BREAKING FROM NBC: White House official calls gays part of "Internet left fringe"

Source: AMERICAblog

NBC just did a piece about today's gay rights march in Washington. For the political context of the gay community's ire, NBC went to White House correspondent John Harwood. Harwood was asked if the White House was worried about "the left as a whole," and concerns they have that the White House isn't doing things that "the left" expected them to do. Harwood said the following:

Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

Harwood then went on to say:

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

So the gay community, and its concerns about President Obama's inaction, and backtracking, on DADT and DOMA, are now, according to President Obama's White House, part of a larger "fringe" that acts like small children who play in their pajamas and need to grow up. (And a note to our readers: The White House just included all of you in that loony "left fringe.")

~snip~



Read more: http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/breaking-from-nbc-white-house-official.html

---

& video on page if you actually need to see that

JFC. It came out AFTER the gay fund-raiser, is it any wonder?

:grr:

TRANSCRIPT:

Lester: Joining us now, CNBC's chief Washington correspondent, John Harwood. John, what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or wh... does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base.

John: As a practical matter Lester, I don't think it's a serious problem. We've seen, and certainly Bill Clinton learned, that Democratic presidents can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues, so for now, I think the administration feels if they take care of the big issues - healthcare, energy, the economy - they're going to be just fine with this group.

Lester: But in general, when you look at the Left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things that they thought would have been done that haven't?

John: Sure, but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats, so the White House views this opposition as really part of the internet Left fringe, Lester... which, and for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one advisor 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.'

Lester: If anyone watches late-night TV... (continues to next subject)

Or just the least-important part of the Left as a whole? What?

That the knife in our back is in a bunch of other people's backs as well?

Get Real.

this section is for late breaking news and the headline should be accurate. This blog entry was obviously 'opinion' whereas the video could have been considered newsworthy. 'The truth' is the one thing that Democrats need to hang on to because it has served us well through the years.

I posted the transcript of the interview to clarify what was actually said in the video, not support any contention that the White House is being especially friendly to Democrats with progressive issues or complaints about the timing of Obama taking action on issues important to the Democratic Party. But the poster had the right to argue there was somehow a sudden shift in the White House's attitude once the gay-donation checks were in the bank because news posts allow sections which the reader can consider as 'opinion' and I don't discount their thoughts.

Gays are a part of the Internet fringe left according to this White House official, one that this official thinks should put on their pajamas. That's clearly what's being said.

If you can't understand that gay activists are intended to be one part of the "Internet left fringe" that the unnamed WH official stuck a big ass knife into, you have more problems than needing to see a quote.

Learn to read.

in the video, I count 'opposition' used twice, 'bloggers' used once, 'the Left as a whole' used once, and 'gays' used zero times in that transcript, so to say the headline is not technically wrong is, itself, wrong.

and now I see you are using the term 'gay activists' instead of 'gays' in general - where did that word 'activist' come from all of sudden. Boy this news article is just continuing to write itself isn't it?

something he'd say.

It's interesting, if this guy really is speaking for Obama, that he's basically saying that it was okay to lie during the election, but once you win, you don't need the 'fringes' of your base so their issues, which you told them you cared about, really never did matter.

What they need to realize though, is that by lying to those fringes they acknowledged they needed their votes and their work.

He's saying that they go by polling, NOT by what might be the ethical thing to do. I'm sure that was how politicians viewed those 'fringes' known as minorities when Civil Rights was the issue.

I don't think he helped this administration with these statements. Hopefully he's speaking for Rahm and not Obama.

Misleading synthesis, too.

...they probably have a point...John Harwood, who spent most of Friday mocking the president's Nobel peace prize, paraphrases some anonymous White House official about 'the left' and Aravosis wants everybody to get their panties in a wad?

I realize Obama isn't the swashbuckling hero of his (Aravosis') fantasies, but still, a little maturity would probably help him and his blog tremendously...

who this "adviser" was supposedly criticizing, but bloggers. Where he gets a diss at the gay community from this, I have no idea.

Yes, you are correct. That post is misleading.

It's not the white house saying this, it's a "correspondent" expressing an opinion and what he's saying is not attributed to the alleged source.

This is just rumor-mongering.

The post is not "breaking news" and should not have been placed in this section.

I don't trust John Harwood. I looked him up on Media Matters and the first thing that came up was:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908090011

Harwood's story doesn't make sense. Why would Obama give the speech he gave Saturday night if he didn't care about the gay constituency? There were risks to giving the speech. And if Harwood was describing the real attitude at the White House, why would somebody be dumb enough to say something like that to the press?

Its Sunday and the part timers are running the show. I'm going to wait until tomorrow to see how this plays out before jumping into the outrage I'll have if I find out this is true.

He would be more comfortable at Fox. I find it hard to imagine that the Obama White House would ridicule the bloggers who turned out in such amazing force during the election.I can see Harwood goading that kind of response by quoting some of the more harsh criticism available on the internet. I can't see a responsible member of the administration "biting the hand that feeds them" like that.

This makes me furious.

is a figment of his imagination.

I would like to know who the "one adviser" is and whether this is the opinion of this one person or if it's actually the view of the President.

Because we are asked to trust Harwood here and I do not trust any reporter without a source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6758903

When will I ever learn not to be taken by threads without direct sources?

I don't get that message from the quotes.

Just wondering.

Seriously, there's a big difference. That headline is designed to upset people. It's not designed to accurately portray what was said.

And like Harwood is the one making the association, not the White House.

cables owned by Universal Studios. Maybe Harwood and the others are hoping to be picked up by Murdoch Media which will own it all eventually.

from the White House as whoever tends to do at least once a week.

Who is this adviser? On what capacity was he talking? What was the question asked by Harwood that justifies this answer.


Once again, the media play the game of "dont ask me who told me this", and bloggers run if this fits their agenda (not criticizing the agenda here, just what is used to push it- next time, they will whine because Harwood or somebody else distorts what they say or what their hero says.).

BFEE payroll during the bad old years...

You and John Aravosis should be embarrassed.

I saw this & posted it, isn't that what one is supposed to do when news which might be viable to discussion here? I neither approved nor disapproved of it, nor did I write it, so no I am not embarrassed one whit.

Shooting the messenger is real helpful. Truly pathetic foolishness.

I await your apology.

:thumbsdown:

and I didn't interpret those quotes like AmericaBlog did.

Epic Fucking Fail.

lame.

My sexual orientation is nobody elses business.
Never miss an election though.

Where in there does anyone from the WH say gays are part of the “Internet fringe”? From what I just read, that was John Harwood’s opinion. He then goes on to cite some unnamed adviser who allegedly told him that BLOGGERS “need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

John Harwood is CNBC's Washington Correspondent. And I don;t think that this unnamed adviser in any way represents the White House.

that Guckie was fellating KKKarl Rove daily ...

the coached reporter gave them the money shot. now the white house has to reply to a nbc set-up...it`s the old "beating your wife"....

funny i`ve seen this bullshit before...the media setting up a story to divide the democrats

Add in our straight allies and we are no doubt at least 15%.

Gays and friends vote Democrat in extremely high numbers - above 80%. And, us gays (like women) are more likely to actually vote. Also, we have more expendable income and the percent of our funds received by the DNC and Dem candidates is totally out of proportion to other constituencies.

If Dems are say about 55% of the voting public then I would say that the "fringe left" is hardly fringe in the Democratic party. Its the base.

Whatever jackass in the W.H. made the statement needs to have his desk cleaned out.

Note: When I say "queer" I mean the entire GLBT/leaning/thinking/don't know community.

Nice try though.

Bad try.

Nowhere does it say that gays and people concerned with gay issues are part of the "internet left fringe." It's a fantasy.

Avarosis is known for making connections out of nothing and then having a fit over it.

This isn't breaking news.

:boring:

There is a HUGE fucking difference. I don't agree with either sentiment, but the difference is night and day.

It was a remark on those who were protesting. It was not a remark on gay people, which if I so clearly have to cite credentials- I am one.

This is an overreaction. The question asked does not pre-select "gays" but antecedents "bloggers". Like I said, I disagree with that assumption about bloggers and the left fringe. I also disagree with that comment IF it were about gays. IMO, it isn't. Every time we overreact like this we lose credibility. We shouldn't mar this day. And we shouldn't give up on our rights. IF we really wanted our rights, we wouldn't leave Pennsylvania Ave until we were given them, but as of yet I'm still waiting... :shrug:

"We shouldn't mar this day." What?

"IF we really wanted our rights, we wouldn't leave Pennsylvania Ave until we were given them, but as of yet I'm still waiting..."

given them, given them, What????

Sounds like you think it would be a gift from straight people.

You are fully entitled to your opinion and I mine.

1. We shouldn't mar the day by making straw men out of non-issues. Thus making ourselves look like morons. What would be better seen on the news tonight... stories about the protest or stories about the "advisor's" comment? Which one is an issue that the world needs to see and which one is a non-sourced non-issue?

2. "given them" = GIVEN OUR RIGHTS. Just like with the OP's article, the antecedent is CLEARLY present for the pronoun "them". If we really want "them," our rights, we shouldn't leave DC. We should be there tomorrow and the next day and the next. Anything less is utter foolishness, to believe that a single day of protest is going to make that much of a difference. It doesn't show the Administration that we're serious, it shows them that we're on the level of part-time activists. We will not receive attention until the Administration sees that we cannot be pushed aside and that our impact will NEGATIVELY affect them. Until our impact will negatively affect them, we aren't doing anything and we aren't going to be given our equal rights.

3. That argument stereotype about straight people makes us no better than those who try to keep us from our rights. The GLBTQ community is not an automaton. We are individuals each with opinions as valid as the next. Likewise, straight people are not the enemy either. There are MANY straight allies. Mathematically there are more allies than GLBTQer's. Are we going to alienate them too to gain our rights? They do not deserve to be called bigots either directly or indirectly as the punchline of some sarcastic remark. Sexual orientation is NOT some sort of ideological war between GLTBQer's and straight people. IT IS NOT.

Welcome, brothers and sisters!

:hi:

was about bloggers not the gay community.

This:

Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

is Harwood's opinion.

This:

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

is a paraphrase of what an adviser supposedly told Harwood about BLOGGERS.

Nowhere in that first quote does Harwood say that someone from the WH told him that.

that Harwood isn't just talking out of his ass to make a headline.

There's a reason the press just resorts to making shit up about this White House--because it gets a rise out of us.

Perhaps they were aiming at John Aravosis or other bloggers, but I feel it wasn't a reflection on the gay community. Believe me, I would be roaring angry if it did feel that way. In fact, the HRC audience did anything BUT show opposition to Obama in their response to him, so I think the article saying that 'the White House just knifed our community less than 24 hours after he went to their dinner and claimed he was our friend' is wrongly placed.

Just my 2 cents - not saying it is the right view, just another view

I'm firing off an email to Mr. President now, asking that the "adviser" be named and shamed. Anyone else with concerns is welcome to do likewise.

I have emailed Mr. President, advising him to nip this in the bud. I pointed out that we on the Left are hard-working, tax-paying Americans who support our families and vote in every election. I pointed out that we are his supporters, and should not be disrespected. Let's see what the news says, tomorrow.

Let us not forget that John Harwood is a CNBC correspondent. He lives in the financials of Washington more than the politics of it.

Having just gotten home from the march and rally today, I am really finding the whole media coverage to be misleading. The CNN story (and repeats of it on Yahoo and HuffPo) talk about 10s of thousands of people. When we rounded the corner on to Pennsylvania Ave, the front of the parade had finished. About 30 minutes later when we got to the Capitol, it was still full on Pennsylvania Ave. I think that is more than 10s of thousands. Since the park service doesn't estimate crowd size anymore, the media can print whatever they want. Either way, not bad for a march that began its organization 4 months ago!!

:bounce:

This is the first march in D.C. that I could not attend. Glad they had a good turnout in spite of the fact it was controversial in the community. We are diverse enough that we don't all have to agreed on every move. I take the splits as growing pains - emphasis on growing.

meaningful healthcare reform - and it does indeed look like that is going to be a clusterfuck - then I'm fucking done with 'em - at the the spineless bought and paid for ones. This would be a second strike against 'em. Well, some of 'em.

shit for another Divisive thread on DU.

And, I see you sucked in a few but so many are on to this shit.

Oh, americablog is a little shit stirrer.

bullshit characterization.

Just the type of crap that gets these flamefest shitpile threads started.

Oh yeah...here's a massive UNREC for fanning the outrage. This shit is really, really tiring.

with a mountain of salt. The man is a tool and longtime pusher of RW frames and talking points.

This administration considers all of you the fringe as well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are so smart, s-m-r-t.

:eyes:

He thinks he's a reformed Log Cabinette, but he's still just a f*cking Log Cabinette. His mantra is criticize, criticize some more, then criticize again. Nothing constructive; just whining.

Yet he maintains his precious, useless web site and his useless, clicking, clucking herd.

"Good gays" are supposed to keep our mouths shut, keep the money flowing into the DNC and run out to vote in the midterms....even if we keep getting crapped on by a Democratic president, Democratic Senate, and Democratic House. We luvs yoooouuuuu!

The hatred here for Aravosis makes me laugh. It also exposes the fraudulence of this "liberal" site.

personal experience with him and his Americablog site.

If you think I speak for other DUers, well, thanks for the compliment.

You'll eventually get up to speed.

Cheers. :)

Congratulations--you've given our media the reaction they wanted. Are you proud of yourself?

And no, I don't accept Harwood's words without question, although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turned out to be true.

... kudos.

John Avarosis enjoys ownership of one of the top political blogs in the country - and one of the five best gay blogs on the net. His content is always insightful and informative.

I laugh at his critics. They deserve nothing more.

... this is the winner for the most inept.

If it weren't so ridiculous, over the top, absurd, and sad - and appearing on a progressive board - it would be comical.

:shrug:

Yes, I saw the video, and that is what I saw. If anyone inside the WH actually said that thing about the pajamas and whatnot, they should be shown the door.

But this is NOT what I am getting from Obama.

Once again I want to ask: Who does it serve to undercut what the President is saying? Who does it serve to divide us and set us against each other?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Hekate

It makes for good television.

When in danger or in doubt,
run in circles, scream and shout.

Go, Dem Lefties!

gaaaah

:wow: :nuke: :woohoo: :nuke: :yoiks: :woohoo: :nuke: :yoiks: :wow:

Hekate

quoting an "unnamed WH advisor" (which is usually code for the Chinese food guy who is ESL) as bashing the left, and we react in a fashion that would make Pavlov proud.

He's an adviser, very important. I can't tell you his name, but I'm pretty sure, and I'm paraphrasing here, he said Harwood is a jackass who started making stuff up a few years back after everyone else stopped talking to him.

Again, I must protect my source. But he's quite specific on the Harwood = jackass part.

He was saying that those participating in the march -- who, are after all, just a tiny fraction of gay people in the US -- were part of the left fringe.

Sorry. Try again.

As noted elsewhere, the purported comment was about the left blogosphere as a whole and not about gays specifically, so that claim is just nonsense. Secondly, the purported comment is from 'one advisor' said advisor unnamed, as reported by John Harwood. This is basically gossip, and consists of Harwood's recounting of some comment made (perhaps) by some person inside the whitehouse about those pesky bloggers who keep poking the administration from the left. Of course they would like us to stop doing that. It so gets in the way of doing as little as possible about issues important to the left. So they have to diminish us as best they can.

Please stop blowing shit up way out of proportion. It looks half baked. It validates the characterization of the left as pajama clad blogbarian basement dwellers.

Pure crap, and obviously poorly sourced...

The closest thing said to that is that they said that about "left" bloggers who are taking on the White House.

I believe that if you are going to lie to me about what was actually said, that you are going to lie to me about other things.

Don't lie. Now I can't believe you ever again.

I really don't do anonymous hearsay quotes, but the staffer should be found and fired.

but not just gay LW bloggers. Bad headline.

Like Gays are any differnet from any other human being on the planet, yet we get attitudes like this inside the Government..

Looks like Obama is finished, and now focusing on Politics as usual in the White House.

I'm sure he'll have good company with Bill and Hilary Clinton, and their buddies in the Big Corporations. As the first poster to reply to this thread, Just watch them grovel for the support they lost in 3 years.

when this speech was announced, I'm not impressed with him or his eloquence any longer.

It was made clear upthread that it was the REPORTER who concocted the "Internet Left Fringe" claim, NOT directly attributable to any WH source, and yet you're not only taking that on faith but extending it to a wholesale dismissal of the President himself. Maybe you're looking for anything to continue to validate your dim view of the President...even if it's made up?

...to tell me that the White House thinks the Left Wing is unimportant.

THIS is all the indisputable truth I need:


Republicans and Health Insurance Lobbyists have MORE access to the White House than the Progressive Caucus or advocates of Single Payer.

Why not take a tid bit and play off the frank story? Isn't it obvious this "hack" is looking to generate buzz. He is not looking for news.

and there are people here who would believe it. I guess some people just plain gulliable and/or looking for any reason to bash the guy.

who would say that a puppy kicker is unfit to be president. Now if this is true and I've only heard it mentioned twice - once by me...

I heard it was kittens.

and swallow it whole,

and afterwards, step right this way....

Whether or not that what you think he meant, and he may very well have meant it, no where in the article, or in the video, are gays even mentioned.

on edit - half asleep. Since they were talking about the protesters at the march, it could well be inferred that is what he meant. Apologies. But still not LBN.

Are you advising that I edit someone else's writing to suit not their perception, but yours?
Why don't you write the author and demand that? Leave me out of your excoriation, as I already said, don't shoot the messenger.

LOL amazing.

Calm down, honey, didn't mean to pee on your parade. Carry on.

anonymously... Someone needs to keep the division alive and well.

In an email to the Huffington Post on Monday, Harwood clarified that the quote was not meant to convey any displeasure on the part of the administration for the gay community's public advocacy.

"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote. "They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base..."

As was clear in the transcript, but posting for the doubters. Now, as to whether progressive bloggers should be angry or frustrated with this 'adviser', you betcha. But again, pointing the arrows in the right direction, at the right target and for the right reason is always worth waiting a few extra moments.

what, we are grumbling about kids being blown up in 2 stinking wars? we are grumbling about people dying from no health care? we are grumbling when gay couples are denied access to one other on their deathbeds?
fuck that noise!
these beltway assholes better wake up and smell the goddamned coffee

we put them in there,,we can vote them OUT

its that simple.

Obama DOES or DOES NOT stand up for gay rights?