“president obama is against what just happened”

I know you’ve all discussed this already today, but some on other sites were claiming Rachel Maddow didn’t say “President Obama is against what just happened”. Well, she did:

This is seriously disappointing dishonesty from a woman as smart as Maddow. Whatever she feels about the President’s personal views on same-sex marriage, she cannot deny (but chose to ignore it last night) that he declared in February that DOMA violates the Constitution and decided that his administration would no longer defend it in the courts.

He would therefore, logically, have fully supported what happened in New York last night.

June 23, 2011 – President Obama: “I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country….That’s why we’re going to keep on fighting until the law no longer treats committed partners who’ve been together for decades like they’re strangers.

That’s why I have long believed that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ought to be repealed. It was wrong. It was unfair. And since I taught constitutional law for a while, I felt like I was in a pretty good position to agree with courts that have ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution. And that’s why we decided, with my attorney general, that we could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts.”


Truly, I never thought I’d see the day Rachel Maddow would be as dishonest as Choi & Co on this issue. Depressing.

194 Responses to ““president obama is against what just happened””

  1. June 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    I told y’all weeks ago to BOYCOTT THE MEDIA, lol. 🙄

    They don’t care about nothing but eyeballs on their channels. All the writing, complaining, e-mailing, etc., means little in comparison to TURNING. THEM. OFF. They make their money from people watching and clicking and spreading links, etc.

    These people are paid talking heads. They are newsertainers. They are paid to give their OPINIONS on what’s happening. They are what you call “content providers.” They know exactly what they are doing in getting people worked up. And I know exactly what to do to them: turn it off.

    It’s obvious: THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT WE THINK! After all this time — nothing has changed on their news reality shows. Hello!?!?!

    • 2 gc
      June 25, 2011 at 3:01 pm

      I never watch. I like TV well enough, but it’s all recorded stuff: PBS Mystery, Jeopardy, Kathy Griffin, and Stuff I Won’t Admit To 🙂

    • June 25, 2011 at 3:13 pm

      Absolutely agree with you PJ,. I turned them all off two + years ago. They are getting RICH of your angst folks. Rachel Maddow doesn’t care whether or not she’s caught in a lie.. she got paid today no matter what she said last night. And frankly if she is so brilliant- why then does she use her ‘brilliance’ as a media pundit???? To get PAID. Sorry these people are not heroes or spokesmen/women for We the People… they have their finger in the wind at all times.. and more than that.. they LOVE to make predictions and then manipulate you into fulfilling their predictions. National media is nothing more than ‘personalities’ getting very very rich and famous off of lying, spinning and manipulating the public. We have given them our power.

      • 4 GGail
        June 25, 2011 at 3:40 pm

        Very well said sherijr. And they must be put on notice by our emails, phone calls & tweets that we are taking our power back!

        • June 25, 2011 at 4:10 pm

          Agree with you GGail, although I would like to see all of us go even further and boycott all the national media .. AND their SPONSORS. This is how we change things.

      • June 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm

        That last sentence is the truth, sherijr: “We have given them our power.”

        …and our money….and our time — all while they don’t care about us…

        • June 25, 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Yep we have PJ. I believe We can get our power back if we’ve a mind to. I would suggest that all of us keep in mind how much worse the media is going to become- they will not get better on their own.. and this election is going to bring out the very worst of the worst. I would submit the ‘debate’ between Hillary and Obama via ABC as a perfect example of how atrocious things will become in this election, as to utterly filthy the media ‘pundits’ will be.

        • 8 utaustinliberal
          June 25, 2011 at 4:17 pm

          PJ, I am going to have to disagree with you. I am not for boycotting liberal stations like MSNBC or other mainstream media outlets. They may be douchebags on occasion but sometimes they do advance the cause. If we boycott them, they lose advertisements and we in turn lose a media outlet that we can spread our message. Conservatives don’t boycott their own, they instead challenge them to represent more wrong views (in my opinion). The one thing conservatives have that democrats and the PL can’t seem to get together is a consistent message. They didn’t go after President Bush, they went on the attack on everyone else and were able to ram agenda after agenda down our throats. Dems have a better agenda but they’re to chicken shit to reroute their political machinery in the right direction. I too will not tolerate anything but the best reporting with proper fact finding and truth. So I will continue to watch these shows and read articles from the PL and other avenues because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. If we shut ourselves off from what they’re constantly peddling then we do a disservice to ourselves and to others who are not as politically savvy as we are. We do a disservice in that when we cut off those newstreams we can’t flood them with tweets, emails and calls that voice our displeasure over their failure to adhere to a high standard of journalistic integrity. We should instead continue to inundate them as we have been doing because one tweet, one email, one call at a time will defintely alert them to their pissing off a powerful consumer group and hopefully change the dialogue. The ones we should boycott are those who advance the disgusting right wing agenda through news and advertisements because with the vast amount of financial backing they possess, they are way more dangerous. Take American Crossroads (Karl Rove’s group) for example and their vow to raise $20 million to flood the airwaves with negative ads of President Obama in all 50 states beginning now until election day 2012. We should endeavor to find their financial backers, flood them with emails, calls, and tweets and alert the media so they can report on such underhanded foul sportsmanship. If we had all boycotted The Rachel Maddow show, then we would not have been privvy to this outright lie she peddled last night and we would not know that we have to get on our soapbox again and flood her with our written displeasure so that she conducts better reporting. The real beast is the rightwing and I wholeheartedly support boycotting them because through boycotts we can starve that beast one show at a time. Case in point Glenn Beck who will soon be off Fox News due to sensible boycotts.

          • June 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm

            Love ya, UT, and I would agree with you….if any of our media activism had worked. They have not gotten any better. People have been outraged about Rachel on many, many, many occasions…..they watch some…..get outraged some more……email her and Tweety and Cenk……watch, get outraged some more……..they say something else stupid, people rush to the blogs in outrage……email bomb them…..watch some more….. Tweety goes off again, Rachel gives a mock “State of the Union” …… people watch and get outraged….rush to the blogs….. etc., etc., etc.

            This has been going on for almost THREE YEARS now. Hello?!?!?

            Their biggest audience probably comes from people who are perpetually outraged, lol! No power there at all.

            • 10 utaustinliberal
              June 25, 2011 at 4:47 pm

              Love ya too PJ. But remember even President Obama said this “change is never easy.” We may not see the results of our efforts in one massive character change, but as for Chris Matthews, last week when Joan Walsh (his PL friend) and another guest tried to jump on the Al Gore bandwagon and bash the President for not being more “forceful” on climate change, Chris called them out. He gave credit where credit was due: to President Obama. He defended the President on more than one episode of his show last week. Yeah he might go off the rails on occasion, but when we call him out on it, Chris pulls himself back and becomes more rational. I believe that all our efforts are not for naught and when people like Chris report the truth, we praise them with emails and when they go off the rails we voice our displeasure. One voice can change a room, a county, a city, a state, a nation and the world. So never lose hope and never give up the fight.

              • June 25, 2011 at 4:59 pm

                I’ll just have to agree to disagree 🙂 . I’ve seen targeted boycotts (even a week long) work when years of complaining did not. I think there is nothing more these talking heads fear more than not being watched. It’s the death knell.

                I don’t think Chris’ occasional lucidity is a product of our activism, more a function of his mood swings, lol!

          • 12 Keith in C-bus, Ohio
            June 27, 2011 at 5:29 am

            Newsflash: ummm…………MSNBC is not Liberal. YUK!!

      • 13 Sue in Minnesota
        June 25, 2011 at 5:19 pm

        She may be intellectually smart, but her emotional IQ is stunted. In her TV ads promoting her show she states she is not an activist. I say BS, when it comes to LGBT rights she is an activist. Which makes her a documented liar.

        I am still “smokin” from her disgraceful, insensitive and belligerent Pride and Prejudice attack Thursday night. You might think that as a woman, a gay, and a person of Jewish faith she might have some empathy, and compassion for the President, a minority, who is constantly under attack by a Jim Crow MSM. I can’t even measure how her “step n fetch” attitude towards the President disgusts me. Additionally, why can’t these people use their intelligence and creativity to elevate their political posturing. President Obama is a role model for these jackals if they would find the courage to change their “game”.

        I wish I still watched her so I could have the satisfaction of turning her off. She pissed me off with her mock address to the nation re the oil spill, and then the lead up to the repeal of DADT was emotional hysteria IMO. That was a bridge to far for me. Since, on recommendation, I have watched an occassional segment over the internet…..but never again. I am done with her…Rachel who?

        I agree that we should organize a media boycott…we would have to strive to engage a very large number of people to make an impact, but we could do it. We would also have to make sure that we had an aggregate list of reliable information sources for journalists and websites that demonstrated honesty and integrity to fill the vacuum. Cancel subscriptions, cancel cable, when you think of it, it is absurd that we pay these people to feed us this bullshit.

        I don’t remember being so whipped up about a media personality before….I told my sister I was so angry, if I saw her I’ld punch her in the face. Completely out of character for me, but that’s how frickin mad I feel about her conduct.

        • June 25, 2011 at 6:27 pm

          Hi Sue,

          Rachel Maddow is Catholic.

          I do agree we need to let the networks know about our displeasure. They only respond to profits and losses. If she does not address our concerns with an acknowledgement that she was wrong, then we should all stop watching and tell everyone we know to stop. Lawrence O’Donnell said he wants to discuss why President Obama is being held to a higher standard by the LGBT community than President Clinton was when President Clinton put these biased laws in place when he was in office.

          • 15 fig8jam
            June 25, 2011 at 6:55 pm

            O’donnell is right on this.

          • 16 Sue in Minnesota
            June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm

            My apologies, I thought she was Jewish. I appreciate the correction.

            If I am honest part of my anger is that my own expectations of her were once so high. They have been dashed, completely and totally dashed.

          • June 25, 2011 at 7:45 pm

            Excellent point about Lawrence. He is the only talking head I can stomach on a regular basis simply because he presents in a calm manner. Even if I disagree with something he says, I feel like he at least came to that conclusion in a reasonable fashion. He rejects sensationalism, and there’s a depth to him.

            Plus, his takedowns are epic. I loved his rapture broadcasts — they were golden.

        • 18 Sue in Minnesota
          June 26, 2011 at 5:18 am

          I want to to apologize for my inappropriate level of anger, I would never hit someone, including Rachel. But I would be a liar if I said I wasn’t steamed by her conduct. Friday I stayed away from politics because I was so ripped over her Pride and Prejudice nastiness (at least I thought it was extremely offensive). I cleaned house instead, and as there is good in every situation, my ire towards Rachel propelled my cleaning….my house is sparkling. So thanks for that Rachel. Again I am sorry for being inappropriate.

          Somedays my heart just bleeds for all the disrespect and crap that President Obama is subjected to, and deserves little to none of. Besides I got wind that Chips is packing heat again, her rocket launcher is a bit intimidating, so I figured I better straighten up and fly right….stat.

          • 19 Chi
            June 26, 2011 at 6:01 am

            We know your heart Sue and every single person knows well that you didn’t mean any real threat to hit…

            It all does get maddening and frustrating and it’s ok to step back every so often and even get a sparkling clean home out of it…

            I know that I’ve sometimes read some of the posts I’ve written in anger and in response to the mistreatment of this President, and I shock myself and shudder at the angry person I’m reduced to…

            We will all continue to strive to do and be better…

            But there’s no disputing that you are an intrinsically good and lovely human being…

  2. 20 gc
    June 25, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    We do Three Strikes in the classroom. One:” TALKMEDOWN!!!”

    ……and she’s…. OUT!

    Bur seriously, I really wanted to like her. I was so pleased at her hiring. Oh well….

  3. 21 GGail
    June 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    If we wait and watch long enough…people reveal their true selves. So Sad Rachel. 😦

  4. June 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Take it away Mr Lincoln:

    “These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.”

  5. June 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    But why? Why is she lying? What is her agenda?

    • 24 Doris
      June 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      I don’t think her problem is agenda Jovie, but ideology.

      • 25 hopefruit2
        June 25, 2011 at 3:30 pm

        Her ideology is that it’s okay to lie about somebody? I think it’s more than ideology. I have reason to suspect that many of these pundits may have been threatened by the powers that be at their respective networks, that if Obama gets re-elected, they will be fired. Therefore, it’s in their best interest to give only opinions, analyses, and reports that undermine this president as much as possible – facts be damned. Rachel’s propping of Michael Steele and her gushing over that NY Republican senator who voted for the bill – tells me that she’s following her orders to toe the GOP line. That is the MO of FOX NEWS, and that is also the MO of the other “News” corps

        • 26 Doris
          June 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm

          I agree in one sense, but disagree in another. I want to say more in regards to her sexual preference, but cannot because some might be offended. So I will stick with what I said and hope you can read between the lines. I will say though, that she is defending who she is and her community and there are no bounds when one is on this course. But, that my humble opinion, not trying to make it yours.

          • 27 Anya
            June 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm

            “her sexual preference”, I think you meant to say her sexual orientation. Just because Rachel did something stupid and dishonest, does not mean we need to sound like Michele Bachmann.

          • 29 northanger
            June 25, 2011 at 4:10 pm

            Doris meant no disrespect. But like today I’ve had it up to here today with folks going off on their passionate issue and me not saying much about mine. And believe me, President Obama is getting all kinds of stuff laid on him on that particular issue.

          • 32 fig8jam
            June 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm

            **** deleted ****

        • 33 fig8jam
          June 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm

          ***** deleted ****

          • 34 Doris
            June 25, 2011 at 5:27 pm

            EXACTLY. Thank you, well said.

          • 35 hopefruit2
            June 25, 2011 at 5:32 pm

            fig8jam I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Narcissm affects all kinds of people and doesn’t select based on race, color creed or sexual orientation.

            There are gay people who absolutely admire and respect this President and fully understand what he has accomplished for the LGBT community. But we just don’t see or hear them, because as you said, they are not being given platforms in the media. In fact I would venture to say that the majority of the LGBT community support our President, which is why the Republican-supporting media is pushing an all out effort to erode some of that support. I’ve noticed the same thing with other segments of the President’s base, like Blacks, Latinos and women and youth.

          • 36 utaustinliberal
            June 25, 2011 at 5:38 pm

            I’m going to have to disagree with you fig8jam. It is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation. I may not be gay but I wouldn’t be so cavalier with the correct wording. As for your statement, “Rachel loves this soapbox… because she has the complex of many who are same gender loving… incredibly narcissitic.” I think this is grossly unfair to members of the LGBT community. Just because Rachel acts out of sorts does not mean you should paint all LGBT people with the same broad brush. As a black person, if a major black figure spoke out of sorts on a national platform, I wouldn’t want anyone tarring me with the same narrow mind set you just used just because my skin color happens to resemble that of said major black figure.

            As for your other statement “gay issues should not be on any channel or major media program when this nation has significant problems with the economy [and] is embroiled in 2 wars, crumbling nation[al] infrastructure and a political party that is willing to destroy the democracy” is quite unfair in my opinion. Gay people vote, pay taxes and contribute to our society; so why shouldn’t their issues be represented? Are they not part of the fabric that is America? As a college student, I know the economy was in shambles and is rebuilding, but I want topics such as education, climate change, corruption in our political system, race issues, equal pay for equal work for women and a host of other issues covered in the mainstream media. We are a diverse nation and all issues should be equally represented.

            • 37 hopefruit2
              June 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm

              Well said utaustin. I think we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be pitted against each other – that is the work of the corporate MSM that uses a few well-paid “representatives” from various groups to do their dirty work. But we won’t be distracted. I’m happy for the LGBT of NY, just as I will be happy for the Latino community if and when the DREAM Act passes in congress.

            • 38 fig8jam
              June 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm

              ***** deleted *****

              • 39 utaustinliberal
                June 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm

                Once again Fig8jam you’re barking up the wrong tree.

                1. It is a sexual orientation, not a sexual prefernce. Sexuality may occur on a specturm but people do not wake up one morning and choose to be gay, straight, transgender or bisexual. It is who they are and how they were born. To imply otherwise, is to look at the issue with fog covered glasses.

                2. You do not know how many millions of people are LGBT. Just because there is no official number or they appear to be labeled a minority does not mean their issue doesn’t impact 98% of the nation. Millions of us aren’t gay but the gay rights issues should affect each and everyone because we are human beings first of all.

                3. Gay people are not 2% of the population. When blacks, women and other minorities were fighting for their rights, I’m sure people wanted to dismiss their issue by regarding them as an inconsequential 2%. Well even if they were, their issues mattered then and it matters now.

                4. Of course we know not all issues get microscopic coverage like the gay rights issue; but that could be said of any other issue out there. If you have a problem with the news coverage, take it up with the producers and hosts who run said shows not with gay people. Once again need I remind you that gay people pay taxes, vote and contribute to the fabric of America and they should never be cavalierly denigrated just because their issue happens to be on the front pages for now.

                • 40 fig8jam
                  June 25, 2011 at 6:34 pm

                  **** deleted ****

                  • 41 utaustinliberal
                    June 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm

                    Once again it’s people like you with narrow minded view points that always try to take this country two steps backward when we move two steps forward. You may quote all the scientific and psychological psycho babble about sexual preference. Once again it is not a preference, it is a sexual orientation. Gay people do not choose to be gay just like straight people do not choose to be straight. We’re born the way we are. You may want to dismiss them as an inconsequential sect of society but thank goodness there are others in this world who are more tolerant. I wonder if you were gay and someone was trying to dismiss your cause, your issue and your very self as trivial just because he/she is frustrated with one person in the news. I wonder if you were gay and some ignorant person walked up to you and quoted pseudo scientific and medical nonsense mumbo jumbo to try and tell you that who you are is a choice. I wonder if you were gay and some ignorant person walked up to you and told you to shut up; they are tired of seeing your issue in newspapers and on TV because he/she feels your’re an inconsequential 2% and therefore should be cast aside like yesterdays trash. Let’s see how calm and accepting you would be then.

            • June 25, 2011 at 6:05 pm

              What a brilliant response UT. I loathe the Choi wing of the LGBT movement, but true liberals just can’t allow him or his cheerleaders weaken their support for what is an issue about equality – that’s exactly what they want. They need division and ill-will, it’s the only atmosphere in which they can thrive and the only way they can extend their 15 minutes of fame.

            • 43 Chi
              June 26, 2011 at 4:46 am

              Spot on…

              For someone so young UTaustinliberal, you are absolutely spectacular and I’m so proud of you…

          • 44 Anya
            June 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm

            I absolutely disagree with you. Gay rights, are human rights and they should be addressed. Bigotry against gays should be challenged. It’s like saying we should not talk about racism because the country is going through economic challenges. We can address and talk about all the issues that are effecting our fellow citizens without hysteria or bidding one group against another.

            Blaming the gay community for the idiotic comments, unstable publicity seekers like Dan Choi say, is like hating on African Americans because Tavis Smiley or all the nonsense other POTUS detractors who happen to be black say.

            • 45 fig8jam
              June 25, 2011 at 5:55 pm

              As Colin Powell said. Race is not a behavior.

              • June 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm

                Oh come on fig8jam, neither is being gay.

                • 47 Anya
                  June 25, 2011 at 7:56 pm

                  Chipstics, would you have mildly rebuked fig8jam, if his venom against someone was based on skin color, religion or nationality? Many times, you’ve made the point that people come to this blog to scape the fighting and the nastiness of some other blogs, so why is this poster allowed to spread his hatred towards our LGBT brothers and sisters? Knowing President Obama’s values, I think he would not want a supporter like fig8jam.

                  • June 25, 2011 at 8:17 pm

                    That’s a fair point Anya, I completely accept it. I’m in the middle of writing a post on this very issue, I’ll have it up in 10 minutes or so, and I’m deleting all of fig8jam’s offensive posts from today – I don’t want that bigotry here. I should have acted earlier, I apologize for that. Thanks Anya.

                    • 49 utaustinliberal
                      June 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm

                      Thank you for deleting fig8jam’s offensive posts today Chipsticks. I commented on what he/she wrote before I saw Anya’s first post in response to fig8jam. I may not be gay, but i would never callously say one is gay by choice as if he/she woke up one morning and chose to be gay. We’re all born straight or LGBT and NO ONE should be made to feel like a second class citizen because of his or her race, gender and sexual orientation.

                      I’m sorry that you were egregiously offended Anya and trust me Chipsticks will always and forever NEVER tolerate comments that are hurtful to members of this diverse, peaceful and welcoming community. I hope you continue to visit as your voice is welcome here. 🙂

                    • 50 Anya
                      June 25, 2011 at 9:05 pm

                      Thank you, Chipsticks! You rock!

                      I read this blog at least twice a day. I check here regularly because of the positive and encouraging messages about our President and for our cause, and let’s face it, for the pretty pictures. I really appreciate the work you do, and I don’t want this “little slice of heaven” — as many refer to it, to be polluted by negativity.

                    • 51 GGail
                      June 25, 2011 at 9:06 pm

                      Oh Chipsticks, thank you for Finally stepping in! That person was so vile!

            • 52 N
              June 25, 2011 at 6:00 pm

              so true!

              I think it’s great that Rachel Maddow speaks up for the LGBT community. We should encourage her to stick to the facts.

            • 53 Chi
              June 26, 2011 at 5:03 am

              Anya, It is important to note that Fig8jam is not a supporter of President Obama’s, rather he/she has only recently started commenting on this site and mostly to push for Jon Huntsman…

              • 54 Sue in Minnesota
                June 26, 2011 at 2:59 pm

                Chi thanks for calling that out. I entangled with the same Fig8jam a while back on a post with respect to Hunstman. They seemed to be collecting “intelligence” if you will, not to support President Obama, but to better formulate strategies that Huntsman could use in opposition to PBO. The No Labels group is a nonstarter for me, if for no other reason, Lynn de Rothschild’s involvement in the group. Mark McKinnon tugs on my instincts, something hinky about him that I don’t find trustworthy. My opinions of Huntsman are reflected perfectly by the term ” Koch-roach” coined brilliantly by StR , IMO it says all that needs to be said about Huntsman.

                I failed to make the association between Fig8jam and recent past history while commenting yesterday. But really early this morning a light went of in my head….Oprah calls is an Aha moment, my moment was more like, Oh Shit ! I do think you are right about Fig8jam’s allegiance, I am a card carrying Obama-bot, to the bone. I’ve learned a lesson here.

                • 55 Sue in Minnesota
                  June 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm

                  …a light went off in my head……also, Oprah calls it an Aha moment

                  I’m dangerously close to that old addage…lights on but nobody’s home! Like walking and chewing gum at the same time, my thinking and typing could stand some coordination.

      • June 25, 2011 at 3:53 pm

        I’m not exactly sure where you’re coming from, Doris ( 🙂 ), but I will definitely agree that with Rachel, ideology plays a big role (I think $$$$ plays a substantial role, perhaps the biggest role, but that’s another issue).

        You can tell when you’re dealing with an ideologue because they can’t acknowledge progress or pragmaticism. It’s all-or-nothing, black-or-white, my-way-or-the-highway, I want it NOW.

        Also, you notice the ideologues are particularly threatened when people they believe SHOULD agree with their approach show signs of not doing so. So, the President holds a very successful, very joyous LGBT fundraiser the other night where you had LGBT supporters showed him love, and gave money — this is enough to set the purists completely off. The rhetoric then gets ramped up until outright lies are spewed. It is a personal affront to an ideologue when others don’t see the world the way they see it.

        They poo-poo the many accomplishments of this Administration (more than any other in history) re: LGBT issues and elevate one to paramount importance, then insist that everyone else do the exact same thing. I think the fundraising love was a big slap in the face to people like Rachel and Choi, and they reacted predictably.

    • 63 fig8jam
      June 25, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      **** deleted ****

      • 64 Doris
        June 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm

        Shut the front door! 😀

        • 65 utaustinliberal
          June 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm

          Fig8jam, once again I have to respectfully disagree with you and correct you. I may not be gay but there are many diverse people who come to TOD to read articles and comments. Some of them are gay. They may not comment, but I don’t believe they would be happy with you using the term “gayness” or “gayness issues.” I understand that we’re all mad at Rachel and rightfully so, but please don’t use terms such as “gayness or gayness issues” that refer to homosexuals in such a cavalier and nonchalant manner. You have the right to express your anger, but please use correct, proper and respectful terms.

      • 67 hopefruit2
        June 25, 2011 at 5:56 pm

        Rachel’s being gay has nothng to do with her attitude. What about HuffnPuff, Cenk, Jane Hamsher, and the rest of the PL who constantly lie about the President? The one thing they all have in common is that they are being paid hefty salaries to toe a particular line – which happens to be that of their corporate sponsors in the cable news networks. They are willing to push integrity aside to stuff their wallets, and if it means undermining the Democratic President who can actually help the causes that they supposedly represent – then so be it.

        • 68 utaustinliberal
          June 25, 2011 at 6:30 pm

          Brilliant commentary hopefruit2. This is what fig8jam does not seem to understand. Rachel’s being gay has nothing to do with her attitude. Her attitude was present in her superficial response to President Obama’s handling of the BP Oil Spill. Her attitude was present in her superficial response to President Obama’s Afghanistan Policy Speech. When Arianna spews crap about the President, no one accuses her of spewing crap because she’s Greek. When Jane Hamsher spews crap about President Obama, no one accuses her of spewing crap because she’s White. In that same vein why should fig8jam say that she’s lying and her attitude is because she’s gay. That’s reducing the issue to a trivial plane.

          • 69 fig8jam
            June 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm

            **** deleted ****

            • 70 utaustinliberal
              June 25, 2011 at 6:59 pm

              You know what? Whatever Fig8jam. Let’s agree to disagree because I’m tired of trying to enlighten you to stop viewing the issue through narrow mindedness and fog covered glasses. Gay people have enough to deal with, without you giving them any more grief. Frankly it’s like beating my head against a rock.

  6. June 25, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    If they really cared about what supporters of the President think, they would:

    1) Be ruthless about calling out the gop obstructionists, and democratic weaklings — relentlessly calling them out;

    2) Throw us Obama supporters a bone every now and then — anything that gave him credit without simultaneously tearing him down — ANYTHING at all, with a smile on their face (like they so willing give to any crumbs the gop throws them) — ANYTHING at all;

    3) Feature REAL AMERICANS — not PL talking heads, not their buddies in the media, not the same old panels, not the same spineless politicians, not insane tea party fools — but REAL AMERICANS from a cross-section of society who are dealing with REAL ISSUES and just may have something to add to the discussion;

    4) They would show the ability to trace a problem to its ROOTS, and do REAL RESEARCH about the genesis of the problem, instead of going off half-cocked on the only people who are providing any type of solution/progress. These newsertainers act like everything that is wrong popped up over the last two and a half years — they’re idiotic and can only see as far as the nose on their faces…..

    These are just a few of the things these so-called “liberal,” “progressive” media voices could do if they cared about supporters of President Obama. BUT THEY DON’T CARE — it’s more lucrative (follow the money, people $$$$) to bash from the left than to present clear, balanced, truthful reporting.

    But again: BE CLEAR — these are Opinion Givers, not true journalists — they have hours to fill, so they’re just talking out of their asses most of the time. They don’t deal in facts and truth – they deal in sensationalism and opinion. Two completely different worlds.

    This is NEWSERTAINMENT — nothing more, nothing less.

  7. 73 northanger
    June 25, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Rachel, honey, give it a break. President Obama “killed” spaceflight and that’s way more “devastating“.

  8. 74 northanger
    June 25, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Honestly, Rachel is Marianne to my Elinor…

  9. 75 hopefruit2
    June 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    I used to like and respect Rachel Maddow – even when I disagreed with her. But in the last 12 months or so something changed. It started with her fake Presidential speech after President Obama gave the update on the Gulf oil spill. Then her Michael Steele fetish began to wear on me. Then a series of other events like her obsession with the Weiner incident and willingness to blame the President because he responded to a question that was asked of him.

    And as for yesterday’s vote, for those short-sighted uninformed individuals who use this opportunity to take cheaps shots at the President for “not being a leader” or “not being a fierce advocate,” they don’t really understand how politics, activism and advocacy differ from each other but are nonetheless delicately interwined. The President’s role is not that of open activism in one state, but behind the scenes operations. Similarly, the NY governor, senators, and NYC mayor have all served their respective roles and can openly advocate with little to no political sacrifice since they are elected for that one “blue” state.

    I’m sure PBO knew fully well that if he were out there taking the role of an LGBT “activist” in NY, they would not have gotten a single Republican to join them last night – thus resulting in a failed vote. Not only that but the President has worked very hard, in fact putting spending political capital by going against NY’s first Black governor (David Patterson) in order to pave the way for Cuomo to be the DEM nominee. The President also threw his weight fully behind Gillibrand once Kennedy dropped out. This President has been LEADING from the time he endorsed both of these candidates – when the progressive community doubted them. Some progressives, including HuffnPuff were outraged that the President had the audacity to suggest that the Dem party would be better off with Cuomo on the NY gubernatorial ticket. At that time, Cuomo was dismissed as another “pal” of the President – another typical Wall Street establishment Democrat. The NY Daily News scornfully referred to the President as “meddler-in-Chief” and his relationship with Andrew Cuomo a “bromance.” Gillibrand too, was once dubbed a “Blue dog” by certain progressives.

    • 76 Betsy
      June 25, 2011 at 4:15 pm

      I hope you don’t mind, but I quoted you when I sent an email to Rachel. You wrote perfectly what I was thinking.

    • 77 busbus
      June 25, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Bravo! How astute you are.

      “I’m sure PBO knew fully well that if he were out there taking the role of an LGBT “activist” in NY,
      they would not have gotten a single Republican to join them last night – thus resulting in a failed vote.”

      One thing we know for sure – President Obama is not a stupid politician! He knows how to play the game, as he continues to evolve on this issue!

      • 78 Sue in Minnesota
        June 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm

        He is a smarter politician than all of them lumped together. I think Rachel thinks she is his equal, intellectually and politically…..sorry to say Rachel…NOT!

    • 79 a night owl
      June 25, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Everything I know about politics, I learned from “The West Wing.” 😉

      From episode “20 hours in LA,” President Bartlet talks about being a human starting gun:

      • 80 fig8jam
        June 25, 2011 at 5:24 pm

        Excellent night owl!!
        Great capsulizing of the issue

        adolescent temper tantrum vs. professional politician!!!

        • 81 a night owl
          June 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm

          Actually, that was the one part in this clip where I winced. Because in that moment, Bartlet was being arrogant and patronizing, and the “Ted Marcus” character showed great restraint in keeping his cool.

  10. 82 Betty's Girl
    June 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    I’m officially done with Rachel as well. I tried not to let her bias get to me because I do enjoy some of the other stories she’s done like with the Philadephia State congressman discussing gun laws on the inner city. I was so impressed because no one in mainstream media is doing such interesting and informative news such as that. I appreciate how she asked why the Democratic party has allowed this to happened to a base that votes solidly for it. For a while I beleived this is what she and many other PL was sttempting to do…to bring the Dems back to the left. Now, I can see how she has become dangerous to a very important election that will great affect people like me and my family. I come to see how they pumped up the people of Wisconsin and then basically drop the subject (especially Ed who suppose to care so much). Now they keep saying Walker won. Who wants to hear that. They are supposed to help push ideas and story to keep the flame going. They are losers and very destructive just as the RW is the the Repubs.

  11. 83 AJ
    June 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    If Rachel’s over-the-topness manages to convince a few independents that PBO isn’t a raging lefty, then I can live with her hysterics, at least for now. I don’t believe she has nefarious movites; as others have stated, she’s on a mission.

    And she’s making PBO and the rest of us look pretty reasonable by comparison.

    By the way, three great big cheers for New York!! Well done, ladies and gentlemen!!

    • 84 AJ
      June 25, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      uhm…that’s “motives”, not movites. Due to the endearing hicups of my computer, I can’t see what I’m typing until I hightlight it or post it. Ah well… 😉

    • 85 hopefruit2
      June 25, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      Truth be told AJ, President Obama’s name didn’t even have to be dragged in this issue. This was a bipartisian vote in NY – with NY legislators, not President Obama. And a few REPUBLICANS also voted in favor – which suggested that this wasn’t a “raging lefty” issue.

      So, it’s very unlikely that Maddow’s motives were anything other than to attack the President as being “anti-gay.” That’s the only conclusion I can come up with at this point.

      • 86 fig8jam
        June 25, 2011 at 5:27 pm

        I agree hopefruit2.
        This was deliberate with forethought and malice.
        President Obama had nothing to do with Rachel wanting to rant against him. She disgusts me.

  12. 87 louc1
    June 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    When people let you know who they are – you should believe them and she has let us know so many times before. Remember her re- doing of the Oval Office speech on the Oil Spill when she told the President what he should have said. I was done then!
    I sent her an email today – really don’t care whether she reads them or not – she and her people will know we are here and we have our POTUS Back always!!!!!

  13. 89 Fred
    June 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Like I wrote to her;she aught to not discuss the topic of gay marriage because this is way to close to her.She cannot act like a fair-minded journalist that she should be instead of the angry;impatient;petulant;disrespecting;delusional liar that she’s become.

    • 90 Sue in Minnesota
      June 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm

      In a interview, when asked if the law supported gay marriage would she and her partner tie the knot, she was ambivalent. She didn’t think so, it wasn’t something she entertained. I understand the issue is bigger than her personal circumstances, and everyone is not the marrying type – I absolutely am not – but I still found it interesting.

      • 91 fig8jam
        June 25, 2011 at 5:39 pm

        **** delete ****

        • 92 Sue in Minnesota
          June 25, 2011 at 8:09 pm

          I half agree with your first statement. But it is not conditioned on her personal decisions regarding marriage. I respect the institutuion of marriage, I just don’t personally want to get married. She evidently feels the same way. But I would like to see those that want to get married gay or straight be treated equally under the law.

          But I completely agree with you that she is wrong headed not to consider that POTUS’s commitment , and the consequences of his actions ,
          are far bigger than her own.

  14. 93 lochelle
    June 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I was going to write a bit of a rant here but I have decided to e-mail this comment to Maddow and MSNBC (hope it sounds ok):

    Really??!! President Obama is against the NY same-sex marriage law because his personal views are not in line with your personal views???!! Hate to break it to you, a lot of people can have personal beliefs but are able to put these beliefs into proper context when you are talking about impact on the greater good. For example, I personally would not have an abortion but I am able to separate my personal belief from what is right for the rest of society, which is the right to choose. Freedom of choice is one of the basic tenets in our country and it is important that decisions are made to protect our basic rights and our DEMOCRACY. The President is not gay and may not be able to relate 100% to all issues within the LGTB community but President Obama is a pragmatist (and more importantly a good human being) so he understands the importance of promoting equality for all. He acted on this belief (as he promised), giving great support to the LGTB community since he has been in office – there are number of sites which lists his accomplishements on the behalf of LGTB community. Instead of acting with celebration about New York’s historic same-sex marriage law, you decide to bite at the one of the most visible people trying to make a difference how the LGTB community is treated in this country. Since there are only 6 states with same-sex marriage laws, you and others should now be advocating in the remaining states so they can do the same. I guess that would be too much work and it is easier to scream from the nosebleed seats that familiar refrain “OBAMA HAS NOT DONE A DAMN THING”. I am wondering whether you have a personal problem with PBO because your behavior as of late (i.e. the Weiner Rant) is beyond logical. On the other hand, the whole cable punditry clique does not make sense to me – just a bunch of self serving, ratings driven folk saying “look at me all the time.” I have no patience with this because it does not serve the American people very well. I hope you take a long hard look at some of your comments and realize that we have a President that advocates for ALL Americans and genuinely leads despite the laziness, pettiness, nastiness, hatefulness, and general meanness of some.

    • June 25, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      I like what you wrote lochelle, very well said imo 🙂

    • June 25, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      That’s a very very good mail. I hope she was swamped today.

    • 96 northanger
      June 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm

      You did good, lochelle. Years ago a young girl at the black college down the street from our house put her newly born baby in the dorm dumpster. When I heard about it I walked up the street and looked at that dumpster to remind myself of that child. I would never want to have or need an abortion. But it was then that I knew a woman needed choices.

      I think you did a great job explaining the difference between personal belief and democratic principles.

    • 97 GGail
      June 25, 2011 at 5:06 pm

      Excellent email lochelle!

    • 98 Sue in Minnesota
      June 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm

      Standing Ovation! Take a bow : D

    • 100 lochelle
      June 25, 2011 at 9:44 pm

      Thanks for feedback, sherijr, BWD, northanger, GGail, Sue and Kasai. I hope she and her staff are drowning in comments forcing her to address this on Monday.

  15. 101 brezzydee
    June 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Rachel is wrong again. She needs to retract her statement. President Obama always have said he was for civil unions, but he believed the (word) marriage was between a man and a woman. He said it at Rick Warrens church during the campaign.

    He have took the hits for all the opportunities and bills he have passed and used executive orders to help the gay and lesbian and transgender community. Some of these people are so ungrateful and just plain stupid it’s making me sick. And I am beginning to think I should just step back from helping with their cause. Because I never want to get to the place where I don’t care about other people or minorities needs, or discrimination.

    Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats need to stop, and think. What other President would do as much for their causes as President Obama has? None. And that’s a fact. I hope and pray, he and Michelle don’t get fed up with some of these people and refuse to run for another term. That can happen you know. Because if he don’t run. Then we all are up a creek without a paddle. It would be a sad day for America.

    • 102 fig8jam
      June 25, 2011 at 6:05 pm

      I would love to see a retraction.

    • 103 EDP4BHO
      June 25, 2011 at 10:26 pm

      Personally, I would not mind if he did call it quits at this moment. I am tired of him being treated like some shoe-shine boy instead of the immensely talented and intelligent person God made him. I also would not mind seeing some people suffer as a result, that is, those who decide he isn’t strong enough, or liberal enough, or isn’t something or other. As for suffering, I belong to people who have suffered, but know how to survive. Would it really be any different if he were not our President, if where buttholes elected rethug governors and congresscritters who are, as we speak, making a mockery of our so-called democratic government by defunding necessary medical aid to low income women, by slashing budgets for education and instead increasing monies for prison? By stymiing every progressive cause PBO has championed and put into law such as financial regulation, health care reform, infrastructure enhancement? By maligning so-called minorities’ rights such as requiring voter ID’s where this stipulation was not so important in 2004? These evils are happening as we speak, despite the best efforts of PBO. I will do whatever I can to help him win re-election, but I can’t help but wonder what peace he might enjoy were he to become once again, just Malia and Sasha’s daddy. And to save him from more grey hairs, or no hair, while he is still young enough to really enjoy his family and his freedom. I really care about him as if he were a member of my own family.

      • 104 Sue in Minnesota
        June 26, 2011 at 2:20 pm

        EDP4BHO, our hearts are in the same place. And yet part of me says keep pushing. I remind myself that President Obama is made out of a far more tenacious cloth than I. I doubt he would continue to allow himself to be the target of such despicable treatment if he didn’t know that in the balance the good far outweighed the bad. I think because he belongs to people who have suffered, he is precisely the person that is best prepared to move the mountains that need to be moved. But like you my heart aches, not just for he and his family , and trust me that is a mighty ache, but for all in our American family who have been affected by the America’s imperfect rationing of equality. As a white person, I find it both abhorrent and justifiably shameful.

        Let’s keep shining the light, I think President Obama would both ask that of us, and appreciate the full measure of our efforts.


  16. 105 Kasai
    June 25, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Bravo Lochelle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well stated, she should receive thousand and thousand of emails such as yours, that would crash her server.

    We can make it happen….Maybe we can ask her to do a “Debunktion Junction” on herself

    • 106 lochelle
      June 25, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      Kasai – Normally, I try not to give these pundits too much attention but it is hard to ignore the PL right now since they have seemingly lost their minds over the last few weeks. I don’t watch cable ‘news’ at all but I keep up thru various blogs and videos. The Weiner stupidity got under my skin but this blatant and deliberate misinterpretation of the President’s views and record by people who claim to be Democrats is just disgraceful and somehow they must be held accountable this nonsense. Let’s hope the server does crash ….

  17. 107 Blue
    June 25, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Something didn’t feel right last year, when Rachel was showing and has given the strategy to Republicans, on how to beat the Democrats! Now, her new love is Jon Huntsman! She think we are stupid, not to see what she’s really doing,http://theobamadiary.com/2011/06/25/president-obama-is-against-what-just-happened/#comment-form-load-service:Facebook and it stinks!

    • 108 Ladyhawke
      June 25, 2011 at 5:43 pm

      Jon Huntsman is her new love?? You have got to be kidding me. Jonathan Capehart wrote an article the other day that said this about Jon Huntsman:


      When asked about marriage equality, Huntsman is forthright. He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He told the folks on “Morning Joe” yesterday that it would be “impossible” to change the definition of marriage to include loving and committed same-sex couples and that he wouldn’t be in favor of such a change. In the same breath, however, Huntsman expresses support for civil unions. This puts him in a very lonely place in the Republican field for president. But it’s how he says it that irks me.

      “But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights,” Huntsman said. You catch that? “Just subordinate to marriage”? He repeats that line every time he’s asked the question. The first time I heard it was during an interview with George Stephanopoulos last month. And it’s bothered me ever since. You can’t get to equality if you’re pushing a “subordinate” institution.


      • 109 africa
        June 25, 2011 at 11:50 pm

        Thanks. I will send this to her tomorrow. I sent her along with all her colleagues and her boss, as well as others in my e-mail. I already sent them one today. Good catch.

  18. 110 linda
    June 25, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Thanks for calling her out on this. Personally, I am tired of her and rarely watch.. She takes forever to get to the point. I feel like I am being lectured all the time. By the time she gets to the guest , we already know all about it, then she needs to ask whoever is there if she explained it ok…

    Yuk to Rachel….

    BTW same sex marriage was passed in Mass in 2004, yet she remains single.

    • 111 Fred
      June 25, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      well you’d think dear ol Rach would be in line bright and early with the Missus to marry despite the President being “against” it 🙄

      Imho it tells us more about Maddow than anything else that so far she hasn’t married her unless she isn’t the marrying type despite raging against the President.Same could be said about Dan Choi too;he’s got 6 States now to pick and choise and he sure as hell doesn’t need the President’s approval

      I mean ffs 🙄

      • 112 Fred
        June 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm

        meant to say pick and chose 🙄

      • 113 fig8jam
        June 25, 2011 at 6:09 pm

        Sounds to me like she is riding the Potus’ appendage about something she doesn’t even believe in personally.

        Imagine that…a progressive once again trying to hold this President accountable for something they lack the personal conviction and courage to do themselves.

        The irony of such despicable behavior.

  19. 114 Uche
    June 25, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    I was watching live when she made that statement…and felt the same shock you all do. It was rather unfortunate and quite extraordinarily uneducated,coming from someone like Rachel.
    I have always wondered about the literal application of the cliche: ‘to cut off one’s nose to spite the face’…..it’s not a nice picture to imagine,but that’s exactly what came to my mind when she said that last night.

    Rachel,Rachel,Rachel…..do you really believe that this bill would have been passed by the NY senate had President Obama come out 2 days earlier during his LGBT fund-raiser ,in support of same-sex marriage?. If you answer in the affirmative,then you are not only deluded,but are really not as smart as I thought you were. It is extreme political naivete on your part, blinded by obvious personal considerations,not to understand that that would have rallied the GOP establishment to apply excruciating pressure on those senators,so they could hand the President a failure – just to gain some political advantage. You forget that the GOP default position on any issue is usually opposition to anything the President supports – even if it’s something they all ordinarily support.
    This was the same arguement made by some of your ilk just a couple of months ago during the Gov.Walker v Labour Unions debacle in Wisconsin….they literarily wanted the President to come down and walk the picket lines with them!
    Only just last week,I watched with amusement all these Johnny-come-lately champions of everything LGBT,throw their tantrums with childish petulence at the netroots nation conference.
    Where were you during the 8 years of GWB?. How many of you chained themselves to the WH fence when WJC signed DADT into law?. Thankfully you guys are an inconsequential minority, albeit a noisy one, because I know majority of the LGBT community are very reasonable and do realize on which side their bread is buttered.
    It is irrefutable fact that in only two and half years BHO has done more to advance gay rights issues than all his predecessors combined.

    I frankly do not have any problem with liberal/progressive show hosts and pundits putting pressure on the President for causes they feel very passionately about – in fact, he himself demands it!. However on this particular issue Rachel, you of all people should know better.
    A President who supports same-sex civil unions, who has approved same visitation rights straight folks take for granted to same-sex couples, who has repealed DADT and whose views on marriage equality are according to him ‘evolving’, should be commended and supported and not villified.
    You go out of your way to treat the President the same way right wing baggers do……and this is where my grouse lies really. No conservative pundit or show host will ever do to a sitting Republican President what you guys are doing to a sitting Democratic President.

    You and a handful of your colleagues who think you are championing gay rights and progressive issues are actually hurting more than helping the cause with your over-the-top, unnecessary and mostly unfounded rhetoric. I must be fair to you though in the sense that you do your due diligence with indepth research and bring a certain pragmatic and analytical skill to the discourse on many non-gay issues, but you do tend to lose all sense of history,perspective,nuance and I dare say,sometimes objectivity when you start discussing gay issues. At those times,you’re no longer dispassionate,but look at everything from a rather simple,narrow and myopic prism.

    We’re not scared of you lot, because we know the President is a master of this game. Remember Rachel….he was a politician before he became President. There is no need listing all the political heaviy-weights who have wilted under his onslaught….you know their names!.
    The fight for 2012 has already started – and it is being waged at that level where none of you have any influence…the grassroots!. Victory will be ours, not because of what you talking heads do,but in spite of.

    • 115 utaustinliberal
      June 25, 2011 at 4:36 pm

      Wow Uche great comment. It expressed everything I feel so eloquently. May I please email this to Rachel. She has got to read this comment. It’s an adult, sane rebuttal to her off the rails insane commentary last night. 🙂

    • 118 GGail
      June 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      I like what you said here Uche; “The fight for 2012 has already started – and it is being waged at that level where none of you have any influence…the grassroots!. Victory will be ours, not because of what you talking heads do,but in spite of.” That’s speaking the truth!!

    • 119 Doris
      June 25, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      Hot damn!

    • 120 Sue in Minnesota
      June 25, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      Another standing ovation …Woot woot 😀

      Some seriously good writers on this website, I feel smarter for being in your midst. Thanks!

  20. 121 Tracy
    June 25, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Wonderful letters all. Meanwhile this controversy (like Weiner before it) from real issues such as GOP economic sabotage, blocking any consideration of increasing revenues in debt limit talks, need for jobs program, etc.

    • 122 Kasai
      June 25, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Wow…Uchi Beautiful letter indeed….this should be posted everywhere, I am with you Austin…She needs to read it.

  21. June 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    Power in good change is with the people who have a passion for what their President is trying to accomplish. I wrote Rachel a letter also. There is power in the masses for what is right. She lied on the President last night. Now that is the truth, as I heard it.

  22. 124 Debra
    June 25, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Ever since Rachel Maddow went on the Anthony Weiner I have to defend him tirade my husband and I have stopped watching her totally. We used to think she would at least have her facts straight but that is no longer the case.

  23. 126 Elaine Strange
    June 25, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    for all those wondering why rachel made those remarks let me tell you what I think the reason is. I think rachel wants the president to validate her, make her feel better about herself what other reason would she make such a statement.
    when the civil rights bill was passed, I didn’t care if the president believed in it or not, all I cared about was that we as AA finally had our rights and thats all that mattered to me. Listening to rachel last night opened my eyes, she really doesn’t feel that good about herself and she wants him to say it’s OK so that she will feel better. The same can be said for Choi, he left the military because of dodt, but he went in knowing the rules and he joined anyway, going against his own orientation but somehow Obama must be on the same page as him or somehow he is a hypocrite. These are some of the people in gay community who really are not comfortable with themselves, so they need everyone else to make them feel better.

    • 127 hopefruit2
      June 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm

      You may have a point here Elaine. Apparently Maddow cannot be happy for the LGBT commmunity in NY because the President hasn’t whispered the magic words directly in her ears. It seems that folks need this President to personally validate everything they do or say, or else. They do remind me of that infant who couldn’t stop crying until the President held her and rocked her. I don’t recall that much demands on previous presidents. Even the Tea folk need this President’s undivided attention. That’s why at the Republican Leadership Convention they had to have Reggie Brown (Obama impersonator) so simulate the President giving them love and attention. They need to feel that he’s around them and they are in his face nonstop. When that pastor theatened to burn the Korans, he insisted that the only way he would not proceed was if he got a personal call from the President telling him not to do so. Why did he need the President to call him about this? The media always wants the President’s input on every stupid little issue–if someone slips on a banana peel on the sidewalk, they want to know what President Obama thinks about it.


      • June 25, 2011 at 9:00 pm

        hopefruit2, for a moment I thought I was the only one feeling this way. Everyone seems to need attention from the President and I tell you it is sick. If they could follow him to the bathroom they would.

    • 129 fig8jam
      June 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm

      **** deleted ****

      • 130 Sue in Minnesota
        June 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm

        Elaine that’s why I thought StR was so off the rails in his/her comments Thursday night. Human sexuality is complex, self esteem and self acceptance are challenging under what society deems normal. Many of these people struggle, some don’t even recognize, let alone confront the conflict within themselves. If gays themselves struggle to reconcile and accept their sexuality, it can be assumed that some heterosexuals would confront even more complexity surrounding a sexuality that is outside of their own knowing. It’s a can of worms because group think and societal pressure make it more complicated than it should have to be. I am no historian, but early cultures had no difficulty accepting diverse expressions of sexuality. There are no black or white answers here, there rarely are. That is not the human experience. I believe we are here to learn how to love, ourselves and all others and manifest that love into what is our lives.

        Rachel may need validation, I think in her case it is not about her sexuality, I think she is competing with our President on an intellectual level. I think she needs to feel smarter than President Obama, if not at least as smart. She is not, because she is emotionally immature, IMO. Politically, President Obama is operating on a much higher plane than most, she can’t compete with him there, because it requires an exceptionally high level of emotional intelligence. She is not there, but that is not to say she couldn’t get there. I just have this sense that she wants to show the world she is smarter then he is……..of course I could be wrong. Both of them are way smarter than me.

        Dan Choi is another case altogther, I believe he is self loathing, or perhaps has tenuous family relations lacking acceptance and support….I am just speculating as to the basis for his misdirected and over the top anger. Going on my instincts and from observation he impresses me as someone that could benefit from professional help or intervention. He is not a lesser human being because he is gay, but his intolerance and misdirected anger are inappropriate. I hope he finds a way to reconcile his anger, and as with all people I hope he can learn to love and appreciate himself, finding perfection in the imperfect. We are all God’s children.

        • 131 fig8jam
          June 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm

          Interesting point Sue…this is about intellectual prowess!!

          Wow…now that would make sense of every single one of her rants against POTUS.

          She thinks her analysis of issues is more brilliant and nuanced.

          I agree with you that she is not smarter and see how the emotional piece stunts her and that she lacks the political astuteness of POTUS.

          The Emotional intelligence piece is the clincher and I noted that POTUS said his daughter Malia has the highest he has ever seen!!

          With Malia’s upbringing and exposure to a world class poltically brilliant mind, our first AA female President just may turn out to have resided their from 2008-2016.

          • 132 Sue in Minnesota
            June 25, 2011 at 8:49 pm

            I have heard the same about Malia, Marty Nesbitt said in an interview with Erin Moriarty that she is perhaps smarter than Barack, but even more impressive is the balance and perspective she demonstrates with respect to the world around her. He was extremely impressed, he said they refer to her as the “Oracle”. She has potential to be a great leader, if that’s what she wants to become. It would be an awesome reflection not only on Malia, but on our First Mom and Dad.

            I perhaps draw to much from my own practical experience, but the ways I observe people getting tripped up is by their lack of awareness (especially self-awareness) and their inability to observe but not attach to their emotional responses. I also believe in the quality of my instincts, and I have had this instinct about Rachel from early on. She hates being wrong, and time and time again President Obama has proved the political punditry wrong. She also lacks creativity in her approach as to how to deal with the Republicans, too much deference given to the “game” as they play it, IMO. Way to much frustration expressed by those unwilling to truly see and attempt to understand and accept the way President Obama operates politically.

            President Obama is an exceptional human being,…..those that have courage can follow his lead, and learn from his examples. Those that fear change, anything that deviates from the status quo incite hissy fits, tantrums and worse. They are either blind or they are cowards.

            • June 25, 2011 at 11:26 pm

              If I were inclined to ponder on Rachel, I would probably respond with ‘food for thought’, Sue, because I do believe you might be on to something here. Have you ever noticed the contortions she goes through to avoid using the word ‘sex’, or sex related activity to the point of creating her own terminology? (ex. Her overuse of the created word ‘shupting’ (sp?) in her forays into the Ensign scandal.) I’ve thought in the past that her uncomfortable avoidance of certain words drew attention to her ‘immaturity’ in some areas. Whatever… IMO her reaction to the President has too often been questionable, and since there is no contest between her and him in my mind, there iwas no question who ‘goes’, or in my case, who went.

        • June 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm

          You have nailed it, Sue. Rachel can never be smarter than President Obama, not with the leverl of emotional immaturity she’s operating at.Choi, is being used as a tool by the likes of Hamsher & Co. Just starving for attention, and does not have the awareness to know that the very hands he is biting is the one that truly believes in his right to exist as a gay man.

        • 135 lisalovesobama
          June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm

          There’s no way Rachel is anywhere smarter than you are Sue. She’s a twit who steps on people as she climbs up the ladder but what she doesn’t realize is that what goes up, must come down and her sheer arrogance and stupidity with ultimately be her down fall. Just keep on keeping on Sue, we’re gonna make it.

  24. 136 Kasai
    June 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Human Rights Campaign Endorses President Barack Obama for Reelection

    “President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese

    “President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “In 2008 we were promised change and profound change is what we got. More remains to be done and ensuring that President Obama is able to continue the forward momentum toward equality for another term is an absolute priority of the Human Rights Campaign.”

    “The records of the other candidates seeking the presidency should be a wake-up call to fair-minded Americans,” said Solmonese. “As the fight for equality moves forward, President Obama is marching with us while the alternatives would stop us in our tracks.”

  25. 141 Kasai
    June 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    What amazes me is that, The likes of Maddow, DanChoi, didn’t scream so loud when Bush was in power for 8 years, I didn’t see Choi chained to the white house… why didn’t he leave the ARMY when DADT was still in place??? and if he was a True soldier why not re-enlist insteas going around the country and the Media in bashing and lying… what’s with the the sudden the histeria with PBO???

    • 142 fig8jam
      June 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm

      Yes, the hypocrisy is unbelievable Kasai!!

      They reserved all the hate for the one President who supports their issues.

      Idiots and ingrates all of em.

    • 143 hopefruit2
      June 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm

      From what I read, Mr. Choi has had “issues” since he was in the military, before he came out. With his military background, his embracing of Libertarian values (including a love of guns), and his persistent and personal anger towards the President, along with his mental instability, I’m wary of this guy.

  26. 147 Bobfr
    June 25, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    She’s not worth the effort for me to write a lengthy email, and fact is several of you have already written quite eloquently and comprehensively.

    I haven’t watched teevee/cable in more than 20 years and have only occasionally seen Ms Maddow and other newstainers because of links suggested by friends or embedded in various blog posts.

    None of these folk are ‘journalists.’ They are purely in the entertainment biz. Indeed, it’s often the comedians who actually provide the most insightful analysis – analysis based on the facts.

    Could you imagine a Meet the Press with someone like P M Carpenter as the host!!! That would be worth watching, but I digress.

    So, the missive to Ms Maddow was terse – “You lied – do you have what it takes to admit it and apologize to the President and the people who watch your newstainment program? Hope so, for your sake.”

    Yes.We.Can. … DO.More.Together!

    • 148 Sue in Minnesota
      June 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      Bobfr you are whip smart in my book, and as well I always appreciate the sense of calm and reason you convey in your comments. So thanks for that. I have come to believe that if you value good information, it requires more effort than picking up the paper, or turning on the idiot box. I like your reference to “newstainers”…..27% news 72% entertainment, so true, and so sad for our Democracy.

    • 149 PoliticalJunkessa
      June 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm

      Yep, Bob. That’s what I called it upthread: Newsertainment.

      That’s all it is.

  27. June 25, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Great letters and I sent mine too, but we must be alert. Is this a ploy to get us to ignore what is happening in the bipartison revenue discussion? Cantor and “You Lie” are no longer in the picture. They are ready to place it all at the President’s feet. Can’t they at least act like adults. So it is back to “the only adult in the room” How sad.

    • 151 GGail
      June 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      I see Cantor leaving as a benefit because the “gnat” is no longer in the room and realistic progress can be negotiated.

    • 152 Sue in Minnesota
      June 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm

      I think additionally it reflects a power struggle between him and Boehner. Cantor is a sniveling, sneaky little rat.

      • 153 fig8jam
        June 25, 2011 at 6:53 pm

        Yes there is definitely a power struggle. I do not think that Cantor considers Boehner to at all be his peer. I suspect he sneers at Boehner a lot.

  28. 154 Ladyhawke
    June 25, 2011 at 6:04 pm



  29. June 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    BWD ‘s blog –The Only Adult in the Room– has posted a similar thread expressing her most recent displeasure with Rachel Maddow. I wrote this on BWDs’ blog earlier today, but I will state it again here:

    “… let me say that I agree 100% with what you said about Rachel Maddow. I was always a little wary of Ms. Maddow, but I permanently stopped watching her show about a year ago after she pulled that “fake president” stunt. She does not impress me—intelligent or not. All of the pundits of the so called “librul” media are totally disgusting. I have two college degrees in journalism, worked as a newspaper reporter for a few years, and taught journalism many, many years ago. Today, I feel sad saying this, but there is no Fourth Estate or true journalism left in U.S. media. Someone on another blog called it right: what we have in the news industry today is “infotainment.” That’s exactly what we have – a business that entertains rather than informs. We The People must seize the “new media” and design our own form of journalism using today’s advanced and emerging technologies. We must begin to do this now if we are to ensure that President Obama gets another term as president.”

  30. 158 Tulips
    June 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Exactly ametia now where is the opposition. This is what makes rachel agrument a lie

    • June 25, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      I’ve been searching for Rachel’s LIE all day, and found it here at TOD. Thanks Chipsticks. The soundbites I talked about were all wiped off Youtube. The title of the clips Maddow says Obama againstt what just happened in NY. 3-4 Youtube clips all taken down due to copyrights, so they couldn’t go viral, I suppose. Maddow needs a good ASSWHIPPING for that LIE. I hope she smarting for some time to come, but the $$$ and her ego will keep her rolling right along.

      Maddow needs to RETRACT that comment she made about our POTUS, and the sooner she does it, the better. I won’t hold my breath though, beause on the one hand, if she apologizes, she’ll admit she fucked up, and her ego and intellect will have been called out. Rhodes Scholar, being called a lie!

      Yet, on the other hand, she can apologize and claim even more power, because look at what she’s done to get all these folks so upset about the LIE she told about POTUS! We give these folks attention, energy and power to manipulate our emotions and intellect. Rachel and her ilk are smart alright. They’re smart enough to know what buttons to push, when , where, and how to push them.

      • 160 Jessica
        June 25, 2011 at 8:06 pm

        I think she realizes she made a stupid statement and is attempting to go back in time but it’s spilled milk. She f’ed up big time because she let her emotion get the best of her and told a blatant lie. I’m expecting to see some sort of retraction on Monday but not an apology.

  31. June 25, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    I did my part and sent my e-mail and called her a liar.

  32. 163 Anthony L. Miller
    June 25, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Donna one of the regular OFA bloggers posted a link on Facebook showing the HRC the largest gay and lesbian organization coming out to endorse President Obama.

    I posted the link the below.


    I really do belief that the Professional Left really goes off the deep end. You know the Right Wing to this day will not bad mouth George Bush.

  33. June 25, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Whats going on with miss Rachel Maddow is she so passion about this issue that she have no sense of logic. They are not treated fairly and that all matter to her, dam if it hurt the party, Obama care about black issue but he will not talk about them because he know it will hurt the party.
    we all who know obama, knows he will take action on these issue after he’s re-election,which is the right way to go in order to keep the black christian votes, they already talks about his stand on abortion, if he support gay marriage (which he does, if you can read between the line), the leader of most black church will tell people not to vote for obama, I know because they try that mess in my church, but some member push back.
    If Rachel can’t see this is the way real change happen, she not as smart as she thinks, Lincoln did not come out and say he support free black people, he said it is to save the union, but smart people know that slavery was eating at his heart, some people don’t remember history, Blacks bash MLK, we had our Tavis and West back then too. you just did not hear them because they did not have a platform to shout from
    but now they pretend they are the reason MLK is famous, they was with him 100% which is not true, they did him the same way they are doing Obama. they was saying he to nice and weak in the face of hate, but look who won out, MLK is famous and the black panther is hated. so most of us black folks who know history will stick with obama, the ones who don’t will give tavis, and west a voice. Maddow do not know how change work.

    • 166 Walking on Sunshine
      June 26, 2011 at 1:39 am

      Thank you. What you say makes a lot of sense. It’s true that people need to be quiet and help the man get re-elected and be patient for a couple of years until he has the power to make these big changes. In the second term he will be able to do so much more but we need to get him a democratic congress to work with. We can’t have these Republicans sabotaging everything he does.

  34. 167 Karen Sr.
    June 25, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    What I found the most disturbing about her performance last night, is when she told her viewing audience (and this video doesn’t show it) after the part where she says “… what you just saw in NY, President Obama is against”……and now I’m paraphrasing because I can’t remember Rachel’s actual words, but effectively, the President just wants you to give him the money.

    That floored me. That was my jaw dropping moment of disbelief.

    So, why is Rachel fighting so hard for this cause? She stills owns her home in MA and gay marriage is already legal there. I don’t remember her making a big deal when MA passed similar legislation. In fact, she may have covered it, but I don’t remember it, so it couldn’t have been with any passion.

    Something’s going on.

  35. June 25, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    The Whitehouse will be filled with the LGBT community this coming week and I wonder how liar maddow will feel because her contempt for President Obama has no weight….

  36. 170 Kayan
    June 25, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Thank you for pointing this out. I wrote Rachel Maddow the following email. I think we should flood her inbox.

    Anyway, here goes:

    Dear Ms. Maddow,

    I am a huge fan of yours and highly respect your cogent and intelligent analysis on a range of issues. But, your statement that President Obama would be against the passage of marriage equality in NY was erroneous, and as a fan, it is my duty to point this out.

    President Obama made clear as recently as January of this year that the US government would not defend DOMA in court because he “believe[s] that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country….That’s why we’re going to keep on fighting until the law no longer treats committed partners who’ve been together for decades like they’re strangers.” President Obama may or may not agree with gay marriage on religious terms, but for him and millions of other supporters of marriage equality the more compelling question is about equality before the law and honoring the Constitution. We support the rights of gays to marry based on principles that supersede our religious objections– the belief that the civil rights of all human beings are inalienable and based on the fundamental truth that all men and women are created equal. That is as good a place as any to come from in support of gay rights. I feel your callous reflection on Obama dismissed progressive Americans like me whose views about gay marriage diverge on religion but who strongly support legal and Constitutional equality.

    Lest we forget, President Obama brought the military together as leading voices to repeal DADT, singularly made hospital visitation and benefits equal with those of married partners for gay and lesbian federal employees by executive order, and supported including crimes against LGBT people under the Federal Hate Crimes Act– a measure named in honor of Matthew Sheppard. Not only was President Obama supportive of LGBT equality, but his administration provided the critical momentum that made marriage equality in New York possible.

    Thank you so much for your tireless efforts on behalf of the LGBT community and progressive Americans. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the views of an ardent fan.


    Kayan Clarke

    CUNY Law School ’14

    • 171 lochelle
      June 25, 2011 at 9:50 pm

      Kayan – great e-mail. Although you are a fan of her show, you still managed to explain your disagreement with her comments in clear and effective manner. I hope others are also sending e-mails as well.

  37. 172 Kayan
    June 25, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    By the way, I have been following you guys for a while. I love this site.

    • 173 utaustinliberal
      June 25, 2011 at 10:03 pm

      Welcome Kayan. It is wonderful to have a future attorney’s voice in this haven. Thank you so much for your comments. You were respectful but firm in reminding Rachel that though you are a fan, you would not tolerate lies and falsehoods against President Obama and others. I am glad you’ve been following members of this community for a while and have decided to officially join. I sincerely hope to read more of your comments in the future whenever you have time and cause to visit our TOD family. Hope you have a wonderful weekend and don’t be scarce with the brilliant commentary. 😉

  38. 174 GGail
    June 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Welcome Kayan – positive voices are WELCOME HERE

  39. 175 GGail
    June 25, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    Thanks goodness you have this Rachel Maddow clip Chipsticks, because the video on The Rachel Maddow site has been altered drastically and sounds nothing like this! You can’t tell me our voices have not been heard!!!

    • 176 ber6964
      June 25, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      I guess they are trying to cover up her lies.

    • June 25, 2011 at 10:58 pm

      Exactly, GGail. I didn’t know about the Maddow issue until this morning, and when I went to Youtube, they’d already taken down 4 videos posted on that one 2 minute segment. The emails, tweets, and blogs are getting the message out, though.

    • 178 africa
      June 25, 2011 at 11:19 pm

      Wow, GGail, that is so good to hear. I know they must have been inuadated today, with twitter, e-mail, facebook, etch. Why else would they take the videos down. This just goes to show that collectively when we push back, we get results. We need to do this more and more.

  40. 179 Britt
    June 25, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    Choi, Maddow, and other gay figures comments make me question how gay people view Obama, even after all he has done for them. It is really sad that many in the gay community are attacking Obama for HIS beliefs.

  41. 182 Newbie
    June 26, 2011 at 2:25 am

    I have been reading your blog for a while, but have not commented before. This topic however, has motivated me to comment.

    I think what Rachel was saying is that President Obama has never stated that he is in favor of marriage equality – or gay marriage.
    In fact, he has said that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman (this I believe was prior to the election).

    He has also said that his opinion is evolving, and he has said that he believes that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples. But he has not specifically said that he believes those rights and privileges should be delivered via marriage (he is leaving that up to the states to decide).

    I can understand how this could bother folks in the gay community. It could very well feel like the President wants them to have everything but marriage – implying separate but equal would be OK.

    It appears (to me) that Rachel is saying that in the past President Obama has said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and because he has not stated that he has changed that position (but has stated that his views are evolving), then technically he would still be against gays being able to get married. This implies that he is in favor of civil unions, but not marriage.

    Given this context I think it is harsh to say she lied (as she did explain that he says his opinion/belief is evolving etc).

    My personal opinion is that President Obama is trying desperately to stay out of this. There are folks in the LGBT community who take this as a sign that he is not supporting them, and they ignore all of the other things he has done in support of LGBT rights and protections.

    I think he is staying out of it because he is aware that there is a large community of people (and supporting media) that are agains anything is does/wants/etc. If he did come out strongly in favor of gay marriage, this would unleash all of these folks, who will jump on this as just one more way to make President Obama wrong.

    He goes for the long game, and I imagine that he is aware that if he stays out of this, then folks have to debate on the merits of marriage equality. And we all know (or at least I am assuming those who read your blog know this), the folks who are against marriage equality have no valid reason to be against it. They are losing their voice and they know it.

    But if President Obama weighed in, I think all of the crazy circus would be unleashed on this, and it would no longer be about the people who deserve the right to marriage equality – it would be about him. I think he is smart enough to know this, and if he truly wants the LGBT community to have the same rights and privileges as straight people, the best way to accomplish this is for him to stay out of the mix.

    I should not that I have no political knowledge or connections. These are entirely my speculations.

    • 183 hopefruit2
      June 26, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      Newbie, I appreciate your comments and I see where you are coming from. However, it appears to me that the MSM and certain factions who claim to represent the LGBT do NOT want the President to stay out of this – in fact they are trying their hardest to drag him into it, thereby making it more about him than about anything else. And that is where I have the problem – which extends to my issues with what Rachel Maddow said on Friday night. There was absolutely no reason for her to talk about President Obama after the bill had passed and people were in the streets celebrating. This was a NY State issue – the elected officials together with the legislators there got involved and made it their business to get the work done – which they did.

      What should have been a victorious night of relief and celebration instead turned out to be a mudslinging session. Maddow deliberately dragged the President through the mud by conflating his abstract theological position on the term “marriage” with his desire to promote long-term equality for the LGBT community. Maddow used the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the President for reasons that I believe are completely unrelated to LGBT for that matter. She has had an ongoing and building resentment with this President and as someone else commented on a different thread, needs to feel that she is intellectually superior to him for some reason I cannot fathom. And I think many people are subconciously picking up on this unprovoked aggression from Maddow towards the President – which is what they are reacting to.

      • 184 Ladyhawke
        June 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm

        Hopefruit2, your comment takes my breath away because it is exactly how I feel. I just wasn’t able to put it into words like you. Rachel’s comments abut President Obama was A CHEAP SHOT. It was totally unnecessary to drag the president into the mix the way she did. PBO had already said this was a state issue. And thankfully for New York, their Governor Cuomo made gay marriage a priority and got it done. Why couldn’t she just revel in the joy for New York and the collaboration between the governor and the LGBT community?

        But you know what’s interesting about all of this – what Governor Cuomo did reminds me very much of what President Obama did with DADT. He took the long view and took the time to get buy in from Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs. He made it a priority. He and his administration worked closely with congress and the LGBT community. A lot of people got impatient, but for a bill that was signed into law over 15 years ago it was going to take time to get it repealed. The DADT repeal should be fully implemented by August 2011.

        I think Governor Cuomo took a similar approach with his own style and it paid off. He should be applauded for making this happen. That’s six states and 44 to go. This article explains the behind the scenes activity. It is a fascinating read…



      • 185 Newbie
        June 26, 2011 at 6:40 pm

        I have to say that I agree with you. I love Rachel, but it was unnecessary and not helpful to bring President Obama into the discussion.

        I don’t think she lied – but she did not need to did not need to go there.

        I am wrestling with the term cheap shot, because I can not imagine what it would be like to have the President of the United States to say that he, as a person, does not believe that I should be able to marry the person that I love. I would hope that I could see the difference between Mr. Obama who has his personal/religious beliefs to work through; and President Obama who is standing up for the rights of all citizens of the United States, but is not being specific about how those rights and privileges are to be implemented.

        If I were gay, in the spur of the moment, could I be the bigger person? I really don’t know. . .

        While I agree with what you are saying, I am willing to cut Rachel some slack. She has talked about all of the things that President Obama has done for the LGBT community, and she did say that his position is evolving . . . but that they want it to evolve already.

        I am disappointed that she went there. Could I have done better? I don’t know.

        Thanks for your reply, it helped me to better understand / articulate my thoughts.

    • 186 Britt
      June 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm

      “And.. the folks who are against marriage equality have no valid reason to be against it. They are losing their voice and they know it.”

      This sentence illustrates a problem with this debate. Everyone has different opinions and beliefs so many should respect one’s beliefs. Just like you have your reasons to support something, does not mean someone else reasons to not support something is not valid. I don’t understand what more the gay community wants from him.

      • 187 Britt
        June 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm

        Thus, people should RESPECT the President decision not to use the term “marriage” and if he does not believe in gay marriage.

  42. 188 Lizzie
    June 26, 2011 at 5:53 am

    I’m not very happy with Rachel about this either. But I can’t bring myself to boycott her show, or for that matter, any of these shows that infuriate me. Because If I don’t know what’s being said, I won’t know how to fight it.

    The November 2012 election is VERY important to me. As a matter of fact, I believe it’s important to ALL of us here in TOD family. President Obama has EARNED reelection, but it’s not going to be an easy win – WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT!

    We have to stay focused on getting him reelected. And if that means seeing, hearing, reading, and listening to things that aggravate the hell out of us, so be it. WE CAN’T FIGHT IF WE DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON …

  43. 189 Ed
    June 26, 2011 at 7:30 am

    It seems like Rachel and Choi are letting themselves get bitter. Change will come and is coming. For some reason this discussion mad me think of Martin Luther King Jr. Thank God he didn’t become bitter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBenuGoM1HI&feature=related

  44. 190 Left-Indie
    June 26, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Great Lizzie. Rachel had an emotional misfiring, lets not all have the same. I Tivo her every night and will continue to do so. And when she says something stupid I will hound her with emails. But often times she makes me holler with approval when she dissects the Rethugs. And when she does that i will email her approvals. We just don’t have enough of these type of folks in the media to beat up the ones we have so severly. She is still a good liberal, period.

    • 191 hopefruit2
      June 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      With all due respect Left-Indie, I believe this was more than just a misfiring. I believe it was an act of aggression based on a mounting resentment that has been festering for some time. By all accounts, this was supposed to be a positive event, a step in the right direction, a victory for the LGBT community. Yet, Rachel seemed to be rather sullen. The truth is, this is not really her issue as much as she wants us to believe. If it were, she would be out there celebrating, perhaps doing a live commentary from NY, and sharing with the experiences of the individuals who were celebrating that night. But instead she remained at her MSNBC studio and tried to make this event about the President in a very negative way.

      Contrast her reaction to that of Neil Patrick Harris for example, and you see what I’m talking about. This was a victory that clearly meant something to him and he was in a celebratory mode, not a “bash-Obama” mode.

    • 192 Britt
      June 26, 2011 at 1:31 pm

      Rachel Maddow is not what I would consider a “good liberal.” She is no different than the other talking heads on TV.

    • 193 Sue in Minnesota
      June 27, 2011 at 3:16 am

      For those that wish to continue to support Rachel I appreciate the way you have respectfully disagreed with those that no longer do.
      I hope you will encourage her to keep shining light on the Republican agenda, and perhaps encourage her to to find more artful ways of disagreeing with the President. She is smart, no doubt……but what our political landscape is really in need of is less drama, used for cause and effect, and more pragmatism. The media needs to respect their function as conduits of reliable information.
      If you want change you have to be change. Let’s take the rule book away from the Republicans and demand a more genuine and productive approach. Let’s change the focus from what is now a struggle for power/control to instead focus on meeting the needs and resolving the issues of the people.

  45. 194 Ladyhawke
    June 26, 2011 at 1:19 pm


    The vote in New York’s Senate was close, but there were two refreshing moments that should give hope to Americans who value freedom and equality for all citizens. One Republican Senator, Mark Grisanti, R-Buffalo, gave an impassioned explanation for why he voted in favor of allowing gays to marry. The freshman Senator said, “I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who can say, legally, that they don’t have the same rights that I have with my wife? ”Grisanti was joined by another Republican Senator, Stephen Saland, who said, “While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience. I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.” Each of the Republicans will be ostracized by the Republican leadership, but they can rest easy in the knowledge that they weighed the legality of denying gays the right to marry and based their decision on the law and not the bible.


Comments are currently closed.







Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.



RSS Obama White House.gov

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS WH Tumblr

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Steve Benen

  • Law enforcement on high alert ahead of D.C. rally
  • Why Americans are leaving their jobs in record numbers
  • New book examines the lasting legacy of Colin Kaepernick
  • 'It is a call to action': Friday is National Black Voter Day
  • GOP House member who voted to impeach Trump won't seek re-election



Blog Stats

  • 43,100,715 hits

%d bloggers like this: