Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
An Anonymous White House Adviser Was Talking About Your Mama.
Last night, CNBC's John Harwood offered an outrageous quote from "an anonymous White House adviser." Saying he didn't think the National Equality March yesterday was a serious sign of frustration or dissatisfaction with the president among his base, Harwood said:
Sure, but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90 percent or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “Internet left fringe,” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.
I'd describe this as the journalistic equivalent of a "your mama" joke, except generally those aren't also anonymous. Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and Pam Spaulding all reacted angrily -- which is understandable, given the circumstances -- the president has yet to make serious headway on a number of campaign promises on gay rights.
Still, I'd take this with a grain of salt. If an "anonymous White House adviser" was quoted as saying the president planned to repeal DOMA or DADT next month, everyone -- the bloggers I've mentioned above in particular--would treat that claim with skepticism. But because the above quote fits with their general frustrations about the president's foot-dragging on gay-rights issues and confirms their suspicion that the president's sloth is ultimately rooted in contempt for LGBT people, they're taking it almost entirely at face value. As Hamsher put it, "After pandering to LGBT leaders last night the truth comes out. Dear gays: grow up and let us get about the serious business of governance." How is it that Hamsher knows this is "the truth" and the speech the president gave on Saturday night was a "lie," other than the fact that it confirms what she already suspected?
Of course, the reaction Hamsher gave is the one the reporter was trying to get -- I was taught in journalism school never to grant someone anonymity just to talk smack, but doing so is now simply a part of political journalism, for the simple reason that it pisses people off and thus makes more news.
It's impossible to know where the reporters' own editorializing and characterization of the "adviser's" quote begins or ends, how highly ranked the adviser is, or how indicative his views are of the president's or even anyone in the White House of any significance. Greenwald observes that there's someone in the White House who appears prone to give such quotes -- this suggests to me that the above statement is even less evocative of the administration's thinking than we might assume and more representative of one person's grudge toward the netroots. While I sincerely doubt Harwood fabricated the quote, a number of facts about the quote aren't just unknown, they're unverifiable.
In light of that, it seems more appropriate to judge the president on what he's done or hasn't done, rather than on the kind of anonymous smack-talking that helps reporters make news. There's plenty to be angry about already.
UPDATE: A White House spokesman tells Greg Sargent that "that sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all."
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (13)
In light of that, it seems more approrpriate to judge the president on what he's done or hasn't done, rather than on the kind of anonymous smack-talking that helps reporters make news. There's plenty to be angry about already.
Yet more kooky logic.
Anyone, from the Administration, come out (pun intended) to say that quote was a mischaracterization of the White House Position?
as I thought...crickets
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2009 10:05 AM
It's also a frustratingly vague pair of quotes, at least as Harwood presents them. "This opposition." "These bloggers." Which opposition? Which bloggers? It's not at all clear.
Posted by: Angus Johnston | October 12, 2009 10:06 AM
These guess should probably learn to respect their base if they want to win elections. Right now, they are flirting with another 2000 or 2002, where the base either doesn't show up or a chunk decide to go with someone else.
Things like this wouldn't matter without 20 years of triangulation. It's been a long time since the marginal voters picked up by this BS outnumbered the ones who leave the process because of it.
Posted by: soullite | October 12, 2009 10:22 AM
The most efficient thing would be for the WH to make a press release each morning distancing itself all positions that contradict (or re-characterize in an insulting manner) any official positions.
Normally you'd assume that - I mean, that's the point of having official positions.
But given the extreme power of unattributed staffers the WH needs to make a bold stand.
Posted by: V.O.R. | October 12, 2009 10:49 AM
What if Harwood made this up just to get his face on teevee?
Unless he names the advisor who said this it might as well be something he made up.
I'm sick of blind quotes.
Posted by: HoneyBearKelly | October 12, 2009 10:50 AM
"Anyone, from the Administration, come out (pun intended) to say that quote was a mischaracterization of the White House Position"
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/white-house-disavows-claim-that-gay-critics-bloggers-are-part-of-internet-left-fringe/
But hey, way to confirm a post's central point in the very first response. That's impressive.
Posted by: Brien Jackson | October 12, 2009 11:05 AM
The anonymous quote fits the facts better than the official, public, on the record line from the Administration.
It's true that, ideally, we would only judge the Administration on what it's done, not on what it's said publicly or thought to have said privately.
But we aren't ideally rational people, and we're too easily swayed by a pretty speech and the idea that someone is on "our" team. In that case, considering motivations other than the official, on-the-record motivation moves us towards rationality.
In other words, if before you heard Harwood's reporting you trusted Obama, and after you heard it you didn't, it was the trust that was irrational, not the mistrust. Few of us know Obama personally or have any specific reason to trust him. People on all sides have difficulty remembering that the ruler of a nation of 300 million is necessarily a stranger to almost all of us and should always be treated as such.
Posted by: Consumatopia | October 12, 2009 11:50 AM
I'm sorry - I just don't understand this logic at all. Obama stands up in front of the HRC, after winning the election and three years before he's going to want their support again, and says "I'm going to end DADT". Seriously, unless he intends to kick this can down to a second term, what does this buy him, other than pissing off social conservatives?
If there's one thing I think most people agree on, it's that Obama is very politically savvy, jokes about 12-dimensional chess aside. To convince me that he's just making nice, one of two things has to happen: either someone has to explain to me how Obama publicly making nice with HRC and promising them a tangible result outside of an election cycle is overcome by one unsourced comment relayed by one reporter...
...or Obama has to get through the rest of this term without doing anything.
Fortunately, I don't think either is likely.
Posted by: sammy | October 12, 2009 12:15 PM
Seriously, unless he intends to kick this can down to a second term, what does this buy him, other than pissing off social conservatives?
Time.
LGBT community should be shrill until Obama acts on any one of his promises, no question about it. The time for playing nicey-nicey-waitey-hopey is over. Obama is not going to give us anything we don't demand.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2009 2:07 PM
Let's look at Obama's substantive record:
1) Inviting Rick Warren, one of the most prominent homophobes and misogynists in the country to play a major role in his inauguration.
2) Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in cabinet level appointments.
3) Doing nothing to push for ENDA, the military ban, or any other significant lgbt issue.
4) Involving notorious heterosexist bigots in his office of hate based initiatives.
The quote made people angry because it was 100% consistent with the bigoted behavior of this Administration.
Posted by: libhomo | October 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Purity troll says: Address my issue NOW or I take my ball and go home!
Result: Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 2010.
The same Republicans that have been attacking the LGBT for decades are the same Republicans that have been successfully enacting LAWS AGAINST LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS.
How's that working for you?
You want progressive legislation that knocks down discriminatory laws?
Make sure your local Representative and State Senator are signed on to your issue(s), and if they aren't PRIMARY them or work for their opponent.
But beware, there is a point where working against an imperfect politician enables a politician who will be even worse for your issue.
President Obama went to the LGBT community, directly addressed their issues, and promised to work on their behalf.
And the purity trolls would replace him with what?
A Republican Bush-clone that ACTIVELY worked against LGBT interests?
And that's helpful how?
Posted by: News Reference | October 12, 2009 5:55 PM
President Obama went to the LGBT community, directly addressed their issues, and promised to work on their behalf.
For the 3rd time! Geez! What more do you hateful fags want anyway?
Purity troll says: Address my issue NOW or I take my ball and go home!
Result: Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 2010.
bored now, doodling
Posted by: bored now, doodling | October 12, 2009 8:42 PM
Purity troll says
o.k., there, Closet Case, simmer down.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2009 2:34 AM