(video courtesy WhiteHouse.gov)

To be clear, I agree entirely with Ben Smith and others who say that today’s quote was probably a political misstep. The media is mostly framing this story as: Did Obama “endorse” the project or didn’t he? That’s an overly simplistic framing, but you work with the media you have, not the one you want. Today’s quote was bound to be interpreted as a walkback in the face of intense pressure. What Obama should have said was this: “I’m not commenting on the wisdom of the project. Nor is it my place to do that. But now that they have decided to proceed, we must respect their right to build the center and welcome them in accordance with American ideals.”

That would have been more desirable, and in some ways more directly consistent with his brave stance yesterday. But even so, based on what he did say, I’m just not seeing a serious walkback or contradiction here.

via The Plum Line – Did Obama walk back his support of Cordoba House?.

Here is video of Obama’s original statement in the White House:

…and on the Tarmac in Florida on Saturday, August 14…

“In this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country’s about and I think it’s very important that as difficult as some of these issues are we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.”

To Imam Feisal: We write with an unshakable commitment to religious freedom, and to your right to exercise it in meaningful and concrete ways. We have great appreciation for the progressive and inclusive interpretation of Islam to which you speak. We have read with care your own words about the purpose of the Cordoba House. We take those words as our starting point for the issues we raise in this letter, as we appeal to your senses of decency, empathy and prudence—and to those of all Muslims of goodwill.

Your stated goal of interfaith and cross-cultural understanding is a good one—one that we all share and have devoted considerable energy to furthering. It may well be that this goal would be furthered still by the building and operation of Cordoba House. However, while we will continue to stand with you and your right to proceed with this project, we see no reason why it must necessarily be located so close to the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

[...]

Our deeper concern is what effect Cordoba House would have on the families of 9/11 victims, survivors of and first responders to the attacks, New Yorkers in general, and all Americans. As you have seen in the public reaction to the Cordoba House, 9/11 remains a deep wound for Americans—especially those who experienced it directly in some way. They understandably see the area as sacred ground. Nearly all of them also reject the equation of Islam with terrorism and do not blame the attacks on Muslims generally or on the Muslim faith. But many believe that Ground Zero should be reserved for memorials to the event itself and to its victims. They do not understand why of all possible locations in the city, Cordoba House must be sited so near to there.

Many New Yorkers and Americans will conclude that the radical interpretation of Cordoba House’s purpose is correct. That belief will harm what you have articulated to be Cordoba House’s core mission. Rather than furthering cross-cultural and interfaith understanding, a Cordoba House located near Ground Zero would undermine them. Rather that serving as a bridge between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, it would function as a divide. Your expressed hopes for the center not only would never be realized, they would be contradicted from the start. Insisting on this particular site on Park Place can only reinforce this counterproductive dynamic.

Another site—not just away from Ground Zero but also closer to residential neighborhoods—would serve your institution and the city better. Worshipers would be closer and the communities that need help would also benefit from proximity. We stand ready to help you select and secure another site, to overcome regulatory hurdles, and to make up for any lost time.

via Dan Senor: An Open Letter on the Ground Zero Mosque – WSJ.com.

Senor and King may have general public opinion on their side and they may indeed be proven correct by erection of Cordoba House near Ground Zero. People may be offended when the center is built. A Cordoba House near ground zero may fail to foster more tolerance between Muslims and the general public. All that may occur in spite of the fact that Muslims died on 9/11 and in spite of the fact that there are two Mosques, (one pre-dating the construction of the World Trade Center and both pre-dating either WTC attack), mere blocks away from ground zero, and in spite of the fact that Muslim soldiers are fighting under our flag in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Obama’s argument is that it is the right of any American to express their self religiously in accordance with the law.On both Friday and Saturday, Obama said he believed in the right of Imam Feisal’s group to build the Cordoba House. It is the right of any American to seek any of the positives Imam Feisal sees as resulting from construction of Cordoba  House. It is the right of any American to risk all of the negatives that Senor and King see as the likely response to a Cordoba House cultural center near Ground Zero.

The neo-cons want to argue that there is a lack of wisdom, sensitivity and  common sense behind the Cordoba house initiative because with leading poll questions and cable news appearances they can sway public opinion. Obama is asserting that the matter is settled by First Amendment rights and first amendment rights only. He can’t win an argument against people’s personal feelings about Islam and he is right to explicitly stress that this a matter of constitutional rights. I feel he’s choosing not to argue with fools.

During the election of 2008 much of the commentariat was convinced candidate Obama just couldn’t relate to  the average American. Obama was too aloof and arrogant. He needed to get his bowling score above 200. He needed to chug more beer or at least make people want to do a keg stand while he held their feet. Whites didn’t love him. He was too mysteriously foreign and ethnic aka Hawaiian. Rendell himself was nervous that whites in PA would never love him.

Everything’s changed now that Obama is President of the United States. Governor Rendell thinks Obama should be above  certain things. Especially a daytime show, like The View. Barbara Walter’s daytime show reaches an audience that is 79% women and has a median age of 59 which is in the 45-64 age group. Obama tied John McCain in this  demographic overall (49%/49%) and lost to McCain among white voters in this demographic (42%/56%). Since 2008, The View has been steadily gaining market share among women aged 18 to 49. With this appearance, Obama will be reaching more women than he would appearing on cable news at a Rose Garden press availability (in 2009 The View‘s average audience was 4.2 million up from 3.5 million in 2008). The President and his political team probably want to address national issues, especially economic issues (unemployment, housing crisis, stimulus, jobs) with women voters that could vote Democratic or GOP in the 2010 midterm elections.

What We Got

• A liability fund, paid into by BP and administered by a third party. I guess this was the “mad Obama” part of the speech? He’s so mad at BP, he’s going to set up a trust and make them put money in it. It’s no Tony-Hayward’s-head-as-a-paperweight, but it’ll do.
• A “long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of [the Gulf Coast] region.” Obama says he’s asked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to develop such a plan.
• A new head for the Minerals Management Service, the federal body that oversees drilling regulation. Michael Bromwich, a former prosecutor, will take over the MMS, and hopefully, you know, do the job he’s supposed to do (“regulate offshore drilling”) instead of the job all the old MMS heads did (“get invited to parties by oil executives”).
• A moratorium on oil drilling. Like, duh.

What We Didn’t Get

• Carbon pricing. Placing some kind of tax on carbon emissions is, according to basically anyone who pays attention (so, no one in the Senate), the only way to actually address the systemic problems with our energy consumption and the catastrophic effects that consumption has on the environment. Obama didn’t rule it out (he said he’d listen to any proposal from either party, which, you know, LOL, can’t wait to hear any Republican plan for solving anything), but its (expected) absence isn’t a great sign for anyone who doesn’t want to irrevocably fuck the planet, forever.
• Specific goals or benchmarks for renewable energy. It’d be nice to hear Obama set new, ambitious goals for our totally necessary and yet still endlessly delayed move toward a renewable grid. But he didn’t. Why? Because Americans just don’t give a shit about this.
• A time machine, that we could go back in, and make this not happen.

via What Did We Get Out of Obama’s Oil Spill Address?.

Not an inspiring address at all.

Meanwhile, yes, it sucks because honorable soldiers are being dismissed from the military due to this discriminatory policy. Some to the left of Obama suggested Obama simply doesn’t give a damn about DADT repeal and others  demand he act more like how they perceived George W. Bush , rule by bullying and Executive Orders. Their claim is if Obama was the more like the fake cowboy, he could put a stop to DADT and do whatever the hell else he wants to . In reality Bush had the help of “centrist” Senate and House Democrats at every turn (and failed when he tried to win some issues like carnivore prior to 9/11 and Immigration Reform post 9/11). These give absolutely no thought to the fact that a DADT Executive Order repeal would inevitably create a volatile political situation where hypocritical Tea Baggers/Libertarians (like Rand and Ron Paul),  idiots in the main stream media and the GOP would begin raising hell about Obama abusing power to ghey up the military. All this noise could inevitably spook enough senate and house Democrats and could result in DADT repeal law not ever passing and an executive order to end DADT being rendered impotent by a politically careful caucus who could underfund the mandate. (Don’t believe me? Tell me when they closed Guantanamo Bay in 2009 or tried KSM in Federal Court) .

The cynical why is DADT repeal an Obama priority in May 2010 after all this time? questions ignore the reason why proponents of immediate executive order DADT repeal are upset with the Obama Administration in the first place: the strategy to enact DADT repeal by passing a law and then implementing the policy within the Pentagon bureaucracy after a thorough review was announced earlier in Obama’s first term. See Robert Gates interview with Fox News Sunday in 2009:

WALLACE: In January, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a one-word answer, “yes,” when asked if this president is going to end the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for gays in the military.

Where does that stand? And why is there currently money in the 2010 budget to keep enforcing that policy?

GATES: Well, it continues to be the law. And any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law, whatever it is.

That dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now, and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.

via Transcript: Secretary Gates on ‘FNS’ – FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace – FOXNews.com.

and reiterated in Obama’s State of The Union address:

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama said, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Six days later, Obama’s top Pentagon officials offered the Senate Armed Services Committee details on how Obama’s pledge will be carried out.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” said Gates. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen, speaking “for myself and myself only,” added that he is in favor of “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly” in the armed forces.

[...]

Gates and Mullen cautioned that the switch would not be immediate. Not only does Congress need to change the current law, but the Pentagon will first carry out a detailed “implementation plan” led by Pentagon legal counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who commands the United States Army in Europe. It’s likely to take months for the Pentagon to complete its plan.

In the shorter term, Gates said that the Pentagon would move toward enforcing the current policy “in a fairer manner.” Gates established a timeline of 45 days for those changes.

via PolitiFact | Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – Obama promise No. 293:.

I think Obama chose to stabilize the economy, change war strategy, pass health care, establish an international diplomatic agenda and enact wall street reform before tackling DADT, and rightly so. DADT repeal has wide public support and congressional support. He chose to do the harder things first. In general, I think that this makes sense as a framework for legislative strategy. It’s a  cold triage of priorities that is of no comfort for the soldiers who have been disgraced, the currently enlisted who still fear expulsion due to their sexual orientation, Americans who understand DADT makes our government discriminate against law abiding citizens, and those  who understand removing capable soldiers from duty diminishes our national security infrastructure.

If the unfair DADT policy is outlawed by congress and signed into law by the President it will be a true repair to our democracy. Anything just ordered away by the Commander in Chief is just a temporary patch.

It is hilarious that Maher is saying religion “cock blocks science” when Maher, an avowed atheist, smugly believes vaccines are innefectual and cause autism and that the “Master Cleanse” laxative of cayenne pepper, water and lemon should be a daily elixir to help maintain health. His atheism still allows him to engage in completely warped support of alternative medicine quackery. He practices a naturalist fundamentalism that is illogical and is also a “cock block” to scientific, evidence based health and medical practices.  (Video’s is audio excerpt from Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast 218  9/23/2009 discussing Maher’s blind embrace of quackery).

Obama: Don't listen to a podcast, unless it's mine. (Photo: AP/Steve Helber)

President Obama gave the commencement address at Hampton University and railed against mobile and home entertainment devices.

With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations–none of which I know how to work–information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.

via Tech World Explodes Over Obama’s Anti-iPad Remarks | The Atlantic Wire.

Huh? I guess Obama’s oft discussed iPod playlist was really Reggie Love’s “music for oldheads” custom iTunes playlist after all.

The truth is iPods, iPads, XBoxes and Playstations can be used to deliver podcasts,  record or playback lectures, play books on tape, view photo albums, deliver stimulative games (boggle, scrabble, crosswords, sodoku) and to deliver multimedia magazine and news info-apps. They can also be used to purchase movies, television shows and access a variety of internet resources. I use my iPod Nano to listen and watch  lectures from universities I couldn’t get into, classic speeches, NPR on terrestrial radio, web only news and commentary and watch exercise instructional videos.

Even as far as entertainment goes, I love being able to podcast music that isn’t A&R driven, payola lite top 40 that’s increasingly dominated by auto-tune, 360 deal teeny boppers and trap music (disclaimer: nothing wrong with this music some of the time for some people, just something wrong when it’s on all the time).

He wouldn’t be alone in people on his side of the power pyramid not knowing the full benefits or how to operate these devices. I marveled at the ignorance of the Supreme Court Justices regarding how mobile networks, mobile devices, texts and pages work.

But its almost comically tone deaf coming from a President who has his own video and audio podcasts. This reminds me of the time I was in church (in the late 90s) and the seminarian guest preacher proclaimed from the pulpit that the internet was evil and corrupting. Later in the greeting line when she asked me how I was doing and I told her I was a software engineer co-op for the spring and summer she said she was glad to see I was doing well. Not only does Obama embrace a myopic and dismissive view of this technology, I am sure Obama the commencement speaker would congratulate a Hampton grad who had secured a job with Apple (makers of iPods and iPads), Microsoft (xbox) or Sony (PS3).

Its is even more tone deaf that President Obama was at Hampton University when he delivered these remarks. Many black Americans and Africans of young adult and teen ages are twice as likely as their white counterparts to use mobile devices to access the internet and are more likely to use mobile friendly services like twitter to seek, relay and collect information (24% of 17million twitter users are African American).

Tools, Mr. President. These are just tools. You can argue knives are bad because people get stabbed, but have fun with your spork and your steak dinner, hater!

President Barack Obama kisses Dr. Dorothy Height during a meeting on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. President Obama met with a group of African American seniors and their grandchildren on the legacy of the civil rights movement January 18, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Dr. Dorothy Height pioneer for women’s rights and civil rights died at the age of 98. Melissa Harris-Lacewell remembers Height at The Nation

For decades, Height led the National Council of Negro Women. She used her voice to advocate for African American women’s inclusion in higher education, corporate America, world politics and community leadership. She had the ear of American presidents and she used her role to speak for those whose voices and interests mostly went unheard. As president of Delta Sigma Theta, a national, historic, women’s service organization Height encouraged young women to follow her lead as organizers and servants of their communities.

Dorothy Height’s legacy was visible on the night Barack Obama was elected to the United States presidency. On that night he concluded his speech by discussing Ann Cooper, a 106-year old black woman whose life bore witness to the exceptional changes wrought in our country during the last century. Though her story, President Obama asked us to reconsider the American story through the eyes of black women and thereby challenged us to find a new American narrative that might emerge if we tell the story on their terms.

via On Dorothy Height’s Passing.

Read it all.