General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama shouldn't 'evolve' on anything. [View all]Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)From the start, I've come at you with facts and substance - originally showing you how you were wrong (twice!) and you still continued to push a silly narrative. Then I went into detail WHY it was still a huge step for the movement and you continued to dismiss it as a stunt and continued to question his leadership. Through it all, the only claim you've made is that a plurality of Americans supporting it means it was too late for him to come out. No matter what he could have done at that point, you would have complained. Had Obama not come out in support of marriage equality, you would be demanding why he hasn't and attacking him for it - and when he did, you moved the goalposts because you decided it was too late.
Then you get offended when I suggest this is all tied to your bitterness. Well, you're not really providing any evidence it's not. I've offered up many explanations why it was still a good move and your only response has been to make up statistics, turn around and suggest, then state, he wasn't leading and twist the idea that he had nothing to lose, even though half the country opposed it. You also have shown no indication you give him credit on anything when it comes to the equal rights movement. I'm sure you don't believe he's had a hand in that, either.
I bet you don't think of FDR as any less a leader because he went back on his pledge to ban lynching so he could shore up conservative Democratic support in the South - or that you look at Kennedy any worse, and any less a hero because his response to the Civil Rights movement was muted through the early days of his presidency and it wasn't until riots broke out that he finally was thrust into the position history remembers.
I may call you a bitter person, but I don't think you're a stupid person. I've read your posts long enough to know you're intelligent. So, it does make me somewhat confused when you ignore the nuances of the political game. No president, hero or villain, has ever not compromised on something they believe in order to advance the progress. It's why, up until Obama, no president had ever come out in support of marriage equality - or presidential candidate. Now, no Democratic presidential nominee will ever oppose marriage equality. Ever.
Bill Clinton didn't do it. Neither did Jimmy Carter or LBJ or JFK. Yes, it's absurd to say they should have because it wasn't as prominent of an issue - but by your own definition, they were failures as leaders because they didn't. Why didn't they? Because it would have been political suicide for a sitting president, in the 1970s, to do so. Even prior to Carter becoming president, there were three court cases that upheld the idea that marriage was between a man and a woman. It wasn't THE issue of the day - but the gay movement was certainly gaining steam in the late 70s when Carter was president - and Carter was aware of it, as he did address gay rights and even came out in opposition to California's Briggs Initiative (so did Reagan). You talk about bold leadership - could you imagine Carter coming out in full support of marriage equality in the 1970s? But he didn't. In fact, Carter didn't openly come out in support of it until 2012 - the same year as Obama.
But that's politics. You shame Obama for doing something positive, turning it into an attack because he didn't do it quick enough, and fail to see the importance of his stance - regardless of the timing, it still meant a great deal to A LOT of people to have him come out in support of it. Just as having JFK FINALLY discussing civil rights in the 60s or Carter openly talking about gay rights in the 70s.
To dismiss it as nothing more than a publicity stunt and a showcase of his failures is just not right. You can be critical of his intent while also supportive of the action and realizing the significant of it. The irony is that the same people who dismissed it were the same people who spent most their time attacking him for not coming out in favor of it.