The Blame Game: Obamas vs. the Puppy Mills

We have become a culture where low intelligence and shock value rules (think reality shows, dumb and dumber films), and judging others has become a spectator sport. Popular shows like American Idol ferret out real talent, yet there’s an awful lot of nastiness along the way. Let's face it, mean sells. Many internet sites have become festering forums of negativity where those who post their opinions would never dare say those things face to face to the person they’re maligning.

So in this Twitter, Youtube, let’s-all-share-our-every-thought era, I suppose it shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many people jumped on the Obamas when they dared to purchase a dog from—gasp! A breeder! In this article-- http://www.prweb.com/releases/stop_animal_cruelty/puppy_mill/prweb244369...
a newly formed coalition of rescue and animal welfare groups calling themselves BoNeedsaFriend.com rants and raves about those mean, nasty Obamas and the damage they’ve done to dogs everywhere. Carole Davis, West Coast Director of The Companion Animal Protection Society, says, “The President says America opposes torture, yet he and the Vice President (who bought a dog from a puppy mill last fall) have ensured that the legalized torture of dogs at puppy mills will increase.” Now there’s some linear reasoning.

Madeline Bernstein, president of the spcaLA, suggested that when a president “breaks a promise” the public can speak out, or not vote them back into office, and that in the meantime, “…animals across the country will continue to wait for hope and weep in silence.” And here I’ve been basing my votes on issues like national security and the economy.

Not to belittle the rescue groups. I get it. I’ve spent my life doing canine rescue work privately, with groups, and with shelters. And I agree that it would have been great if the Obamas had adopted a shelter dog. But come on, people, let’s give them a break! Granted, if President Obama's original statement was that they would adopt a shelter dog and that didn’t happen, it’s disappointing. My personal assessment would be less along the lines of "he broke a promise to the American people" than "he probably meant what he said, but contributing factors changed his thinking along the way, and he did what he felt was best for his family."

While we're all picking the Obamas' choice apart, what about the fact that the family didn’t take the decision to get a dog lightly? That they spent months and months doing research into what type of dog would be best for their family, and then went with the dog that was right for them? I don’t see any quotes saying, “The Obamas are influencing pet owners everywhere to consider carefully before choosing a dog.” Blame is so much easier. And how many dogs were rescued in the process of the choosing of Bo, as the Obamas called national attention to the possibility of adopting a rescue dog?

Lest you think this frustration over the judgment of the Obamas is coming from me as an Obama supporter, it’s not. Sure, I think he’s a good, intelligent man and a great leader. But that’s not the point. Although I disagree with McCain’s politics, I’d have every bit the same reaction if people were jumping on him for making the same type of personal decision that was best for his family.

Although it would have sent a useful message to the public for the Obamas to have adopted a shelter dog (and for the record I too am disappointed that didn’t happen), let’s all lighten up! Comments like “The Obama-Biden administration has done more harm to the adoption and anti-puppy mill movement than any other in history” are overblown and not particularly helpful. I’m sure the family had their reasons. Perhaps the next dog WILL be from a shelter or rescue group. In the meantime, we could all stand to spend more time focusing on ways to solve the real underlying problem of pet overpopulation and less time laying blame.