Just posted this on GetEqual's FB page (re: Michelle Obama heckler)

[markpkessinger]

Michelle Obama's heckler was identified as Ellen Sturtz, of GetEqual.org. An article I read mentioned they had a Facebook page, so I posted this on their timeline:

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Thanks Mark, for your level headed rational response to the idiocy shown by Ms. Sturtz.

I especially like this:

"As soon as the political winds change and there's another rightwinger in the Oval Office, any executive order can simply be undone by another executive order. Instead of putting so much energy into pushing for what amount to little more than a stop-gap measure, why not focus your energies toward actually chaning the law?"

If I FB'd, I'd "like" it, but I hate the asshole who runs it.

[LonePirate]

51. So the President should never sign an EO because the next one might reverse it?

Our President should not use his executive powers because the next one might use those very same powers? What kind of logic is that? A Democratic President who fails to utilize the power of the executive office for the good of the people is not much different than a Republican President who utilizes it for evil.

Also, anyone who thinks ENDA is going to pass the Republican House so it can become law is seriously out of touch with current politics. It is a waste of time lobbying Republicans on this issue. The only recourse is to lobby the President and his connections to enact what limited change they can.

[Tx4obama]

69. What the White House said just hours before Michelle's speech, below

-snip-

The heckling happened a bit after 6 p.m. under a white tent in the backyard of the residence of Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer in Northwest DC. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, also was in attendance at the event, which benefits the DNC.

The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president’s focus being on legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would ban most private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not the proposed executive order.

-snip-

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/michelle-obama-heckled-for-presidents-inaction-on-proposed-l

[eissa]

2. Excellent points

She was in a room full of people who support her cause. Had she waited and made her legitimate argument during the appropriate time, she would have had not only the First Lady's attention and support, but everyone listening. Instead, she chose to make a scene that not only backfired on her personally, but did nothing to advance her cause.

[A Simple Game]

6. She probably got more than she expected. If she had waited for the appropriate time would

we be talking about it now. I doubt it. No she got more than she expected. Mrs. Obama played it almost as if it was scripted. The idea of these actions is to get the message out. Mission accomplished and more. Well played.

[eissa]

8. Not all publicity is good publicity

Those opposed to LGBT rights are no more supportive of the cause than before, and those that are supportive don't appreciate seeing the First Lady attacked in this manner. People may be talking, but her shenanigans will have little to no impact.

[A Simple Game]

24. All publicity is publicity. It gets the message out. No, it probably won't change peoples minds

if they are already opposed, but it will expose the subject to people that normally wouldn't hear about it, or care.

The more times that someone is exposed to an idea, the more likely they will think about it.

LGBT people know that if fence sitting people really think about it, they are likely to come down on their side.

[eissa]

28. Shouldn't the aim be making changes instead of making scenes?

We have a president who has not only been VERY supportive of LGBT rights, but has pushed their agenda through unlike any other elected official before him. I don't see how belittling his wife and disrespecting a cause that is dear to her (in a room full of supporters of both causes) will positively affect anything. Had she done this at a congressional hearing, or at a campaign stump for someone opposed to LGBT rights, it would have made more sense. As it stands now, we have members of the same community that support the same cause attacking each other. Great job

[zipplewrath]

32. Not always

First they have to be aware of your issue.
Then they have to understand your issue.
Then they have to take a position on your issue.
Then you may have to persuade them to agree with you on your issue.
Then they have to actually back your issue with action.

These are rarely accomplished on the same day/through the same act.

One can think of the early days of women's suffrage. It wasn't always pretty and it often involved what was considered at the time outrageous and rude behavior, including what was often characterized as "unlady like". It would be decades before they would actually get to vote.

This woman was trying to make people aware of their cause. How many of you knew there was even a conflict with Obama about signing such an executive order? You are now, whether you agree or not. The discussion that follows will be about the wisdom or usefulness of such an order. That's step two. Many of you are also taking step 3. Soon, they can move on to step 4.

Not to mention the wife probably goes home and says "you won't believe what I had to put up with today"...

With a little luck, Sasha follows with "well why won't you sign it?"

[Tx4obama]

70. The White House restated their position hours before Michelle's speech, below

-snip-

The heckling happened a bit after 6 p.m. under a white tent in the backyard of the residence of Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer in Northwest DC. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, also was in attendance at the event, which benefits the DNC.

The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president’s focus being on legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would ban most private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not the proposed executive order.

-snip-

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/michelle-obama-heckled-for-presidents-inaction-on-proposed-l

[Fearless]

82. Still waiting for that to ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Words are cheap.

[Tx4obama]

83. Senator Harkin has said that he will hold a vote on ENDA this year.

Second paragraph in excerpt here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251310048

[Fearless]

84. And it will pass the House?

I'll bet you it doesn't even make it to the Senate Floor. Republicans will threaten filibuster and Democrats will flee like a chicken with its head cut off.

[zipplewrath]

90. Which probably wouldn't have satisfied the heckler

They might have even been aware of it and made it more of a reason for them to decide to take the action they did.

[groundloop]

31. Wrong.... we're not talking about any agenda right now, we're talking about horrible bahavior

She failed at anything other than a few fleeting minutes of fame where the only discussion will be about her horrible treatment of the First Lady. There has been zero discussion of furthering the LGBT, only of what a stupid act this was.

[A Simple Game]

35. Zero discussion? You even mention it in your post saying it is not discussed.

You have already formed an opinion so you focus on what she did instead of why she did it, others may not already have an opinion.

You don't think people will ask why she did what she did when they hear the story? It's human nature to want to know why somebody does something. When you learn why somebody does something you form or at least start to form an opinion about it.

She's getting the message out, you may not like the way she did it, but she did do it.

What would we be discussing if she hadn't done it? Probably not LGBT, but we are, aren't we!

[leftynyc]

38. The only thing that got exposed

is that the left can be as intractable and rude as the right. She did more harm than good.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. No …

I suspect she got exactly what she wanted … people all over the internets talking about HER … not her issue; but her.
And sadly, this has become an acceptable substitute for political discourse … even on DU.

[A Simple Game]

57. She could have done it for a selfish reason, I don't know, nor do I care.

I doubt I will remember the womans name tomorrow.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. And ...

I doubt anyone will remember anything about what she said ... other than that she was acting extremely juvenile in whatever she was saying.

[A Simple Game]

59. You may be right, depends on how long it stays in the news. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. So ...

Maybe you can tell this civil rights veteran ... When did yelling become effective or even reasonable political discourse?

[JDPriestly]

78. The First Lady should have stood there quietly and allowed the heckler

to have her say. The audience would have booed the heckler down. Michelle Obama needs to have more patience and trust her audiences more. Let the audience take care of hecklers. Just stand there patiently and smile at your supporters in the audience. I suspect she wishes she had done that. She must have been very tired or had a bad day. Because politicians know how to handle hecklers. Let your friends take care of them. Don't react yourself. And your Secret Service people can escort a heckler out of the place if the heckler is too awful.

[onpatrol98]

86. ???

Quote: "The First Lady should've quietly stood there and allowed the heckler to have her say."

Should she have had her eyes on the ground, also.

I feel like we've slipped into a scene from Gone with the Wind or maybe The Color Purple. Anyone in here remember Sophia?

[JDPriestly]

108. This is not about race. Watch how well President Obama handles

hecklers. Race is not an excuse for making mistakes in handling people. Politicians who have big egos regardless of race are likely to have problems.

As I said, Michelle Obama should have allowed her audience to take care of the rude person. They would have. I have seen it happen.

It is extremely unlikely that the heckler interrupted Michelle Obama because of Ms. Obama's race. It can happen that race is a heckler's issue or that someone interrupts a speech to yell out racial insults, but that is not what happened in this case.

Race is irrelevant.

[onpatrol98]

109. Interesting...

I don't believe the heckler was thinking about race when she 1) picked Michelle Obama as a target or 2) heckled her. I am not sure her response to Michelle Obama's approach wasn't race related.

[Kurovski]

107. Pres. Clinton used to listen to hecklers and talk to them

First Lady admitted very adamantly that she doesn't deal well with this.

Whatcha gonna do?

I call bullshit on calling the heckler an idiot. She clearly is not. She has lousy timing, but the fact remains Clinton treated people who shouted at him as if he could bother to listen.

She was out raising money, not on a "listening tour". Or even a "Rainbiow Tour"!

So be it.

[Major Hogwash]

3. Great logic, mark.

If everything could have been changed simply through executive orders, this country would have been bouncing between 2 extremes like a ping-pong ball for the last 30 years.

[handmade34]

4. thank you!

"The First Lady was not an appropriate target for Ms. Sturtz's message..."

[onpatrol98]

5. +1

[leftynyc]

7. Excellent post

It would go a long way if Ms. Sturtz apologized, in public, for her rude behavior. The topic of the evening was helping out inner city children (a cause very dear to Ms. Obama) and this person ruined the evening for all attending (who spent the same $500 she did). She owes the First Lady and all those in attendance an apology.

[dbackjon]

10. First Obama needs to apologize

For his past bigotry towards Gays and Lesbians

[JaneyVee]

11. ONLY Obama needs to apologize? Nothing about the previous 43 Presidents? Thats telling.

[dbackjon]

13. Are the previous 43 still in office?

How is that telling?

[JaneyVee]

17. No but 41, 42, & 43 are still alive.

[dbackjon]

20. And have little power

I am only concerned with the current occupant of the White House, who opposed gay rights, appointed anti-gay people, praised anti-gay ministers, coddles anti-gay activists.

[JaneyVee]

23. And has done more for gay rights then every President combined in US history.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. The only answer you will get is: "But only because it was politically possible".

If President Obama waved a pen and made homophobia and bigotry against gays extinct in law and reality, some people would quibble over the brand of pen he used to do it as a sign of his...ahem..."secret hatred for the LGBT community".

[dbackjon]

98. How wrong you are.

Obama has made strides, but 90% has been because of political pressure from GLBT Activists and their allies.

Obama and the DNC really could care less about GLBT's - they just want our money.

[Liberal Veteran]

99. I don't dismiss the role of activism. I do, however, reject your assertion about "our money".

Would you be satisfied if maybe President Obama and the DNC just dropped everything else and focused solely on LGBT issues for the remainder of his term?

While I admire your dedication to the cause, I can't help but think you are going to find it difficult to elect a majority congress and executive branch on a single issue platform.

[dbackjon]

101. I expect a President and a party that can multi-task

I expect a President that actually fully champions equality for all
I expect a President that does EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER to promote that
I expect a President that doesn't believe it is a State's Rights issue
I expect a President that doesn't use anti-gay bigots to speak at his inauraration or campaign events.
I expect a President that has empathy for us.

[Liberal Veteran]

102. And what is your criteria for deciding which speaking events can focus on another issue?

Without being interrupted in a rude manner.

We've already established poverty doesn't rank high enough to be worthy of politeness.

Can I get a list?

One also wonders. Ellen Sturtz is hearing someone speak on poverty and her thought is "but what about the LGBT community!". What particular problem with discussing poverty triggered an outburst on equality? "Blah, blah..we get it. Poverty is bad. What about MY issue???"

Is that effective activism? Pissing on another worthy cause because your own didn't get top billing?

[dbackjon]

103. You are ignoring that the speech was a fundraiser for corporations

And not focused on poverty. Why she picked that moment to protest? Not sure. You'd have to ask her yourself.

Mrs. Obama handled it VERY POORLY herself. She should have acknowledged the problem, and said she would address the issue after she is done with her speech.

Instead, she couldn't be bothered with it.

[Liberal Veteran]

104. I see. Heckling is saintly behavior that must be rewarded.

The real instigator in this was Ms. Obama.

[dbackjon]

105. Protesting a worthy cause is

Unless you don't think it is a worthy cause.


Calling her a heckler is a right-wing ploy. She is a protester.

[dbackjon]

97. And still thinks Gay Rights are a state's rights issue

[DonCoquixote]

96. I do hope this "little power" stays true

When Hillary tries to run in 2016.

[panader0]

19. Seriously

Which President has done the most to promote gay rights? The answer is obvious.
Has the goal of total equality been achieved yet? Not yet. But to blame Obama for gay prejudice is silly.

[leftynyc]

36. Take it up with the President

This was his wife and a very rude woman ruined an evening people paid a lot of money for. This President has done more for the LGBT community than the other 43 put together.

[Liberal Veteran]

54. One moment. The 1st sitting President to openly support gay marriage need to apologize to gays?

Our last democratic president gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA.

But Obama needs to apologize?

What the actual fuck?

[Number23]

76. + I can't even begin to write a number that large

[bunnies]

91. .

[dbackjon]

93. You mean Obama that opposed Gay Marriage

Had anti-gay people at campaign events, and had a person that advocated killing gays at his inaguartion.

And, only is supporting gay marriage BECAUSE of noise made by GLBT activists.

IF we followed the advice here on DU, which is to play nice, sit down and shut the fuck up and wait for America to evolve, he would not be supporting gay marriage.

[DonCoquixote]

95. yeah that last guy

the one his wife hides behind.

[Luminous Animal]

12. The evening was a DNC political fundraiser. While the topic was important

so was the 100K raised.

[leftynyc]

37. So fucking what?

She ruined the evening and owes everyone in attendance an apology. And she comments about the First Lady "getting in her face". After what she did what did she expect? Flowers?

[Luminous Animal]

40. Ruined their evening. Boo fucking hoo. What rarified world they must live in

if a few moments of heckling ruined their evening. Too bad they all rushed out in tears and Ms Obama had to cancel the speech. I hope the DNC kept the money, though.

[leftynyc]

41. Ah - I had no idea I was dealing with a child

who thinks their issue is the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD. Who cares about inner city children when there's something to bitch about to a person who has no power? If you think this woman did any good at all for her cause, you're delusional.

[treestar]

62. They were there to talk about inner city children

This is an issue too.

Now imagine a heckler about inner city children interrupting a speech about gay rights.

[SunSeeker]

72. ^THIS^

[Liberal Veteran]

73. I'm not sure urinating on an equally worthy topic is ever effective.

And who knows? Maybe heckling has a place. If a president is discussing terrorism, it might be a good choice to mention Gitmo and torture since they are somewhat related.

But during a speech on caring for HIV, shouting out something about the Keystone pipeline is odd.

Using the latter example, wouldn't the heckler be saying, "Yeah, yeah...blah...blah...AIDS is bad. Let's talk about important things!"

[SunSeeker]

75. Exactly.

That's what I love about DU. There's always someone who's thinking what I'm thinking...and can say it better than I can. Thank you for being one of those people.

[Luminous Animal]

79. They were there to raise money for the DNC.

[dbackjon]

9. As a gay man

I am disappointed in you.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. There is a flip side, and it is not specific to this event.

All people should have equal rights =right now=. That's what "rights" means. To have to endure a society filled with bigotry, violence, and outright hate and even murder over differences is intolerable. It is possible for politicians to promote equal rights instead of every now and then tossing out a passing comment, the equivalent of a dog biscuit, and then change would actually occur instead of the painful process of leaving it to gradual evolution. "Grow up, all people have equal rights". It's that simple. But "leaders" will not and as such leave the promotion of rights to the people. It is shameful to have to -demand- what is natural: that all people are equal and will be treated equally, and if you're not on that ticket there is something socially wrong with you. It also de-legitimises the function of civil disobedience, which is the instigator of much positive change, such as the civil rights movement.

If Mrs. Obama needs to get snotty and selfish instead of simply opening her ears for a minute and actually listening compassionately to one of the people of this country who actually put her there to listen in the first place, and who has a painfully legitimate issue to promote, then it is proven that Mrs. Obama is evidently "not there to listen", and when they don't listen, it's not democracy, is it.

This is likely the wrong thread in which to post this. I know that manners and getting along are extremely important but there are cases and trends which call for "more". Many will disagree when and where those cases occur.

[JaneyVee]

18. Didn't hear anything "snotty" or "selfish" about her statement.

I think snotty and selfish would be the one screaming out loud like a toddler.

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. If the protester is a toddler, why does the adult have to threaten to walk away from it? n/t

[dbackjon]

21. Excellent post - and one hundred percent agree

[Major Hogwash]

39. What about Michelle's "rights" to be heard without being disrupted???

Michelle was invited to speak at that event, Ellen was not there to be a speaker.
See how that works?

Instead, Ellen went there to disrupt.
And that makes her a troll.
Which is why she was shown the door.

You can't spin this any other way, no matter how hard you try.

[A Simple Game]

42. I don't really care either way but I think Sturtz did a smart thing. As for spin?

People paid at least $500 to see her speak. If I were one of them, when Mrs Obama threatened to take her ball and go home because of one rude person, I wouldn't have been mad at some person asking her a question, you should expect that in a crowd. Isn't she supposed to be a professional?

My opinion of Mrs Obama went down a few notches, who threatens to punish a whole crowd for the sins of one person? She needs to figure out how to handle hecklers if she wants to speak in public.

[Fire Walk With Me]

47. You're missing two points of the post you've replied to.

Firstly, it was intended generally and secondly, that politicians and anyone lobbying for politicians are subject to the will of the people. "Democracy" means "the voice and will of the people". And LGBTQ folk are suffering under intolerable inequality which must be contested and ended.

You may have also missed that shit's fucked up and bullshit, and that "politicians" and "leaders" are doing fuck-all about it. Civil disobedience is required to force them to instigate change. Of course, we Occupiers were beaten and jailed in huge numbers for having spoken up about problems, effectively within the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism (the use and or threat of force to get a group of politically-minded people to change their behavior) so even the 1st Amendment is fucked off by those in power, and voting really isn't doing the trick, so exactly what is left?

[patrice]

53. Why can't I get anyone to respond about where you draw the line in re private property? I'm agreeing

with you in principle, but I want to understand the tactical implications of what you're saying.

[idwiyo]

88. K&R. Totally agree. The time and place to speak about inequality is always 'here and now'.

[LittleGirl]

15. As a hetero

doing everything possible to show the bigots they are wrong, I agree with this post. Thank you for showing that there are civilized people left in this country that know the difference between causing a scene and actually making a difference. Cheers.

[NCTraveler]

16. "Ms. Sturtz's actions reflected badly on the4 entire LGBT community."

I have seen multiple members of the LGBT community support Ms. Sturtz's. Acting as though you are the spokesman in order to make your point more valid is what is "appalling".

[dbackjon]

22. Yup - most gays I know applauded her actions

[frylock]

25. if that had been ann romney, more DUers would be applauding her actions as well.

[eissa]

29. Well maybe it would be because

neither Romney has been very supportive of LGBT rights. Attacking a president and first lady that have been as supportive of LGBT rights as the Obamas have is ridiculous.

[dbackjon]

33. When it became politically ok for them to be supportive

You may have forgotten that Obama's opposed gay marriage, supported Prop 8, had anti-gay activists at campaign fundraisers, had a person that openly advocated for killing gays speak at his first inauguration, but this gay man has not.

[frylock]

63. i think it's because people, in general, are extremely partisan..

whether they care to acknowledge it or not. I'm not above that myself.

[treestar]

61. No, they would not

Probably the focus would be on Queen Ann's most likely horrid handling of it.

[boilerbabe]

26. yep. more so on facebook. not so much here. nt

[markpkessinger]

43. I haven't acted as though I were a "spokesman" at all . . .

. . . The observation that Ms. Sturtz's behavior reflects badly on the LGBT community is not a statement of consensus by, nor on behalf of, the LGBT community as a whole; rather, it is a statement about how some outside the community will perceive us (fairly or unfairly) as a result of a single individual's boorish behavior. Now, some may think those folks don't matter to our cause, but like it or not, there is a PR aspect to all of this, which folks like Sturtz would do well to consider.

[jessie04]

27. I really dont care who or what she is or what she has to say...

she has no reason to interrupt MO.

[Glorfindel]

30. Very well said, Mark, and thank you!

[Rowdyboy]

74. And I agree with you old friend. Mark speaks for those of us who understand who our allies are

Haven't heard from you in a while and I'm really glad to hear from you!

[Glorfindel]

94. Same here, Rowdyboy! Us Mississippians need to stick together.

[MrScorpio]

34. Way to go, Dude. Way to go! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Excellent on you! …

I would only offer that anybody who thinks the way to get ANYONE to do ANYTHING is to heckle ANYONE is a complete and utter fool.

[Fire Walk With Me]

48. Some people call that a part of the 1st Amendment, but what are you gonna do. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Yep ...

And the 1st Amendment says nothing about: "One must/should/it's preferable that the exercise of this right ACT LIKE A F@#$ING ADULT.

I guess that was an implied clause.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Power concedes nothing without a demand. ~Frederick Douglass

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. True ...

Question: How many times have you been moved to change your mind on any matter ... by someone yelling at you.

At some point, people MUST apply the reality of life to their bullshit.

IMHO ... Now is a good time to start.

[onpatrol98]

80. Frederick Douglass was also one who didn't cede his platform to hecklers.

I'm pretty sure Frederick Douglass would be mighty proud of Michelle Obama. And, he was also often heckled. That's a great quote. I think Sturtz had a momentary sense of power as she talked over the first lady. I think Ms. Obama demanded it back.

[Fire Walk With Me]

81. LGBTQ people suffer from inequal rights and this is unacceptable in any form. I'm sure that

Mr. Douglass would also appreciate the struggle for demanding that which should already be present, which should not require a demand to begin with.

[onpatrol98]

85. Frederick Douglass

You may want to believe that Frederick Douglass would have approved of Sturtz's yelling down Michelle Obama, but I find it doubtful.

While he may would have believed in the cause, equality, I'm not believing he would have believed in a shout down of Michelle Obama. The only power she had was to hold the floor where she was invited to speak. I'm thinking Frederick Douglass' chest would have swelled with pride at her standing her ground.

But, I could be wrong.

I think we're seeing a different set of optics. Close your eyes for a moment and truly attempt to picture a Frederick Douglass offered the opportunity to peek into that room. Visualize him realizing that this young black woman is actually the first lady of the United States of America. Gee, he'd have to feel proud and surprised at how things have changed.

Now, visualize Sturtz attempting to shout down Michelle Obama. Mr. Douglass, no stranger to being heckled himself.

Now, if you can still think Mr. Douglass is thinking Sturtz is being mishandled by Michelle Obama...have at it. I have no idea how we'd have an honest dialogue. Goodness knows, America needs one.

[Fire Walk With Me]

89. You are correct, I cannot surmise his reaction, however I hope the gist is taken. n/t

[onpatrol98]

92. I get the gist of it...but, I always got the gist of it.

I was just startled by the use of a Frederick Douglass quote, a man African American children and the black community use as an example of boldness, strength and potential for progress as an example of why Michelle Obama, a benefactor of that particular struggle should have sat down for heckling, when the man you casually quoted did not.

So, yeah...I get the gist. There is no way Michelle Obama deserved her microphone while Sturtz had something to say. Her purpose at the moment was to allow herself to be used to satisfy the needs of someone else. It's a common thread throughout American history. African Americans are a disposable people.

Need stuff built, go get some black people in another land. Need free sex, prevent marriages, sell spouses and sleep with slaves and the help. Need to get a message across, shout over the black woman. Need to prove she had a duty to give the microphone up, provide a quote from a beloved black civil rights leader whose focus was rights for blacks, and use it as a rhetorical weapon against their concern.

And, no. I'm not accusing you of being a racist. I don't believe you are. I just wanted to give you an idea of how what you said, registered to me. We have a communication disconnect.

[BenzoDia]

56. Well said. And you made some great points.

[treestar]

60. Great point about executive orders

Some states still don't have gay marriage - it would make more sense to go into them and campaign rather than demand executive orders. Or demand Congress make anti-discrimination laws - the President would sign them. It's so ridiculous to be vicious towards the President on this issue!

[Cha]

64. Thanks mark!

'It's also worth pointing out that executive orders, or the sort Ms Sturtz was demanding , do not have the force of standing law. As soon as the political winds change and there's another right winger in the Oval Office, any excecutive order can simply be undone by another executive order. Instead of putting so much energy into pushing for what amount to little more than stop-gap measure, why not focus your energies toward actually changing the law?"

[alphafemale]

65. An immature self promoter got treated as she deserved.

Immature has a sad.

Act like an adult if you want to be respected as one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. Apparently, you're not alone Mark. Amanda Turkel reports that Ms. Sturtz was....

shocked at the response she got from the attendees. She got a dose of the rudeness she doled out, and now she's playing victim. Gotta love it!

[alp227]

67. Spot on, Mark! After thinking about it for a while I've concluded Strutz wanted her 15.

I would've defended her to no end if I'd posted about Sturtz last night. Now that I've thought about it & read other DUers' opinions I've landed against Sturtz. Her stunt was self-serving and inconsiderate. At least Medea Benjamin kept her heckling ON TOPIC such as when she protested at the John Brennan confirmation hearings and Obama's national security speech.

[DevonRex]

71. Topical and in public

with cameras rolling so the issue got attention. The President even emphasized the importance of what she said during his speech and let her talk because it was topical. To me it was a presidential moment and a citizenship moment.

Dan Choi was also very good at getting heard. And brave and persistent. And loud. And always, always the epitome of an officer. A leader. A gentleman even as he raised a ruckus.

I am not against protest. If you protest, make it count. The message is the focus. Be heard by the right person. Confronting the family will turn the public against you and make you the story, not your message. It is such common sense that I doubt the intent in this case.

[ruggerson]

87. Dan Choi was mercilessly crucified right here on DU

By many of the same folks weighing in against this woman.

I have no opinion either way on this particular contretemps. The Sturtz woman will never have a clue as to how Michelle Obama has experienced life in America and vice versa, rendering the entire "confrontation" essentially superficial and meaningless.

Certainly you remember how Dan Choi was treated here, Devon. It was not one of DU's finest hours.

[Number23]

77. Glad to hear your perspective. Thanks for sharing it.

[Scurrilous]

100. K & R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. The couple who hosted the party...

Dr. Nan Schaffer and Karen Dixon

[jwirr]

110. When no one can hear what you are saying.

[markpkessinger]

111. I'm not exactly sure what your comment means . . .

. . . nor am I clear as to why you are commenting now, over two year after I posted this op. Could you clarify? Thanks!

[jwirr]

112. Your post was used as a link on another post commenting on the BLM protest at NN. The new

post asked why anyone would scream at protestors who were making a lot of noise. What I answer was - so that the speaker could be heard. You might ask why your original post was a link in the first place.

This whole argument has been just about as crazy as DU has ever been while I have been on and a whole bunch of unrelated stuff has been thrown in. I did not look to see when your post was dated

Sorry.

[markpkessinger]

113. Thanks for clarifying . . .

. . . I missed that other thread.