The Obama Dog, and why it pushed so many buttons


A veritable linky feast


The facts, ma'am: During the presidential campaign President Obama declared that one of his campaign promises was to his daughters, namely: That he would finally get them a puppy should he win. During the campaign he said he hoped to get a shelter dog, and perhaps one that was a "mutt like me". (This was incredibly endearing, and used as evidence of Obama's ability to be comfortable in his own skin...thereby somehow making Americans more comfortable with the whole racial issue. Seriously, this was some of the commentary at the time.) Soon after his election, Obama acknowledged that one of his daughters had allergies, so their puppy search would be complicated by this fact. But in January, Americans still hoped, by a 2 to 1 margin, that the Obamas would rescue shelter dof. Last week the Obamas finally got their puppy. Bo, a pure-bred Portugese Water Dog. They received the dog as a "gift" from Senator Ted Kennedy, who owns several dogs from this same breeder. While this dog is six-months old and was returned to the breeder by its original owner, the breeder herself does not consider Bo to be a "rescue dog", and the breeder would not have euthanized Bo had a new owner not been found.

Interest in this dog had been inordinately high, and along with the adorable shots of the Obama family romping on the White House lawn with Bo, there has been a chorus of disappointment that they did indeed choose a dog from a breeder, instead of a shelter dog.

I allowed myself to get pulled into a discussion of this on BlogHer, which I wish I hadn't bothered to do, because i encountered:

1. A dismissal of any such concern as a waste of time, when there are other "more important" issues to care about

...as though I can't be interested in and care about MANY issues at once.

2. Immediate referrals to the straw man argument: PETA doesn't want us to have pets at all, this is about PETA!

...as though I wasn't a life-long pet owner, and as though all those people who were hoping for a shelter dog choice were PETA radicals (if you believe they're such wild-eyed radicals to begin with)

3. A totally uncharacteristic naivete (or disingenuousness) about how this is a "family decision and shouldn't be political", and even worse a sort of "He didn't promise, but if he did promise, he took it back pretty quickly" excuse that those same folks would never accept coming from someone on the other side of the aisle.

...as though it wasn't political when he brought it up, as though Obama wasn't aware of the high interest in this decision, and as though the Obamas are not aware that their every decision is now a national, political and even symbolic one...including family decisions.

I always hated it when Bush supporters couldn't admit a single error, whether in judgement or action. I don't believe the Democrats should eat their young, and on policy decisions they should look at the big picture and think very carefully before interfering with the agenda Obama was voted into office to execute, but that doesn't mean I'm going to turn into one of those people who can't hear one criticism of the President I supported and voted for.

As I said on BlogHer, I thought this was a mis-step and a missed opportunity.

I said there:
"They could have done something very simple and very honorable. Once they realized it wasn't going to be so simple, they could have said:
"Hey, allergies make it really tough for us to get a shelter dog. While we wait for a hypo-allergenic dog to show up at our local shelter, we're going to get fish instead."
Would it have required waiting a little longer? Might they end up with an older dog, not a 6-monht old?
Maybe, but it would have taught the Obama children and the rest of us the lesson that could have been taught here. Instead of just doing what could be done, instead of what should be done...because it was quicker and easier."

Is it tragic and damaging to his Presidency? No. Which is why I don't get the knee-jerk derision from some of his supporters. That won't help, guys.

So, let me share some links from people who are more articulate than I on ALL of the reasons they were disappointed by this decision:

Speaking of PETA, they did, of course, have a response:

"The Obamas can't undo their missed opportunity to set a great example for Americans by adopting a shelter dog, but they can still set another important example: They can arrange for the first dog to become the last dog in his lineage by having him neutered."

So rabid, eh? Although I suppose if you want rabid, you can read the comments on that PETA post, because you've got people going at it pretty good. Oh, and PS: PETA did update their post to say that Bo was indeed neutered, which is great news and does indeed set a great example!

Stephanie Ernst, Animal Rights blogger for Change.org (and dog person, BTW): Obama disappoints animals, props up breeders:

"The Obamas' needs may have been more specific than Biden's because of the allergy issue, but they were just as capable of getting a dog from a shelter as he was. It was not that they could not adopt a true rescue dog. It was not that they could not find a dog with hypoallergenic-leaning qualities like those of a Portuguese water dog in one of the countless U.S. shelters. They chose not to. They made the choice to limit themselves to a specific, hard-to-find pure breed and to, as I understand it, a fairly young puppy. And they chose to take a dog from a breeder.

And the example really is the point here. They set an example. And they set the wrong one."


Mat Thomas from AnimalRighter: White Housebroken
"Is it just me, or is the blogger Gaelen's claim that we animal rights activists "are primarily focused on (our) own anti-pet-owning agendas" patently ridiculous? I mean, I've been an AR activist for more than 7 years now, and most of the people I've met in the movement have animal companions who they dearly love. Many of them are also dedicated to rescuing dogs, so Gaelen's charge that we AR activists "do little for the welfare of domesticated animals" is also fallacious. 

The biggest difference between us AR activists and the purebreed fetishists is that we generally don't see ourselves as "owning" animals because they are not possessions, but living beings with their own needs and interests outside of their "owner's" emotional fulfillment. If this perspective is what Gaelen means by AR activists' "anti-pet-owning agendas," I can only assume she's referring to the Guardian Campaign (www.guardiancampaign.com), a project started by In Defense of Animals (www.idausa.org), an animal rights organization that I worked for from 2004-2008. While this type of work is far from what we AR activists "are primarily focused on," Gaelen's accusation is a common trope that is oft repeated by purebreed apologists who don't see anything wrong with encouraging people to purchase dogs while millions of healthy but unwanted canines are killed in shelters every year for lack of homes. I guess we just have different ideas of what it means to really "love" animals."

Eccentric Vegan from Vegan Soapbox: Puppies Aren't Products
"Last year he might have been able to say that the dog they wanted was difficult to find in a shelter. (Difficult, but not impossible.) By the next election, that statement won’t be true anymore. There will be a surge of Portuguese Water Dogs in shelters. These are the dogs who will be bred in puppy mills, bought at pet stores, and abandoned at shelters when things just don’t work out as planned. These are the dogs who will be killed by caring shelter workers overwhelmed by the problem. These are the dogs who aren’t as lucky as Bo. These are the dogs that the Obamas’ financial donation will not save. These are the dogs who need more than money, they need people to keep their promises. These are the dogs deemed disposable by our society."

If you think she's exaggerating, read up on the surge of Dalmatians that ended up in shelters after the release of Disney's live-action 101 Dalmatians movie a few years back.

In a very active comment thread at Ecorazzi, this one stands out as the crux of my disappointment:
"There are over 48 different breeds of dog that are considered hypo allergenic. Surely an appointed staff person could dig up hundreds if not thousands of rescue animals that need a home that meet the presidents requirements that the girls would love just as well. I wonder how many emails the president received from shelters nation wide notifying him of in need, homeless hypo allergenic pets. I’ll bet his Blackberry was overloaded! I’ve heard the excuse (”I couldn’t find a dog at a shelter that I was not allergic to so I had to buy one”) a million times. It’s a Bum excuse."
And another commenter found a Portuguese Water Dog at a DC shelter via Petfinder.com.

Mary Martin from Animal Person: On Bad Presidential Puppy Decisions

"I didn't campaign for a presidential greyhound for exactly the same reason Obama's decision was disappointing: it glorifies pure breed dogs. And I bet my net worth, which isn't what I'd like it to be, but still, that the demand for Portugese water dogs like Bo will increase as a result of this bad decision. I wasn't an Obama supporter (or a McCain supporter) but I did appreciate a lot of what he appeared to believe in and wish for this country. It's disheartening to know that after being educated about the "pet" trade and the implications of buying from a breeder, and seeming to understand the problems and issues, we nevertheless will have yet another pure breed dog in the White House."

Lots of impassioned arguments.

What's yours?

Posted: Sat - April 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM       EmailFeedback

©