Yes.
This is a lose-lose and he had no real reason to enter the fray. Reminds me of the Cambridge prof thingy. Another case of involvment in a local issue; it's not a fed gov or even state-level issue.
This looks to be largely emotionally driven, and cuts across party lines in NYC. So, it's a lose-lose situation.
And, yes, his political advisors are doing him a dis-service.
The way to "win" is to not get involved, particularly because it was unnecessary. The matter is resolved, they have to permission to proceed with the mosque etc.
I suspect there are some Dems up for reelection who privately wish he had just stayed out of it.
As I have said before, the Dems are particulalry poor at picking which battles to fight when. And let's not charge them with something they haven't done ("condemn him for silently supporting bigotry")
Fern
The voice of courage for protecting the minority, defending American values, in the face of the mob.
When the mob is screaming about how they oppose an innocent group building a perfectly fine center because they wrongly group them with Al Queda, rather than the President using his Bully Pulpit, as Presidents are supposed to and have done for a long time such as JFK's taking on the unpopular moral issue of segregation that some Democrats wish he'd just stay out of, here's the brave Fern advising him: stay silent on the discrimination, pander to the mob letting them own the debate unchallenged.
The old saying about 'good men who do nothing' when confronted with something wrong clearly has little meaning for Fern. The 'good politics' is 'be quiet to the mob'.
For shame, Fern. This is not your best day.
Maybe Democrats are particularly GOOD at picking which battles, but their criterion isn't only ones that benefit them politically, as you are advocating.
While we're at it, perhaps you can name in history the times the right wing has stuck its political neck out to opposed a mob against a minority's rights.
They're happy to paint the majority or powerful as 'victims' and pretend to 'defend' them, when actually supporting their wrongs, but when have they done that?
You might be tempted to go all the way back to the first Republican president, Lincoln - and run into the fact he did not have much of a plan to fight for the slaves before the war; that he freed them only in the south while he was at war with them which happened to help the war effort; that his dream had long been to end slavery by 1900 and deport all the blacks to Africa, and that is he could preserve the union by preserving slavery, he would do so.
How noble of you to address the issue of rights and unjust discrimination by saying that the thing to do is to stay silent for political gain.
That's just the sort of president the nation needs, one who ignores the right and wrong to appease the mob's prejudice.
The fact that his silence in this case wouldn't have caused the center to be built has nothing to do with the fact that it would have left the prejudice dominating the debate.
If you saw the AT forums fill up one day with people attacking a minority wrongly, would your reaction be, better not say anything, it's bad politics?