The Obama re-election campaign has once again run into a pickle over their tendency to want to appeal to everyone and no one on the subject of gay rights. Asked point-blank in a television interview this weekend, Vice President Joe Biden pronounced himself “absolutely comfortable” with gay and lesbian couples enjoying “the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties” as heterosexual couples. This was complicated further by Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, explicitly endorsing marriage equality a day later. (HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan endorsed it back in November 2011.)
And rather than capitalizing on this and ending the charade of a continued “evolution” on the subject of marriage equality, the campaign retreated into spin mode. David Axelrod tried to blur the differences between Biden and Obama on this subject, claiming that Biden, like Obama, endorse all the same civil rights and civil liberties for gay and lesbian couples, but that this doesn’t amount to endorsing marriage equality. This probably made matters even worse for the White House, emphasizing the calculating nature of their statements and angering the only people who really care about the issue.
But in a way, the confusion over what Biden meant is exactly the point, and again reminds us that Obama’s position just won’t wash. Obama’s claim that he’s evolving on the issue, and his very good record on gay rights generally, has paradoxically made it harder for Obama to continue holding out against gay marriage. His “evolving” position and overall record have left gay advocates fully persuaded that he does favor full equality for gay and lesbian Americans, increasing impatience for him to say so already, and making them all the more certain that his failure to do so is rooted in nothing but political calculation.
All this ends up making it an even bigger deal when someone like Biden seems to be completing that evolution, even if he isn’t. Obama’s good record on gay rights has only served to raise the stakes on his failure to get it right on the issue that goes perhaps most directly to the heart of whether gays and lesbians will have full equality in this country. And so when Axelrod observes accurately that there’s a very a clear contrast between the two men on gay rights, while qualifying it by reminding us that neither Obama nor Biden is prepared to support full equality, it only risks angering people more.
Incidentally, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter basically contradicted Axelrod today by saying that Biden’s statements did represent an advance from the previous position.
There’s not more than a handful of voters in America who are bigoted enough to hold a position on marriage equality against a candidate for President above all else, or at least not more than a handful who wouldn’t already be voting against Obama because they already think he endorses what he has strained not to endorse. So when I say “the only people who care about this issue,” I’m talking about those gay rights activists who have given millions to the re-election effort and who want to see a President take their side on this matter of importance to them. Moreover, the only impression you get from this word-parsing and game-playing is one of a cynical campaign operation unable to articulate a strong statement of principle. It spills over into areas other than just the gay rights sphere.
This will come to a head during the convention, when activists try to place marriage equality in the party platform. In four years, I predict the next Democratic nominee will support equality, and that in forty years, Obama will be looked upon unkindly by history for his ridiculous equivocation here.





30 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
It is obviously outrageous that a Democratic president reflect the evolving views on marriage of the American people, because Democratic presidents are required to radically leftist out of touch and out of step with the American people extremists to unify the right wing factions behind the Republican candidate that no conservative can ever support – conservatives didn’t even support Reagan because he was too leftist, but he was the lesser evil.
Both the left and right agree than no only must Obama demand gay marriage, he must declare he is gay and announce his divorce so he can marry Rahm Emanual, and also call for a constitutional amendment to ban heterosexual marriage and mandate gay marriage.
Politics demand a clear choice between the two sides with no middle ground acceptable.
The right must be the advocates of mandating heterosexual marriage and the constitutional banning of homosexual marriage, and the left must be advocates of mandating homosexual marriage and the constitutional banning of homosexual marriage.
Obama is unacceptably occupying the middle where the American people are, evolving on gay marriage, and that will not drive voters to vote for the lesser of two evils: Romney who was opposed to gay marriage before he wasn’t outraged by it before he became cynically outraged.
It’s not just Obama. It’s constituents everywhere really hammering their candidates and incumbents and challenging them on their bullshit. The only group who can possibly look worse than the politicians in all this is the toady media. The pendulum is swinging back. Looks like The Omniparty is going to have to come up with a new strategy.
Come on. This was a lot of words to dance around the obvious– The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” routine on this issue. The only thing keeping Obama from his final ‘evolution’ on this issue is the election.
I agree but his record indicates that his “final evolution” will be to come out against marriage equality.
I shudder to think how Obama will govern once he no longer has to even pretend to tolerate the f’ing retards and the professional left (assuming he wins, that is).
Does Obama have a “good record” on gay rights? I hadn’t noticed.
The way ThinkProgress is reporting it, it was put slightly differently but it’s an important distinction:
(my bold)
Big difference there! Gay and Lesbian couples cannot even BE married anywhere in the United States according to the DOMA. Even if the DoJ isn’t defending it in court, it’s still the law of the land. “Not defending DOMA” and “repealing DOMA” are not synonymous anymore than saying “I think all couples who are married are entitled to the very same rights and the very same privileges” is remotely similar to, “I think all couples should have the right to marry, regardless of gender”. Obama’s trying to have it both ways.
Good luck in November, buddy.
I may be wrong but I see these and similar moves as efforts designed to energize the base by drawing the right into protracted debates on issues other than the economy. All motivated by the possibility that Obama may have a losing hand on the economy in the fall.
Yep to all on this thread just away to get $$$$ and votes from the gays, then aftr election day it’s back to can’t hear you and won’t help. I’m to busy saving my real friends the have the Big Bucks.
I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on anything Arne Duncan says, particularly about this issue. He’s just copying Chicago Mayor Scahm Emmanuel, who has given lip service to supporting gay marriage while doing everything in his power to curtail all other rights of Chicagoans. Nice distraction for the gays from the right hand so they won’t see what the left hand is doing.
Obama wouldn’t know a principle if one kicked him in the ass. And he’s a political idiot to boot – kind of like taking pains to pass a Republican health care bill to make them happy, then watch them run against a corporate handout as a socialist takeover anyway.
While he predictably blames
his basethe dirty fucking hippies.Arne Duncan is too busy destroying public education to teach Obama to evolve.
Obama’s only comfortable around those who’ve successfully prayed away “the gay”.
Obama’s a campaigner. He couldn’t govern effectively, except for his corporate masters, if his life depended on it. Not a “statesman”, just a “salesman”.
What. Are we talking that O or B care about anyone’s rights. Separation of powers. Is anyone paying attention. This is a disjointed attempt at obfuscation. Play it as you like but it will rest with the SCOTUS.
Shit in one hand an wish in the other,see which fills up first. This just screams bullshit state laws.
Depends how you define “good”. :-)
I think he has made it perfectly clear that he does not want to make it perfectly clear.
It wouldn’t be a conundrum if Obama had a moral backbone.
If true, it makes perfect sense that Biden would lead folks along. And drag things out.
Sure! His base is already pissed off at him. He can’t afford to lose any votes and thinks that he can have it both ways until after November. By Thanksgiving his DoJ will be defending DOMA again and Simpson-Bowles will be the law of the land.
And not to minimize the importance of gay marriage, but this is exactly the kind of issue the Democrats like to run up the flagpole (or the Republicans from the opposite direction) around election time to distract people from how absolutely screwed they get from both D and R parties. The 1% really don’t give a shit if there is gay marriage or not, they just want the corporate welfare and free trade trains to keep on rolling, Wall Street wants the bipartisan bailout mechanism well-oiled, and the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson committee is remaining geared up to ‘fix’ entitlements.
It costs the Democratic Party nothing to throw this out there, because their paymasters really don’t care about it one way or the other.
“Gay marriage” implies “special rights” and is a right wing focus group tested pejorative. Please use “marriage equality”. Thank you.
A complete, unequivocal endorsement of the right of Gays to marry, and enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, would have been SO easy to do, say, within his first 90 days. More than just the specifics of it, it would have established him as the real deal. Think of all of that clout and those big congressional majorities behind him as he spoke it…and like so much else, he hid under his desk, where he’s still hiding.
This is why I have so little respect for Pam Spaulding, who is like a small child with a magnifying glass, diligently searching out redneck pissants to burn, while Obama dithers in the White House and “evolves”….practically without a syllable of criticism from her, for doing it.
With this preznint, for some bloggers, outrage stops at the White House portico.
Kall nails it.
Because the republicans accuse this corporatist rat (among other lunatic accusations…) of being a “socialist”doesn’t mean that he hasn’t sold out the promise and opportunity he came in with, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean that “We suck less!” is going to be any more successful in November than it was in the mid-terms.
“Does Obama have a good record on Gay rights?”
Better than the republicans…
(followed by a wink and a smile, :o) and a big “Bill the cat” SPPPPLLLFFFFFTTTT!!!”)
He had so much room, so much political power, with which he could have LED on these issues, and he ran from that power like it was toxic. Now, even if he wins re-election (and ahem, Romney is neck-and-neck in the all-important swing states…) he’ll still be a lame-duck custodian/protector of the status quo.
Custodian and protector of the status quo is what he was before the presidency. He’s extended Bush-Cheney far beyond that. Someone described Obama as “deeply conservative” and while it’s far too benign, it does place him properly on the sociopolitical spectrum.
Romney is deeply conservative. Rick Santorum is certainly that.
I think you do Obama’s critics something of a disservice when you say that of him. He’s not.
He certainly didn’t run as a deeply conservative candidate. If he had, he wouldn’t have been elected in a near-landslide. That happened because he spoke out to a substantial degree about the rampant corporatism that the republicans, usually with democratic aquiescence and help, have inflicted on us.
What he is, I think, is a political coward who’s afraid to rock the boat…which so badly needs rocking. He will respond to pressure, as we’ve seen. But bitching about the republican’s lunacy, and ignoring the reality of Obama’s presidency (as some of our bloggers are addicted to…) isn’t pressure; it’s greasing the skids for more of the same from him, and they, as much as Obama, deserve to be called out for doing it.
He’s the one in the White House, not Limbaugh or Palin or any of the other flat-earthers; constantly shrieking about they and their dingbat followers only empowers Obama to be an even MORE craven president. It’s herring-dragging-for-Obama, and they know it.
The ‘evolving’ BS is Obysmal writ large.
Sitting on the fence just makes your asshole larger. What a gape guy.
Romney is expediency personified and Santorum is, well, Bob Kerry said, “Santorum, that’s Latin for asshole.” There’s something so off about Santorum it’s disturbing to hear him: he’s obsessed with sex and he seems unconscious of the impression he gives. It’s as if he can’t help himself, and I think he can’t. The Inquisition with its appalling purience and sadism come again.
Jeffrey St Clair had a 2003 piece at counterpunch.com that opens
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/04/30/santorum/
I agree with the description of Obama as ideologically deeply conservative.
He is going to kick them in the ass like they deserve. What a bunch of dumb yokels. The man plays whatever group he needs to get what he wants and they still act like he is on their side.