Jane Hamsher talks to John Harwood

[babylonsister]

So the LGBT community had nothing to do with this comment. Oy. All that Sturm und drang for nada.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2009&base_name=who_cares_what_the_white_house

Who Cares What The White House Thinks Of Bloggers?

Jane Hamsher talks to John Harwood, who explains that the "fringe" comment was directed at dissenting left-wing bloggers, not the LGBT community:

He confirmed that the quote came from “an Obama adviser.” He did say that the comments weren’t specifically directed at “the LGBT community or the marchers,” but “referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo.”

Okay, at this point I don't know what there is to be outraged about. If the adviser's comments, as nebulous and unverifiable as they were, had been directed at the LGBT community, at people who are merely demanding the recognition of their rights as human beings, that would be tremendously offensive. Indeed, many of us took it that way. I certainly did, and so did Hamsher, saying "{a}fter pandering to LGBT leaders last night the truth comes out. Dear gays: grow up and let us get about the serious business of governance." But Harwood clarifies that the statement was never meant to be taken that way -- which means that the folks who have spent all day explaining how this one anonymous statement proved the "truth" of the president's contempt for the LGBT community were just plain wrong.

Honestly, if the White House wasn't angry at the pushback its been receiving from the left, I'd be disappointed. White House frustration at "the left" is less an insult than a vindication of the left's intellectual honesty.

-- A. Serwer

[TheWraith]

1. Some people deliberately misconstrued it for their own benefit.

Some "left wing" bloggers are NOT on our side as far as getting anything done. They are, like tabloid newspapers, more interested in creating controversy for their own benefit.

[firedupdem]

3. +1

That's why the wording continued to change...from bloggers, to demonstrators etc.

[CakeGrrl]

10. And they do a disservice to their causes when they misinform. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. +2. I've maintained for some time now that this is absolutely the case.

Rightwing activists groups are crowing about the dramatic escalation in memberships to their causes. Let's be honest, the leftist bloggers suffered a devastating blow upon the election of a Democratic WH & congress. For some of them, at this point, it's all about remaining relevant until such time as they can make sure we lose our majorities, so they can recapture the anger that was built up during the Bush years.

When a party is completely out of power, their grassroots seem to explode. While that may be great for individual activists, it certainly doesn't help the Democratic party. Hopefully, bloggers on the left will find their relevance again soon. Until then, I'll take their over-the-top critiques of this administration with a mountain of salt.

[Number23]

25. What??! The HELL you say!! I've never heard of such a thing!

Go wash your fingers with Lava soap. Maligning the character of good, hardworking DU posters that way! People who want nothing more than for this President to succeed and are patient, intelligent people who always, ALWAYS wait until there is something legitimate to be outraged about before becoming consumed in froth!

You should be ashamed.

[mkultra]

32. yup, i wont mention names but it rhymes with shmarwood.

[firedupdem]

2. Backtracking and trying to minimize it all. He's full of shit...He

threw it out there because he knew it would cause more division. Screw him and his pretend sources.

[Parker CA]

7. +1. I think this one backfired on him though. He probably got some calls and is now backtracking.

[Drunken Irishman]

21. I think so too.

This is how they work and we all fucking fall for it every goddamn mother fucking whore time.

They plant the seeds of division among the liberals, pit us against one another and create a fracture that grows and grows until it's out of control and we're smacked upside the head by a really rusty mace.

[firedupdem]

23. And that rusty mace may be

Palin, Pawlenty, or Mitt. I couldn't survive any of them.

[Cha]

24. +1 For Clarity.

And, the White HOuse denied it..Who am I going to believe? The White House or the wankers who throw red meat around bc they know it will be gobbled up..toxins and all?

CrossPost From babylongsister..

babylonsister (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-12-09 12:01 PM
Original message

White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/white... /

"White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”


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

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

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


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


Whatever you think of the White House’s record on gay rights issues or the respect it does or doesn’t have for the blogosphere, paraphrased second-hand claims from a single anonymous adviser don’t really seem like grounds for sweeping conclusions about the White House’s alleged disdain for the online community.

You can debate whether the White House has been solicitious enough towards the issues that matter to the online world. But it seems clear by White House actions — the hiring of Internet outreach staff, the frequent blogger conference calls, the elevation of Huffington Post at press conferences — that the White House sees the blogosphere as playing a valuable role of sorts.

********************************************

"Update: I should add that it’s entirely legit to be concerned about the administration’s gay rights record and the disregard some White House advisers (albeit anonymous ones) hold for the “left.” My point is that this quote, given the sourcing and second-hand nature of it, doesn’t seem like enough to get upset about."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8697898

[vaberella]

28. Yuppers. That's exactly right. n/t

[Enrique]

4. I agree there's not much to be outraged about

it seems like kind of an obvious attitude an administration would have. Not pretty, especially worded the way it was, but totally to be expected, of Obama or many other politicians.

Nothing to kill Obama over, nothing to kill Harwood over.

[Baltoman991]

14. Oh come on!!!

Harwood did this on purpose to drive a wedge between Liberals and judging by this board, it worked. Nothing came from the lips of Obama and it's been proven.

Harwood is a putz who deserves the scorn on this one.

[Enrique]

18. until he says something we like

then no one questions his journalistic credentials, no one says he has any agenda, and we "think we are in love with him" which someone actually said here about him last month when he said something Obama-friendly.

[Baltoman991]

20. Just speaking

for myself, that won't happen. I've never really liked Harwood for this exact reason. I guess in reality, they're all the same but for some reason, he's just more out there with the speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Now before anyone says anything, I'm not putting him in the same boat as a Limbaugh or Hannity.

[gkhouston]

26. actually, it seems like an obvious attitude Harwood would eagerly foist off on the administration.

I don't think the WH is that tone-deaf.

[Cha]

27. Yeah, Harwood sucks on this..and so what if

I liked his comment on the Education speech that the President made?

So what?

[sandnsea]

5. I'd hate for any of these reactionaries to be in charge

When will they learn. Isn't there a report like this once a week, that always turns about to be untrue on further analysis. Why can't they ask first, before they go to war.

[Pirate Smile]

13. Because they want to go to war. They run on outrage. They seem intent on always assuming the worst

about the Obama White House no matter how many times doing so is shown to be wrong.

[mkultra]

33. some on the left want Obama to fail.

[grantcart]

6. Harwood's source revealed

"That's the money Harwood could have saved if you weren't trying to stir the shit and called GEICO instead".

Not a "senior adviser" or "somebody close to the President" just an adviser.

That would include about 800 people, or if you include everyone at DU about 24,000.

Has there ever been such a kerfuffle over an unidentified, unspecified (as to standing) person who made a throw away remark?

For all we know it was his diet adviser, or his microphone adviser.

[Phx_Dem]

8. LOL. Hilarious how serious they take everything.

They sound so pathetic crying about nothing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. ROTFLMAO. You owe me a keyboard.

:spray:

[CakeGrrl]

9. And look at all the foaming at the mouth that IMMEDIATELY took place

based on the implication "Obama hates the LGBT community!"

:eyes:

[vaberella]

29. Ain't that the truth. His statements were to create dissent.

The mediahounds love the fact that left-wing bloggers like being critical of Obama, actually many like being critical of Obama. What I notice though...and it's two fold is that the left wing bloggers also WANT to be angry at him because they feel it will galvanize their group to force any sort of agenda they want met...and/or the publicity they get from being critical, others are sincere and try to stay on facts. However, more often than not, they just want to be angry...from what I can. They are quick to jump...either online or just on DU and when the WH denies the claims they think the WH might be lieing ignoring the fact that MSM are the ones who are trying to control the conversation and controlling them to a certain extent.

[mkultra]

34. it speaks to the simple mentality of the reactionaries.

[ErinBerin84]

11. I don't really get Hamsher's post on this

She brushes past saying that this quote was a general reflection of the left and not directed at the gay and lesbian community/protesters , and blames the source and Harwood for allowing everyone else to make that connection. Unnamed sources do suck and should be called out, but I really don't understand how anyone would have made that conclusion anyway...Harwood said in the original piece that he asked the advisor about "the left as a whole"....She also quotes the White House's statement saying that this was not a reflection of the administration, and says that they are "calling in to question a white house correspondent for NYT and NBC!" But that's not really what happened as far as I can read . The quote sucks, but who cares anymore? So much drama. I feel like the truth is somewhere in between, and I agree that the Obama administration should crack down on this asshole leaker and that journalists should try to get people to go on record...but we also give them the power to do this when we react and give so much attention to reports like this. Ugh. The quote was bad (though not really something new or terribly surprising) enough by itself, but the immediate linking that the advisor was specifically referring to the protesters that day did seem a bit dishonest to me. The Obama administration hasn't been very good on gay rights issues, so I don't really fault them for this, but there are particular bloggers who do this with everything, all of the time.

[MarjorieG]

31. Then ends with 'intellectual honesty of the left.' (?)

[Andymatos]

12. The Obama adviser must be fired

If he thinks that way of us.

[emulatorloo]

16. Um, welcome to DU. . . .

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Are you a blogger? If not, your concern is duly noted.

:eyes:

[Engineer4Obama]

22. So on this site alone Obama has been refered to as

a Corporatist backstabber, Sell Out in Chief, Warmonger, and wanting to re-institute slavery, but an anonymous WH source makes fun of our jammies and we think that person should be fired? Do we really lack any and all perspective or are we intent on proving this anonymous source correct?

[vaberella]

30. Don't forget he's been labeled homophobic as well. n/t