Why They're Hollering

Comments

1
Go for it.
The more noise made before he gives in the more it looks like he is under the thumb of the radical Left HomoLiberals.
The more noise made and he doesn't give in pisses the panty pissers and demoralizes the base.
It's all upside from where we sit.
2
Is Andrew Sullivan even a US citizen?
3
class..
4
That was a beautiful clip.

Now he just needs to actually do it...
5
Oh, and can we please only allow registered commenting?

Kthnx.
6
I kind of get Obama's point, though, about disrupting a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer--who never even voted for DADT in the first place when Clinton put it through.

I guess in California liberals have the luxury of throwing temper-tantrums to their sentators and presidents who are on their side. Good for them I guess.
7
First Pelosi and now Boxer? Oh, daring!

Are they afraid Boehner will take a pistol from under his coat and shoot them?
8
"Because, they're simply a branch of the teabaggers. This is the sort of thing that they do, to pretend that they are something else is dishonest. Selfish and self-centered people like the ones who were yelling at the President are never going to be satisfied. Nothing is ever enough, and until the basic pillars and institutions that hold our society are not thoroughly dismantled against the will of the people they'll keep on. Even then they'll still demand new ways to thoroughly silence the citizens who oppose their threats and demands. And if these hate groups don't "make him do it" one way, we all know what they are capable doing, they will not refrain from any tactic or action no matter the harmful consequences. May God protect our President from these hate groups.
9
@8: You know that the Olympia tea party opened with a prayer to protect the "traditional family" and our armed services from domestic threats, right? And that they got all red faced and shrieky about DADT at the Seattle tea party? And that several teabagger types casually dropped several epithets toward anti-tea party protesters?

Comparison fail.
10
#2: WP: "Sullivan has often expressed his desire to become a U.S. citizen, but was barred for many years from applying for citizenship on account of his HIV-positive status. Following the statutory and administrative repeals of the HIV immigration ban in 2008 and 2009, respectively, Sullivan announced his intention to begin the process of becoming a citizen."

But what difference does it make whether or not he's a US citizen? Not being a citizen doesn't preclude one from commenting on US politics and current events.
11
Looks like Dan Choi has just chained himself to the White House fence again, along with some members of Get Equal.
12
Dingo@10: The difference is that as a gay Brit, Andrew Sullivan could've served in the UK military. Instead of enlisting, he banged the drum (and his keyboard) in support of the Iraq war. He's a coward whose opinions on military issues I could not give one shit about.
13
He's changed his position on Iraq, and being wrong about one thing doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.
14
Good Morning Dan,
I'm all for removing DADT but I'm not sure it is a good idea to do this kind of thing at a fundraiser for an incumbent US Senator struggling to retain her seat. It was rare to see him lose his composure. Some of the stills show him quite angry. In additon, I don't think repealing DADT is as easy as just a directive from the POTUS. I'm pretty certain much of the brass is still uncomfortable with it (DADT's repeal).
15
@1 - Dear GOP. Please continue deluding yourself. In a democracy, the real sign of health is when a group, nominally in agreement, holds itself accountable. The reason the GOP is marginalizing itself in a crippling manner is that none of them had the guts to call Bush II out on things such as deficit, wars of expansion, torture, etc. Now, when the tea-baggers whine about Obama's spending, it rings hollow. The fact that the left is publicly, vocally, criticizing Obama is the healthiest thing in the world.

Then again, since the GOP is now really about power, rather than ideas, i'm not surprised you don't understand this.
16
Fron todays NYT obituary of civil rights pioneer Dorthy Height:

One of Height's sayings was, ''If the time is not ripe, we have to ripen the time.'' She liked to quote 19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who said that the three effective ways to fight for justice are to ''agitate, agitate, agitate.''
17
I agree with time and place, but I also am compassionate towards the GLT community and their right to express their feelings. They didn't ask him to go back to Kenya, they didn't call him a lier, they asked "why?". I believe the President offered many promises that he is being held accountable for and there's nothing wrong with that. It was calm, it didn't get out of hand, and they probably had matching shirts.

Come on, Obama wants to: (see video above)
the Military Leaders want to: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/pol…
Dick motherfucking Cheney wants to: See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicoli…
We want to: See mirror

Everyone else might need help pulling their heads out of their collective ass: (SEE: the pentagon, or: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/20…)
18
15
You do realize Obama is Bush3, don't you?
Extending the war into Pakistan.
Drug War in Mexico.
Quadrupled the annual deficit.
Killing 3X as many civilians in Afghanistan as a year ago.
Repeal DADT? STFU hahahahaha

Enjoy your halo.
As for us, we would find it a poor substitute for getting our agenda passed but we're all about power, not so much sanctimonious suffering....
19
@16: As has been said in other threads on this topic, the time is not yet ripe. And it won't be ripe until 12/2010, at a minimum, not matter if you put DADT in a paper sack.

And it might not be ripe until 12/2014.
20
And it might not be rioe until 2030 or 3010.

I get the elections point. But that doesn't mean we shut up and go away and it doesn't mean we don't continue to exert pressure in both a traditional, legislative manner and in civil action. Telling people to wait their turn is just not an answer. The FDR quote used by Dan is apt. If you want complicaed, controversial social change in government you have to make your case, loudly, in a variety of ways. Lobby, agitate and yell.
21
Above was supposed to say right, not rioe.
But the good news is, I invented a word!
22
and mine was supposed to say "no matter if..."!

it will be ripe during this administration.
23
Quit bitching Dan....He wants to do it and he WILL do it. Blaming him and undermining him is, again, working against your own cause.
24
@18: I see that you dummies have moved on from claiming that Obama's ineligible to hold the office to insisting that he's your guy all along.
Silly Alleged, don't you know he's a radical socialist? My point.
25
Dan's instinct to allow the adults speak is a good one - post the Sullivan quote - intelligent, thoughtful comments. then he goes and ruins it with his own nonsense.

oh, and can we please only allow registered commenting?
26
24
Did @18 get anything wrong?
Enjoying your Single Payer?
Glad to see DADT repealed?
Welcome any troops home from Iraq yet?
Gotten a Federally funded abortion lately?
27
Everytime I see Obama giving a speech on TV, it looks like he's still campaigning for President. Or rather campaigning for re-election which is why - I suspect- he isn't doing anything too radical right now.

If he is reelected, you can count on him doing all sorts of things he promised because he doesn't have to worry about the next election. Look at Bill Clinton- politically, socially, he's doing and saying things he could never get away with as Pres.

Political office does that to a person.
28
@26: Healthcare reform, Shepard & Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention act, Big Finance reform, etc.
The reason we don't have single payer or a public option is because the obstructionist Republicans in Congress are bitches, not because Obama didn't want it.
Also, we don't need to have federally funded abortions; all we really want is for them to be available to those who need them, which is more than Bush would have allowed.
We are currently pulling our troops out of Iraq (and have been doing so since last year), so yes, we have welcomed a good few of them home.
And the repeal of DADT is in the works, if moving disappointingly slowly.
I'm sorry, your revisionist history does not change the fact that our guy is in the White House, not yours.