I understand apdst's argument, if this incident had not occurred at a Republican convention or debate or whatever it was, I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything. So is Obama doing this in part for political points? Of course. However he is right in what he said regardless of why he said it, if there's truely no distinction made between gay and straight Soldiers than Republicans and anyone else should have the same opinion if a Soldier is being booed regardless if he is gay or not, that obviously was not the case.
Now we can't also expect Obama or the President in the future to come out with a public statement everyone with a bit of marginal media time says something or does something like this, however again clearly because there was an opportunity to influence politics he made this statement.
In the end what matters is that we recognize that booing a gay Soldier is unacceptable.
Here's two videos of the incident here:
GOP Debate Audience Members Boo Gay Solider - YouTube
Crowd boos gay soldier at GOP debate - YouTube
They both cut off right as the booing stops and Rick Santorm is about to answer the question, and it sounds pretty clear to me that its NOT the entire audience, and its probably 2 or perhaps a hand full of guys at the most. AND I think its quite probably the case that they were booing not the gay Soldier for being gay, but booing because they didn't support the repeal of DADT which is what that guy was asking about. Now to me its two different things, to others it may be the same thing and to me it would be worse to boo at a Soldier than it is to boo at a policy.
Also I don't blame Republicans or Rick for not commenting on the booing during the debate because:
1) They only have a limited time to answer questions.
2) The booing only lasted for a second.
3) There are staff at these events to handle the problems of rowdy or noisy audience members.
4) The candidate has to think quickly, again given the amount he has to answer, he's probably more focused on answering the question than addressing two noise makers.
Of course he could have addressed them in his response which he failed to do because they were both about the same subject, the booing and question that is, however its hardly a point to criticize him about
Actually it is quite easy, he does not support homosexuality and he even says after that he would reinstate the DADT. (If I remember correctly) Maybe I should just start referring people that talk about Santorum to the google search.Of course he could have addressed them in his response which he failed to do because they were both about the same subject, the booing and question that is, however its hardly a point to criticize him about
I think we need to put a little prespective on this issue. Politicians are debating a policy not debating individuals. Obama may be coming around now because it finally has become politically expedient to do so but he has no reason to pretend that he has the moral high ground. Good for him to finally come around but he was very slow to do so. When any poltician see our troops going into harms way they are not thinking "I hope all the gays in the military die and fail their mission". They just see troops and give their support. The battle over a policy is a separate issue.