GetEQUAL | Michelle Obama | News

Here's the Video of Michelle Obama Confronting a Gay Heckler: WATCH

Obamaheckler

This morning we reported on a fundraiser in Northwest Washington at which First Lady Michelle Obama was heckled by Ellen Sturtz, an activist with GetEQUAL, demanding that President Obama sign an executive order barring workplace discrimination. The heckler interrupted a speech Obama was giving about children.

Said Obama at the gathering: “One of the things that I don’t do well is this...Do you understand? ... Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Lynn Sweet has licked the Obama's asses since before he was Senator. I'm sure she would have been just as impressed would that have been Laura Bush.

    Posted by: MIke | Jun 5, 2013 6:23:39 PM


  2. Good for her! Of course faux news and their kind will twist the script.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Jun 5, 2013 6:25:52 PM


  3. Two points: One is, why are people who interrupt these political speeches called "hecklers" now? And the second point is that the "heckler" asked a good question. Why *doesn't* he sign it? Seems like a no brainer to me.

    Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 5, 2013 6:27:05 PM


  4. I wish this wouldn't have happened. It's fueling the rights "gay agenda" narrative and the woman embarrassed the cause in my opinion.

    Posted by: JP | Jun 5, 2013 6:33:15 PM


  5. Because that is the definition of heckler?

    Posted by: KM | Jun 5, 2013 6:34:10 PM


  6. Only a matter of time before the right-wing and fox news start to call all LGBT activists uncivilized, rude and other unfortunate names; comparing us to the shooter at the FRC. It's easier to generate hate towards LGBT than the Obamas.

    Posted by: Tony | Jun 5, 2013 6:40:03 PM


  7. How "exclusive" was this exclusive gathering of gays in DC? Too exclusive for me, apparently. lol.

    Posted by: grego | Jun 5, 2013 6:40:45 PM


  8. 1. Obama signs an Executive Order
    2. Since it's just an executive order, and not actually law, it can be undone by any GOP President

    so, let's accept that we're all disappointed in not getting everything in the speed we want. but an executive order offers little, if any, ACTUAL protection.

    ENDA is hugely important. more important than marriage.

    and what will impact ENDA? more people coming out and demanding it. DEMANDING IT.

    and there's a reason many gay activists "crack", if you will - the weight of the working for the community, including the millions of closeted folks, often rests squarely on their shoulders.

    there's a time and place and way to go about this. Ellen could have even raised her voice, you know, AFTER this speech by Mrs. Obama.

    but an executive order is not what some folks seem to think it is.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 5, 2013 6:41:25 PM


  9. What's wrong with gay hecklers? I love gay hecklers . Doesn't Andy Towle like gay hecklers?

    Posted by: Adam | Jun 5, 2013 6:51:55 PM


  10. Little Kiwi is 100% right. For many, many people marriage equality is useless without ENDA. In states with no employment protection, getting married may likely be the end of your employment -- you'd be married and destitute.

    Even if the SCOTUS gives us nation-wide marriage equality, taking advantage of that equality will show you just how un-equal you truly are as you are being fired from your job or longtime career.

    Posted by: nick | Jun 5, 2013 7:07:41 PM


  11. Also, newsflash: the first lady is not in anyway a policy maker or involved in any operation of the executive branch. You don't yell at someone's spouse to comment on their job, act like you have some damn sense.

    Posted by: Eureka | Jun 5, 2013 7:07:52 PM


  12. Ms. Obama's reaction was as graceless and childish as Ms. Sturtz's interruption.

    "I'm leaving."

    Oh? You're going to take your toys and go home because someone didn't play nice?

    "One of the things that I don’t do well is this…"

    Public speaking? Answering questions? Dealing with irate citizens? Then practice until you can do it well. As is, you've behaved like a witless incompetent.

    The First Lady is a political figure in a democracy, not the Queen of England or a Diva on stage at the Met. This is part of her job. A citizen asked her a question about her husband's administration during a fundraiser. Threatening to go home and sulk is neither an admirable nor an acceptable response.

    Posted by: Bryan | Jun 5, 2013 7:16:24 PM


  13. Little Kiwi is correct. But he seems to forget that Obama nullified a judges ruling on DADT that made discrimination against gays in the military unconstitutional. IT TOO can be reversed with an executive order or new bill. DADT can be reinstated in the future because of Obama's action to moot a judges ruling.

    Posted by: Kev C | Jun 5, 2013 7:21:24 PM


  14. Embarrassed? This is the gay movement today. Messing with Michelle could backfire with the general public though. It's awkward when people supposedly with the same agenda go at it. I'm sure FOX will love it.

    Posted by: beeb | Jun 5, 2013 7:34:12 PM


  15. Bryan: You don't heckle first ladies and their children. The citizen did NOT ASK QUESTION, the citizen rudely disrupted her speech at a private event in someone's home. This was not some public townhall meeting.

    Posted by: rocky | Jun 5, 2013 7:36:48 PM


  16. Pick your battles. The first lady is not the opponent of LGBT rights. Neither came out looking good.

    Posted by: bambinoitaliano | Jun 5, 2013 7:41:16 PM


  17. We must all be good little gays and not offend the First Lady.

    Posted by: Adam | Jun 5, 2013 7:46:49 PM


  18. "Little Kiwi," the pathological Obambot who's not even an American citizen but presumes to keep lecturing Americans on how we should act just keeps pulling the same Big Lie out of his ass in the theory that, like all Big Liars, if he repeats it often enough other will believe it. FAIL. Here are FACTS, both historical and contemporary.

    First, claiming a presidential order provides no "actual" protections is just plain retarded. As for his other desperate excuses, yes, attention from an actual doctor would be better for people injured in a massive car wreck but would that give anyone else an excuse not to administer whatever first aid they could? Or because they might die anyway—the equivalent of his why do it if it could be reversed? FACT: with the stroke of a pen Mr. Obama could help protect tens of thousands of LGBT employees TODAY—yes, ACTUALLY. No executive order expanding equal opportunity I’m aware of was EVER reversed by a subsequent president. Not FDR’s WWII orders that ACTUALLY protected blacks from discrimination in employment by government agencies and, wait for it, FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. Nor Truman’s 1948 order that ACTUALLY resulted in the racial integration of the military—all when America was 1000 times more racist than it is homophobic today. Neither was President Clinton’s 1993 directive that ACTUALLY kept military recruits from being asked and immediately turned away if they were gay even as his hopes of lifting the ban entirely were torpedoed, nor was his 1998 order STILL ACTUALLY protecting gay and lesbian civilian employees of the federal government. One of Bush II’s agency heads said he wouldn’t abide by it, but the Administration publicly declared all still would even as they exploited homophobia at the polls. Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s disingenuousness. Thus far, he has issued 154 executive orders, plus multiple memoranda, one of which in June 2009 added ACTUAL protections for transgender federal civilian employees to Clinton’s order. Sooooooo, if all these other issues justified his issuing so many orders and memoranda, justified not “waiting for legislation,” and one of them protected transgendered people in the same way he promised to protect them along with gays in the federal contractor work force—WHY hasn’t he kept this campaign promise?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 5, 2013 7:58:45 PM


  19. If it had been an angry sandyhook parent wanting answers on the dismal gun failure I bet she would have taken time to speak to her. If the First Lady can hold fundraisers and extol on how democrats can help by voting out republicans in 2014 (also part of her speech) then she's acting as some kind of surrogate for the administration. You can't really have it both ways. She's political from her out, just not from out in because know we're all rude and it's not her job.

    ENDA is a huge deal and even if an executive can be repealed, an extremely rare occurrence, it doesn't have to mean one or the other. IF the Dems and administration are really working towards a final solution, why not put in place some safeguards between now and then. Why let millions suffer for years because hopefully someday a total solution will be found. With the current gerrymandering we might not win the house back for a decade or more.

    It would have been far more politic for the First Lady to listen to her grievance for five minutes, explain she doesn't make policy but appreciates her passion and feels for her and promises to pass on her message if she'll continue to work hard in her side to help get democrats elected. THAT'S what she would have said to a sandyhook parent.

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jun 5, 2013 8:08:58 PM


  20. If it had been an angry sandyhook parent wanting answers on the dismal gun failure I bet she would have taken time to speak to her. If the First Lady can hold fundraisers and extol on how democrats can help by voting out republicans in 2014 (also part of her speech) then she's acting as some kind of surrogate for the administration. You can't really have it both ways. She's political from her out, just not from out in because know we're all rude and it's not her job.

    ENDA is a huge deal and even if an executive can be repealed, an extremely rare occurrence, it doesn't have to mean one or the other. IF the Dems and administration are really working towards a final solution, why not put in place some safeguards between now and then. Why let millions suffer for years because hopefully someday a total solution will be found. With the current gerrymandering we might not win the house back for a decade or more.

    It would have been far more politic for the First Lady to listen to her grievance for five minutes, explain she doesn't make policy but appreciates her passion and feels for her and promises to pass on her message if she'll continue to work hard in her side to help get democrats elected. THAT'S what she would have said to a sandyhook parent.

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jun 5, 2013 8:08:59 PM


  21. Yes, Michael, or whichever troll you truly are...President Obama has the worst record for helping the gay community of any president alive or dead. He is SOOOO disingenuous, and has done absolutely NOTHING for the LGBT community. Obviously, you are correct. How dare, anyone, least of all a Canadian, support this traitorous President. Get over yourself. Little Kiwi is absolutely correct that legislative action is superior to an executive order. If he is unsuccessful pushing that through the worst, and perhaps least effective congress ever, he can still exercise the option of an executive order, he is only a half a year into this term. I am certain Mittens would have done sooooo much more for us.

    Posted by: Kenneth | Jun 5, 2013 8:19:03 PM


  22. I think this is a mess for everyone and has diminished the gracefulness that I thought the First Lady carried herself with. I understand being offended by the interruption, but she could have acknowledged the woman's LEGITIMATE complaint and moved along with far more class.

    But to the point suggested by Littlekiwi (who I like tremendously) that an executive order would do little, that's just patently false. An executive order, which President Obama PROMISED and then backed off of and now refuses to deliver on, would cover nearly 22% of the U.S. workforce, as it covers all federal government employees and all employees covered by business signing on to government contracts. That's a humongous amount of U.S. citizens. Yes, it can theoretically be undone by a future Republican president. But if put in place as early as possible in this president's second term, it could stay in place for 2-3 years and demonstrate to the country that forbidding discrimination for 22% of U.S. workers hurts no one and actually benefits us all, and it might cause the other 78% of U.S. workers to demand that their government representatives get to work passing ENDA, thereby covering everyone.

    Posted by: MrRoboto | Jun 5, 2013 8:20:06 PM


  23. More grandstanding from the impotent GetEQUAL.

    Way to go after an ally.

    Morons.

    Posted by: Josh | Jun 5, 2013 8:28:14 PM


  24. Oh, Kenneth, Sweetie, you must have REALLY long arms in order to be able to reach THAT far up your ass to pull out that old moldy cheese excuse, "Just give Obama more time." Bottom line: you're just another Queer Quisling who really means: "Why can't you just leave Britnery, er, Barack alone???"

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 5, 2013 8:33:13 PM


  25. I like Michelle. She's sassy. I would have handled it the same way. If you have something worthwhile to say...do it respectfully and people will listen. Do it rudely, and people will turn against you. Common courtesy.

    Posted by: Ted | Jun 5, 2013 8:34:04 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «National LGBT Groups Distance Themselves from Ohio Campaign to Put Gay Marriage on 2014 Ballot« «