Obama's Stonewall

Obama's Stonewall
By Richard Kim

This article appeared in the July 13, 2009 edition of The Nation.

June 24, 2009

In 1996, when Barack Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, he was asked in a survey by Outlines, a gay community newspaper in Chicago, if he supported same-sex marriage. Unlike most candidates, who merely indicated yes or no, Obama took the unusual step of typing in his response, to which he affixed his signature. Back then not a single state permitted same-sex marriage, and sodomy was a crime. Nonetheless, Obama took a position on the progressive edge of the Democratic Party, and he did so with unmistakable clarity: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Since then, as Obama traced his dazzling arc to the presidency, his stance on gay rights has become murkier, wordier, less courageous, more Clintonian. During his 2004 US Senate bid, he stated that he supports domestic partnerships and civil unions instead of same-sex marriage. When speaking to gay audiences, he explained his new position as "primarily just...a strategic issue." But on bigger stages he cited his Christian faith as grounds for his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a view he reiterated during the 2008 presidential election even while he also asserted, inconsistently, that religion should not dictate a state's approach to gay rights.

<SNIP>

It is impossible to accept that a president who owes so much to movements for civil rights and social justice, never mind the Obama of 1996, believes in such right-wing bigotry; the only plausible explanation can be one of political calculation. The memory of Bill Clinton's early failure to integrate the military, as well as the aftermath of the 2004 election, when same-sex marriage was blamed for John Kerry's loss, looms large in the minds of top Democratic strategists. Guided by veterans of the Clinton-era culture wars like chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the prevailing wisdom in the White House seems to be that a forward push on gay rights can only endanger what the Democratic Party hopes will be a lasting majority and would squander precious political capital better used on issues like healthcare and economic reform.

<SNIP>

There is still time for a course correction. In the wake of an uproar from gay activists and progressives, Obama signed a memo extending limited benefits to partners of gay federal employees (but not healthcare or inheritance rights); reiterated his intent to repeal DOMA; and voiced support for legislation that would, in the interim, give healthcare to same-sex partners of federal workers. But words are no longer enough. Now is the time for Obama to act with the full authority of his office and his character to pass a gay rights agenda that, in the end, will be seen as neither particularly radical nor particularly partisan but as a simple matter of fairness under the law.

<SNIP>

In those forty years, and especially in the past decade, the arc of the moral universe, as Obama is fond of saying on other matters, has bent toward justice. So much so that the question is no longer, Can the Obama administration afford to support gay rights with full-throated passion--but rather, Can it afford not to?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/kim/print

FDR?

Just for sport he fucked with people's heads.

Franklin and Winston, FDR fucked with Churchill's head in the same way he fucked with Eleanor's. The case here was that FDR decided at the Teheran Conference to cozy up to Stalin because he was worried that Stalin thought that he and Churchill were too close. He gave no warning to Churchill that he was going to do so and Churchill sulked through a good amount of the meeting. If FDR was going to do this, it would not have hurt to give Churchill a 'heads up', but he didn't. It thoroughly pissed off the British and hurt Churchill.

Also note in "Dinner at the White House" how for Churchill's last night at the WH in Jan '42, FDR invited Louis Adamic to dinner - the author of an anti-imperial, isolationist book. The book was even placed in Churchill's bedroom. Oddly enough, Eleanor is often credited/blamed for this dig when it was truly FDR who did it, though Eleanor was all for it.

Remember, FDR's secretary/girlfriend Lehand noted that FDR was "incapable of a true friendship with anyone." Truman called him the "coldest man I ever met."

FDR's stoking an affair between Lehand and Eleanor's lover, Earl Miller even confused the Roosevelt kids.

His suggesting to Clementine Churchill that his son, Elliot have an affair with Sarah Churchill. Clementine curtly reminded him that they were both married to other people.

The book, "Mostly Morgenthaus" discusses how FDR stoke rivalries among the people around him. The most famous, of course, was that which he stoked between Sara and Eleanor.

FDR's not telling his mother he was even dating Eleanor before he informed her they were engaged. Boy, was she pissed.

FDR told Henry Morgenthau - whom he'd known for decades and with whom he'd actually shared a bed on the gubernatorial campaign trail - that "I never let my right hand know what the left is doing." "Which hand am I, Mr. President?" Morganthau answered.

FDR's not being frank with Democratic party leaders about intending to run in 1940 when he fully intended to do so was the final break with Farley, who looked like a fool at the convention. These folks thought that if he wanted to do so, he should have told them rather than play games.

That's just off the top of my head.

I tend to think of dissembling as synonymous with lying, but your broader use is correct.

Also, thanks for the info on FDR.

And, perhaps, that's why Carter didn't get re-elected.

Too honest. He told this country things they didn't want to hear and then Reagan came in as a cheerleader.

Life and politics ain't fair.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8496874
Skelton to hold hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8496067
House Dems Meet On Advancing Gay Rights Agenda

That's not to minimize the torment and oppression along the way, but it will be shocking in comparison to other struggles.

Why? Because it's a group that transcends EVERYTHING: race, gender, culture, politics, religion, and the cat is out of the bag. People now know all kinds of people who are gay, and now it's PERSONAL.

we may only be 5-7% of the populace (which means over 10% of the Democratic party).

But, when we stop our (considerable) cash flow, they suddenly sit up and take notice.

It's already happening.

y'all have lots of non-gay supporters :hi: