I think that I see them as part of a coordinated White House-led response to the outcry over the Smelt brief, and, thus, have combined them as of the same effort in my mind. I see one as the legal-specific meeting to discuss the substance of the DOMA defense, and the other as the more generalized get-together for all folks.

But, you’re right they I have unfairly conflated the two happenings.

We wanted a quick response, and we got it. I believe the White House event could be as important as the DOJ event and that is is up to those attending to make it so.

What I think most people have given up on is old style politics. Obama promised change, change that many in the LGBT community bought hook, line and sinker. I think people are feeling that Obama, for all his eloquence, is just another politician.

That said, the LGBT grassroots need to crank up the heat on the LGBT leaders and the Obama administration. As you’ve noted, the political beasts have taken notice. Now, we have to close the deal by continuing to demand the change that was promised.

On a similar note, I think we’re beginning to see the same disillusionment regarding healthcare reform…stay tuned.

Jim

Look at what happened after we galvanized as individuals and out on some pressure Things began to happen. And we need to keep that going.

Yes we should listen. I truly wish though Obama would deal with members of the REAL LGBT Community and not professional advocates. Thats what needs to happen.

Does this not piss you off at all?

http://www.back2stonewall.com/?p=6287

I need to clarify/correct something however:

I never said Mary Buonato or anyone should not attend meetings at the DOJ. There’s nothing in my post about meetings, or having gay activists pull out of them. For the record, I absolutely believe they should be in the meetings — they asked for meetings earlier and didn’t get them, and it could have stopped/tempered the DOMA brief. So, I’m all for the meetings because they are about substantive issues.

Equally, as I wrote in my post, unlike some critics I believe HRC and other groups should have been at the signing of the memorandum. I see both sides of this, but in my opinion it was appropriate to be there. However inadequate the memo was it was official business, the president giving some benefits, and it was right to be there, keep the dialogue open, and let him know it’s not nearly enough.

What I am opposed to them attending, however, is this cocktail party at the end of the month thrown for gay a-listers (lobbyists, exec directors, donors), etc. To me, this is solely about a photo-op for the president, and he doesn’t deserve that yet — there is no substantive issue to discuss (unlike the meetings) and he is not signing anything. Don’t let him use gay leaders to paper over the difference with a photo op. That was my message.

In fact, that was the meat of the posts by Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis, and you didn’t mention it at all — the cocktail party. Instead, you turned it into something about meetings at the DOJ, a straw man, at least in my case, because I don’t even discuss that.

Thanks, I encourage people to read my post (link below) for clarification and correction.

Michelangelo Signorile.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/06/gay-leaders-to-be-feted-at-white-house.html

This isn’t from the standpoint of an Obama apologist; it’s the best strategy given the current circumstances. If we’re afraid the fete is a party to seduce and woo with words and inaction, then how about we thank the administration kindly for the invitation but request to use the now scheduled time and space for a conference of sorts with all of the same invitees and White House staff? They’d even get to save taxpayer money! (I imagine it’s cheaper to set up some tables, chairs, and pads of paper than throw an “LGBT fete”.)