President won't be at the march; that was an opportunity to balance the scales and it's clear it won't happen for a host of reasons.

The reason "A-gays" pushes buttons is the obvious class issue. And we can't continue to sweep that factor under the rug because it affects all of us -- the Obama admin thinks that appearing at an HRC dinner is talking to the LGBT community at large (which is also what HRC wants him to think, of course, why wouldn't the org?)  -- and it's what causes the internal strife between the grassroots and the Beltway orgs all the time. Owning up to what's going on is what's at the root of "A-Gays" when I use it.

A note about the National Equality March, why I won't be there, and a missed opportunity below the fold.

Hartline: the Olympics bypassed Chicago because of the homosexualist anti-Christ spirit

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

But today the recloseted homosexual and self-proclaimed prophet of God tells us the real story about why Chicago lost its Olympic bid.

Long before Obama became president, there was a secret weapon at work to halt the impending campaign by radical forces to reward Obama and his supporters with the 2016 Olympics. In 2006, the homosexual political movement, in partnership with corrupt Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, had brought in thousands of homosexual activists to hold the world Gay Games in Chicago.

The game plan of the international homosexual movement and Mayor Daley was to create the physical appearance in Chicago through the Gay Games that would result in selling the international Olympic Committee on the idea that Chicago was ready for a bigger event: the 2016 Olympics. At the time of the Gay Games, former homosexual James Hartline was flown into Chicago with several other prominent Christian activists like nationally-recognized Christian attorney Matt Barber and Dr. John Riggs to make a stand for truth and righteousness in the heart of Chicago's homosexual community during the Gay Games.

While Hartline, Barber and the other Christians were praying and preaching on the streets of Chicago's gay community (known as Boys Town) hundreds of homosexual activists surrounded them and threatened them with death. Scores of Chicago police officers were brought in to surround Hartline and the other Christians to protect them from repeated attempts by the violent gay groups to rush in and assault the ministry team.

The Spirit of the Lord began contending with the anti-christ spirit inside the City of Chicago from that day forward. Thus, when President Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and their armies of gay activist supporters in Boys Town attempt to square the reasons for their failure to garner an Olympic Bid for the Windy City, they had better recount the day that the Wind of the Holy Spirit was emparted into Chicago in 2006. ...

Related:
* James Hartline's steep slide into insanity
* James Hartline: San Diego is on fire because of the homos
* Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline
* Writing Like James Hartline 101