Obama Makes Light Of Prop 8 Protesters At Fundraiser [UPDATED]

[Updated, below.]

Well, another day, another California fundraiser, another occasion for President Barack Obama to say some idiot nonsense about his constituents. The only difference is that instead of Mayhill Fowler, it's the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny chronicling the remarks for posterity:

A gaggle of sign-waving protesters milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president's eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd.

"One of them said, "Obama keep your promise,' " the president said. "I thought that's fair. I don't know which promise he was talking about."

The people in the audience - who paid $30,400 per couple to attend - laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.

I'll let Andrew Sullivan answer the President's question!

[S]ince he asked, how about an end to the HIV ban, an end to the military ban and a federal recognition of full civil equality for gay married couples? Three clear promises.

Any of those ring a bell?

Meanwhile, The Advocate reported today that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, pressed on the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," twice "reverted to his standard talking points on the subject."

And, by the way, one of those protestors at the fundraiser? Lt. Dan Choi, who was once allowed to participate in the defense of this country:

UPDATE: People, people, people. If it helps you, psychologically, to embrace this interpretation of events, in which Obama is "happy to know people are pushing him to keep his promises," well, you go right ahead! Heck, maybe I am being oversensitive, with the White House stalling on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and whatnot. To echo Sullivan, perhaps I "jumped too soon." But, I'll point out, again, that Obama's "I don't know what promise" quip drew "laughter" from the people at the fundraiser. Who do you think the White House feels an obligation to? The protesters outside that fill Obama's heart with such GOLLYDARNED happiness to be reminded of his obligations? Or the people who paid $30,400 to hear him josh about them? Good luck answering that question!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[JDRNYC]

I voted for Obama with very high hopes. I also disdained the Bush administration and it's policies, as well as the thought of a McCain/Palin administration. However, I've got to admit, for as much as I loathed Bush, he actually had a set of b @ l l s. When he decided to do something, even if it was moronic and unpopular, he did it. Too bad I can't say the same thing for Obama.

[Michael Shanley]

I think it is clear that the African American community can longer be taken serious on these blogs. They continually try to paint the picture that gays blantly attacked them “needlessly” for prop 8. The fact is it was reported, as fact that 70% of our friends in the African American community voted to uphold prop 8. Thus denying us the same states rights in California as themselves and their counterparts in the heterosexual majority. This wasn't something the gay community propagated or started it was reported by news organizations as fact based on election polling that was done. Even African-America bloggers have admitted the bias within their community. Anggelic11 writes "in our community, gay is (was) such a no no; times have changed and many of us have not changed with the times.

That said, most black will never accept the term..."marriage" as being btw none other than a man and woman.

They continually point the blame and racist arguments as being gay driven, when the opposite is true. Your biases have to be dealt with and can't be justified with that's the way we are...or that's our conservative side. Furthermore, no one alive today owned slaves...most are immigrates themselves, including my family. The day has come to put this argument behind us...because you further alienate people who found slavery abhorrent and would they never condone the behavior but you constantly look to put the blame at these peoples' feet.

[backwoodsintellect]

I'm disappointed at some in the GLBT community. I'm particularly disappointed in Andrew Sullivan. Let's put aside that Obama has the fullest plate that any president in generations has had. Let's put aside where we would be had McCain/Palin been elected. Let's put aside where we would be had the family who brought us 'don't ask, don't tell' re-taken the white house. (btw, am I the only gay man who was offended by 'don't ask' AT THE TIME?)
There is enormous pressure on the White House that could potentially cost Iowa the loss of same-sex marriage and bring on an anti-gay constitutional amendment. Much of the same is going on around the country. What will help the situation in places like Iowa is the perceived nonchalance from Obama on the issue until after the mid-term elections. The very worst thing that could happen for gays and lesbians in places like Iowa is for the White House to be perceived as any more radical than it already is.
Try a little patience, folks.

[livinCalDemtbubble]

backwoodsintellect, you are very intelligent, but there is an essential point you miss. Obama IS nonchalant at this point to GLBT issues, and it's harmful to the GLBT community. Yes GLBT issues are "wedge" issues that can be harmful to the Dems and Obama, but leadership demands courage. The nonchalance results in middle America believing that GLBT issues are not important, not valid civil rights issues, and therefore the results are homophobic and harmful to GLBT people. I hope you are not at a point where you need courageous leadership in this country, because if you do, it is lacking.

[livinCalDemtbubble]

I don't think the President has any intention to keep the "promises" that Andrew Sullivan discusses. I take Obama at his face value, he doesn't know what the promises are he's not kept. He has made the political calculation that GLBT civil rights are not an issue he supports. In reading the comments on this blog many writers believe Obama will eventually support Gay civil rights. He won't. He's mainly concerned about moving America in a progressive agenda on healthcare, global warming, increased standard of living for all Americans, returning America to the civilized world in diplomacy. And so far he's doing a great job! However, as I'm Gay, and the President doesn't support GLBT civil rights I will not spend my time or my money on assisting him in getting re-elected, and will put my energy, and what funds I can, to support GLBT candidates for public office, and those candidates who passionately support GLBT civil rights. People spent $30m to laugh at GLBT civil rights, yuck! Glad I wasn't there.

[CSull2005]

Obama is far more concerned with hosting Nancy Reagan and making plans for Ronald Reagan's 100th birhday bash or something.... you know... really important stuff... yep, he really just doesn't have any extra time to do anything frivlous like live up to campaign promises or anything like that.

[dsws]

Andrew Sullivan named three promises. Obama could probably name a hundred more. That's the nature of campaign "promises": candidates lay out an agenda, basically what they would do if they were a dictator with a magic wand. No one really expects the candidate to be able to do everything on the agenda. While there have been some obvious disappointments, Obama has done a lot in these few months, and most of it has been very good.

Yes, keep the pressure on. But I don't think there's reason to cry betrayal.

[KillBillV2]

I've been gone camping w/o T.V or Radio for 3 days...what happend?

[indeevoter]

OH...for Gawd's sake...put a sock in it, already! The man has been president for 130 days - and because he hasn't yet addressed the promises you cite, he's what...a liar? ...a flip-flopper?

If he made those promises, I believe he WILL address them...just as he'll address all the other promises he hasn't yet addressed. But why does it have to be done within YOUR timetable? He hasn't addressed healthcare either..and people are dying because of THAT! Some of our grandparents are making life-threatening choices to be able to afford their medications. Tens of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs and their homes and their small businesses...and others are being shot at and bombed in war zones in other hemispheres. Obama has more major crisis balls in the air than any president in our lifetime, so frankly, I think anyONE, and any GROUP that demands he address THEIR issues within THEIR timetable should climb down off their self-serving, self-involved platform and look around. We've all got issues we want him to address. Yours are no more important than ours.

Give the man a chance...

[carsntrucks]

Good to see Lt Dan Choi throw himself into the culture war. That really shows how much he cared about defending his country in the military. Whatever. If he cared, he wouldn't have outed himself on Rachel Maddow.

[Tanyars5]

whats up cars

[mag68]

Alright the Ted Haggard fan club is back

[NKR]

I consider myself a left-winger and get called "far left" all the time...but i must say, many of the angry complaints from liberals are utterly illogical and ridiculous. There are too many people on both sides lacking in logic and reason, the fundamentals of intelligent thought. Even if Obama had been talking specifically about the pro-gay rights protesters, which he probably wasn't given the fact he said he didn't know what they were referring to, he probably just meant that he never promised to legalize gay marriage in the first place. I'm getting sick of all the people on the left who are saying Obama broke his promise to legalize gay marriage or prosecute the Bush administration or fight for single-payer healthcare (and I keep hearing people say these things, especially the latter), when he never ever promised either of those things. Obama has done an incredible job so far on everything except certain aspects of the bailout.

[sturzl]

I think he's doing a great job too, but he is totally dropping the ball on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He did promise to overturn this and he still may. I have a problem with how long it's taking him. Yes, he has been in office for only 4 months, but how long does it take to sign a stop-loss order? He could have done it on the plane ride to California.

[NKR]

I'll refrain from speaking on DADT because I don't know all the details and complexities of the issue. You're probably right though.

[clearthinker2008]

I have to agree with you, and even if he hasn't kept all of his promises I think it's a little early to calling him on them. I'm pretty left leaning but I'm finding out the progressives complain more about Obama than they did Bush, and frankly it's getting a bit annoying. Wait at least a year and see what happens ... and some are in fact complaining about stuff he promised when he never promised those things.

[Skott1]

Fine for you, but while you are telling people to wait, gay people are being kicked out of the military, losing their source of income, health insurance, etc. Can you be that self centered not to realize that there are people in the world who are being damaged by these policies? Telling them to wait a year while you and your family are happy and healthy is just plain mean.

[NKR]

I agree with what you said about progressives complaining, although it mostly only bothers me when they say he's "broken a promise" on something he never promised in the first place. And lets face it, with as many pressing issues, situations, and crises as he has to deal with, we can't blame him for letting a few less important issues (not unimportant, just less important) fall through the cracks for the time being. Politifact has been tracking all his promises and their status, and overall he's doing pretty darn good.

[Bootoomee]

Jason,

Why not just admit it like Andrew Sullivan that you jumped to conclusions? It takes nothing away from you. I think you journos/bloggers always take exceptional pride in catching Obama gaffes. Maybe because they are so rare. Considering all said in this case, I think you are wrong. And your update only portray you as an over-righteous know-it-all.

Your friend Jeff Zelleny seem to be in a fit of jealousy of the Hollywood folks with:

"The people in the audience - who paid $30,400 per couple to attend - laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes".

Why would he go through that length to describe what they were eating and how much they paid for it? How is it relevant to the story other than to make people see Obama as an insensitive jerk making fun of suffering people in front of his ELITIST friends. I think this is a cheap way to cause outrage. Remember Santelli's rant?

I respect you Jason but I think admitting it when a mistake is made only elevates people and never diminishes them. Take a cue from Andrew Sullivan.

[brandon102]

Obama has demonstrated he is certainly capable of getting around entrenched interests to get things done. If he wanted to repeal DADT, and perhaps even help out his gay constituency in other ways, he could easily do it.

But he doesn't and that tells me a lot.

[DRaymond]

Well, first of all Obama didn't promise to push for Gay Marriage or to have the federal government push itself into regulation of marriage, which has always been a state responsibility.

And Don't Ask Don't Tell is a law passed by Congress. Obama could take an executive authority to limit its enforcement, but it would still be the law. Congress needs to repeal the law. So who is dragging on their promise?

Obama has at a minimum an economy to finisht fixing, a Supreme Court Judstice to get confirmed and a big fight on fixing health care. That's too much to be spending his effort getting wrapped up in a California state issue.

[AFVet1A251]

WRONG... DADT was an Executive Order and could be repealed by Obama any time- try again.

[sturzl]

I believe it's called a stop-loss order and Obama is completely within his authority to give that order,

[wanttruth]

President Obama's comments didn't single out anyone specifically. He didn't seem defensive or fazed by the protesters at all. This is a misleading column!

[Mij13]

Well, it's getting late, but it looks like you've managed to turn Obama voters against one another, Mr. Linkins. Way to go, Jason!! As a regular reader, I am disgusted, and will never think of you the same way. Have a good night!!