Rachel Maddow Challenges Obama On Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'Stand Up For What Is Right' (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow challenged President Obama Wednesday night, urging him to "[stand] up for what is right" on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Maddow made the appeal personal, highlighting three soldiers "whose military careers are being ended because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"As we take our time winding down this policy that everyone says will be ending, as we shamble toward justice, we as a country are continuing to put the lives of these
individuals through the meat grinder every day," she said. "Why are we kicking people out now, in the meantime, while we are waiting for the views of the commander-in-chief and the defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff to be implemented?"

Maddow said that the reason Obama isn't stopping enforcement of DADT now is because "that would take some political capital, that would take some guts."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And she argued that Obama should appeal to his base not just by pointing out the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but by giving Democratic supporters something they can support:

One less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

That is how you regain the enthusiasm of your base. That is how you win the respect of your base. That is how you win the respect of the country. And admit it: that is how you win your own self-respect, too.

"If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is going to end," she concluded, "the president could stop enforcement of the policy pending that change. Why isn't he?"

Comments

[johnnyb93]

10:44 AM on 09/20/2010

When has Obama stood up for what's right on anything?

[Untameable]

10:36 AM on 09/20/2010

The law of the land is DADT; if Obama, using the power of the pen, stops its implementation thereby setting a precedent, what's stopping the next Republican president from reinstating the ban while he works to have the ban reinstated as law?

I prefer Obama's approach

[Aerows]

10:38 AM on 09/20/2010

The next Republican president is going to do it anyway. Bush certainly did.

[Untameable]

10:45 AM on 09/20/2010

NO! he didn't. Clinton gave us DADT. Bush did no such thing but simply followed the law.

[joshu]

10:35 AM on 09/20/2010

because he is a co.. co.. co...coward????

[Untameable]

10:31 AM on 09/20/2010

Clinton came in screaming and swinging for gays to serve openly in the military and we end up with a law called DADT
Obama came in using a more cautious approach and it looks like he is winning, and all you guys are doing in the gay community is bashing him? for not doing it fast enough?
Did you forget our beloved Clinton gave us DADT? Shouldn't Rachel be directing her anger at Republicans? Or is that a lost cause already?

[alphamale43]

10:29 AM on 09/20/2010

DADT keeps people safe!

[sak]

10:25 AM on 09/20/2010

You said it all, Rachel. I think the answer is Rahm. I really believe that he is the anchor in the White House. Does that excuse the president. Of course not, but I do think he is the guy who has put the breaks on a lot of things.

So, Mr. President, we are awaiting your decision. Are you going to continue to watch people get shoved out of the military or will you put a stop to this until a permanent decision is made?

Also, keep in mind that the commanders in the military who are implementing this policy do not have to rush either. They also could drag their feet. What are they pushing ahead? Most likely because we are still saddled with old, bigoted, power hungry bureaucrats, some of which are "holy" people like the guy in the air force who said our god is better than their god when referring to Muslims.

[b-dob]

10:23 AM on 09/20/2010

So, liberals, is Maddow racist, sexist, or heterophobic? Discuss...

[alphamale43]

10:25 AM on 09/20/2010

All of the above cause all liberals are that way:-)

[indie00015]

10:38 AM on 09/20/2010

Just because you ask a question doesn't mean it's worth discussing. It's not.

[b-dob]

10:48 AM on 09/20/2010

Only if somebody on the right is criticizing, right?

[Melizzy]

10:23 AM on 09/20/2010

You tell him, Rachel. Not that I think he's listening.

[lentinelia]

10:22 AM on 09/20/2010

I think Rachel is deluding herself if she thinks that Obama thinks he has to win his own self-respect.

If he could campaign for Lieberman during the time when Americans were finally making progress in forcing the congress to end the war in Iraq, if he could call upon voters to "have the good sense" to reelect Lieberman so that he could continue to serve "in our behalf", he either had no self-respect or couldn't care less about it.

And now she thinks he'll run to her cause so that he can win his own self-respect?
This fellow, who made a joke about predator drones to the same audience that Bush made his WMD joke? This fellow who likened his inept bowling to that of a handicapped person taking part in the special Olympics?

Obama is a lost cause.

[Aerows]

10:21 AM on 09/20/2010

Rachel Maddow is absolutely right. This is just another example of the Obama administration ignoring his base. I voted for him, but I'm a lesbian, and he has failed in his campaign promises to the gay community. For those of you who want to roll in here and give the blurb that "he's signed more gay rights legislation that any other president", the important things are what he has ignored. DADT is a huge thing, and allowing people to continue to get kicked out even after DADT was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is wrong. The are people who put their lives on the line to serve our country. They deserve better than this, and the gay people who voted for Obama deserve better than this, too.

[NoelGreco]

10:19 AM on 09/20/2010

Of course it is the tendency of a gay person to promote more liberal treatment of gay issues in all environments.

[nuni]

10:32 AM on 09/20/2010

Mary Cheney, Ken Mehlman, Log Cabin Republicans and a host of gay but closeted members of Congress.

[indie00015]

10:36 AM on 09/20/2010

Hm....

The Bill of Rights = "liberal treatment of gay issues"?
Our military men and women go to war each day to protect those "liberally treated" issues. That's why they're called "Rights".

[Aerows]

10:39 AM on 09/20/2010

Fanned and favorited.

[indie00015]

10:16 AM on 09/20/2010

"Why isn't he?" One of two things, Rachel:

1. He is a pansy, or
2. He's bought and paid for by his rich, white corporate masters.

Either way, he's not someone who can lead. Having voted for him, I wish he would resign and let Joe Biden take over.

[Maxirules]

10:21 AM on 09/20/2010

I might agree with you being right about him being a Pansy. But what does Don't ask Don't Tell has to do with his white corporate masters? Shouldn't that be his homophobic masters.

[indie00015]

10:27 AM on 09/20/2010

Yes, it should be, Maxi. It does seem though that many times there is an "agenda" dictated by those who shell out the campaign cash. Fighting gay rights seems to be on that agenda, right along side abortion, prayer in schools, zero taxes and no regulations.

[NoelGreco]

10:22 AM on 09/20/2010

Oh please!

As much as I detest Obama's policies, the thought Joe "Gaffemaster" Biden as president is anathema.

[indie00015]

10:34 AM on 09/20/2010

Yeah, Biden does have a loose tongue at times. But he has two things that are required for leadership in the White House. "huevos"

[Lefty08]

09:16 AM on 09/10/2010

Why isn't he? Because he won't expend any more political capital than he feels necessary. I will most certainly NOT be working at his campaign headquarters in my city again....I won't lift a finger to help him. But I don't think we really have any other viable alternatives either. Unfortunately, he knows there are no other viable candidates for the gay community....

[Carpool Kathleen]

08:01 PM on 09/10/2010

Kind of sums it up....

Is there anyone better around? No.

[Pleroma]

10:21 AM on 09/20/2010

I'm sure you're wrong.

[lentinelia]

10:24 AM on 09/20/2010

There are lots of better people around.
Finegold. Grayson...

I know lots of people who are head and shoulders above him.

[MrUniteUs]

08:09 AM on 09/10/2010

First remove the offensive ad promoting a White Jewish writers'
Black homosexual slave fantasy,

[Pleroma]

10:22 AM on 09/20/2010

?

[N8tracks]

01:06 AM on 08/16/2010

The reason this is not a high priority is because there is no suffering. There are no separate drinking fountains, no police dog attacks, no fire-hoses, no bombings, no visible oppression. These people wanna be able to openly serve. While I do agree with them, they should be allowed to serve, it's just not a high priority. I think the time-line they've announce is fine.

[henryle74]

01:49 AM on 08/16/2010

What are you smoking? No suffering, my as@!! It is a high priority!! We have top level sergeants and captains, lieutenants, etc that are getting kicked out daily. The government has spent millions training them and we are on the losing end of the deal when we kick them out. Many have specialized training have language skills we need. we are kicking out people that have put their lives on the line for us. we are kicking people out based on an ignorant policy that is eventually going to be phased out. The discrimination affects real individuals and it affects the security of our nation. that is why it is urgent. also, obama could place a moratorium against continuing the hearings and investigations if he wanted. But like rachel said, that would take courage which I am starting to suspect he is lacking. These are real people laying their lives on the line for us and they deserve better. We need these soliders that are being kicked out in afghanistan. any kind of discrimination could be justified in some way but that doesnt make it right. There was a time when many justified segregation because they believed it did not make blacks really suffer since they still had access to most facilities even if they were seperate. americans finally realized that was a falsehood and we ended segregation. right is right and sometimes you have to do the right thing at ackward times.

[Pleroma]

10:25 AM on 09/20/2010

It's not about smoking, it's about suffering, and N8tracks isn't suffering. Or thinking, apparently.

[december30]

10:28 AM on 09/20/2010

They made a choice to tell.

[blueskybigstar]

11:18 AM on 08/16/2010

N8tracks is ridiculous.