I think that the president is making a political mistake

[yardwork]

On the eve of New York's historic vote, the president came out strongly in favor of....states' rights.

It's obvious that President Obama is positioning himself to win southern states in the 2012 election, notably North Carolina, which he carried in 2008, and where a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will be on the ballot. His reference to states' rights is a clear, coded message to white southerners. The last time states' rights were a big deal was during the fight for Civil Rights in the 1950s and 60s. The (southern) states wanted to retain the right to legally discriminate against African Americans. The federal government said no - in a series of landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings and congressional legislature. The states' lost their bid to keep discrimination legal, and the entire country is the better for that.

Obama now raises the tattered flag of states' rights in an effort to appease and persuade white voters to support him. I understand the cynical political calculation behind this move, but I think it is misguided and I also think it will backfire.

The white southerners who will respond with raised ears and brightened eyes to the dog whistle of "states' rights" are not going to vote for Obama. They didn't vote for him before and they won't vote for him in 2012. Not going to do it. They don't vote for Democrats for president even when the Democrat is a white southerner. They are not going to vote for an African American from Chicago. Ain't going to happen.

And that didn't matter in 2008. Enough people did vote for Barack Obama - including me - that he carried the state of North Carolina, he carried Ohio, he carried Pennsylvania, he carried more than enough states to win the election. The suggestion that fewer people will vote for him in 2012 is preposterous. Even very unpopular presidents usually win reelection. Presidents have to really screw up to lose reelection.

What Obama is doing - in a futile effort to get some white racists who don't like him to vote for him - is ticking off his base. Expressing support for states' rights - of all things! - is just the latest insult thrown in the faces of progressives who volunteered for him, donated money to him, talked their friends and relatives and plumbers into voting for him, and then went out and voted for him in the primaries and on election day.

I think he's doing it because he's more afraid of ticking off the corporations and the right wing than he is of ticking off the progressives. He calculates that we have nowhere else to go, and he may be right. But I fear that his strategy will backfire in places like North Carolina, where victory or defeat depends on only a few votes. In an effort to appeal to those who will never in a million years vote for him, President Obama risks alienating his base.

[tekisui]

1. Marriage equality is no longer the reliable wedge issue

for conservatives. Obama is risking being left behind as history moves on. He is, once again, squandering a golden opportunity.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. He's doing more than just alienating us...

He looks weak (to me) as he tries to get the Southerners to vote for him because of his stand on states' rights.

It is pathetic.

He needs to at least look strong. When he stands up for what he really believes in, then the Republicans tend to treat him with more respect.

Damn.

[defendandprotect]

32. Obama seems perfectly strong enough to protect his corporate decisions ... no doubt about that-!

I think he's doing it because he's more afraid of ticking off the corporations and the right wing than he is of ticking off the progressives. He calculates that we have nowhere else to go, and he may be right. But I fear that his strategy will backfire in places like North Carolina, where victory or defeat depends on only a few votes. In an effort to appeal to those who will never in a million years vote for him, President Obama risks alienating his base.


Obama decribes himself as "New Dem" -- had I known that I would not have voted for him --

He purposefully separated himself from the DLC because he knew the public didn't like the

stink of it --

Yet, Hillary is still part of DLC political leadership!


Since Koch Bros. Funded the DLC and was harbored within the Dem Party for 20 years, think we

have to find out what the relationship is between Obama and Koch.

[MineralMan]

3. He might be making a mistake.

On the other hand, suppose he had taken a stronger position and those two Republicans had voted no on states' rights grounds? I'm not saying that would have happened, but...

[tekisui]

4. Yeah, heaven forbid he come across as an actual supporter of equality.

He could have given unqualified endorsement to marriage equality without interjecting himself on the NY vote.

[MineralMan]

13. I think so, too. It was just a question. Could it have affected

the votes of those Republicans? I just don't know.

[jeff47]

61. How, exactly, would he do this?

The reason the vote happened in NY is that Cuomo and other NY leaders were able to make it a personal issue for the Republicans that voted yes. They were able to convince them that the status quo just wasn't right.

Obama comes out with an "unqualified endorsement", and suddenly it's an R vs D issue. Instead of being about right and wrong, it's about making sure Obama doesn't get a "win". And while you get a lovely speech about equality, you don't get actual equality.

I don't see any way to thread the needle through that. So how do you think he could pull it off?

[tekisui]

62. He could say that society recognizes that marriage is a valued right.

And that equality can not be achieved without that right to marry. He wouldn't need to say anything more, really.

[yardwork]

75. If he said that I would be very grateful. I don't expect anything more from him right now.

[jeff47]

77. Since that statement is in the context of the NY law...

it would inject him into the debate, and we get the whole "Kenyan muslim socialist must oppose!" thing.

By keeping the debate on the Republican's own consciences, it passed. A statement from any president makes it a national issue instead of a personal one. I'd rather have the law passed and no statement than a nice statement and the law not passed.

I think the best approach, even going forward, is to leave Obama on the sidelines to avoid triggering the Republican id. Obama's team has utterly failed to counter the Republican id on any other issue and so I have extreme doubts they'd be able to in this situation.

Would I like a better president? Sure. But we have one with a pathological need to create the "grand bargain" despite the insanity of the opposition. So we'll get our victories state-by-state and drag his ass over the finish line.

[yardwork]

5. My OP is a reference to his citation of states's rights.

[MineralMan]

12. I understand. My question is if it might have made a difference

in the vote had he taken a stronger position in favor of marriage equality. I don't know. Might one or another of those republicans have voted differently on the basis of that? It's just a question about what might have happened. I'm 100% for marriage equality.

[yardwork]

16. I know that you are a strong ally. I've seen your posts here. I appreciate them.

[defendandprotect]

36. Dem Party didn't care much for "states rights" in 2000 when Florida State SC mandated counting

of 120,000 votes in Miami-Dade county that were never previously counted --

STOPPED by a GOP fascist rally which bordered on violence with no police interference!


There are state's rights which should be supported -- and there are "state's rights"

like Segregation and Slavery which should be denounced -- over and over again!


Obama should try sending Southerns some coded messages about the right to unionize!

[NorthCarolina]

6. Political calculation is more important than the quality of a persons' life. nt

[yardwork]

8. My point is that his political calculation is flawed. I think it will backfire.

[NorthCarolina]

10. I understood your point and agree.

I was just noting how I perceive Obama to be viewing things.

[defendandprotect]

38. If it is a political calculation to send coded messages to South ... it's vile ...

Doubt he's telling Southern labor that they have a right to unionize?

[yardwork]

39. Defending unions in the south would certainly lose him the election.

He and every other Democratic candidate in my lifetime have managed to avoid supporting unions without mentioning states' rights.

[defendandprotect]

41. Because the people don't understand that labor has the right to unionize?

Or because corporate opposition and propaganda against unions has always

been so high?

We have to begin to defund corporations -- they have too much money available

for mischief!

Higher taxes -- and let's stop buying their products!

[yardwork]

42. Total brainwash in the south regarding worker's rights. Simply not on the radar.

I don't understand it. Decades ago the corporations convinced most southerners that worker's rights are the same as communism, and communism is the same as Stalinist Soviet Union. It's a deeply, deeply ingrained bias here.

[defendandprotect]

46. Goebbels style propaganda has long lasting effects -- !!

And Obama, himself, seems to be a paralyzed victim of it --

according to Al Gore in his Rolling Stone article!!

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Many would counter with, President Romney would make life worse for a whole lot of people

Not saying I will, but there's a good amount of devil's advocate to play there.

[LynneSin]

7. I've said it before - I don't think that Obama opposes marriage equality...

he just has a tough time vocalizing it. As another DUer posted when I made that comment - all that fence sitting has got be hurting his balls by about now.

The concept that he said the justice department would no longer defend DOMA was a good step forward.

BTW Jimmy Carter didn't win re-election so let's not count our eggs before they hatch.

[yardwork]

9. My OP is a reference to Obama's deliberate citation of states' rights.

[FrenchieCat]

11. In the case of marriage, there is not supposed to be a federal law.......

is there? My understanding is that Marriage is not an issue that ought to be regulated by the Feds, as that is why it isn't mentioned in the constitution, and why DOMA is unconstitutional in the eyes of the Obama Administration......so why should it not be an issue dealt with by the states? Otherwise, aren't we begging for a constitutional amendment regarding marriage, and shouldn't we not want that.........considering what it takes to get an amendment passed these days?

Further, I don't believe that this one issue seen as not a Federal issue means that Pres. Obama is endorsing State Rights on all things. Why would anyone think that this is the case? Isn't that making a blanket statement based on speculative black/white thinking? I don't get it (and I'm sure someone will straighten me out on this).....

And so how is he alienating his "base" with his statement about marriage equality not being a Federal issue? :shrug:

[MineralMan]

14. The trouble is that there IS such a law: DOMA.

That's the real problem. Either the federal government isn't involved or it is. Either it recognizes marriages performed in the states or it does not. Currently, it does not, and that's a real issue. There's no way for the federal government to say it plays no role. It plays a huge role.

It IS a federal issue now. Saying it is not does not make that so.

[FrenchieCat]

20. My understanding again, as far as Pres. Obama is concerned,

is the reason his DOJ stopped defending suits brought up against that law.....
is that they regard the law DOMA itself an unconstitutional law.

The current administration is not the same administration that signed DOMA into law....
so what Pres. Obama is stating (that this shouldn't be a Federal matter)....that the Feds shouldn't be involved with what they regard as an unconstitutional law seems consistent with
doing away with DOMA.....which is what I believe will happen.

[MineralMan]

25. As long as same sex marriage is not recognized as valid

by the federal government, there is no equality. There are so many areas where marriage is a factor, and no same sex couples are treated the same as heterosexual couples. That's the primary problem here, I believe. It is a huge ball of worms, and untangling it is going to be a huge job, unless a federal law is passed making ALL marriages recognized by any state are equivalent to ALL OTHER marriages. Either that, or a court decision that performs the same function.

[yardwork]

15. Heterosexual marriage in all states is recognized by the federal government.

Through a very complicated set of federal laws and agreements, your marriage is X state is valid in every other state of the union. So yes, marriage is a federal issue.

But my main point is with President Obama's deliberate reference to states' rights, which is a very loaded, dog-whistle term in the south. Like the Confederate flag, references to states' rights trigger very strong reactions from different people. And the reasons for that are inextricably combined with civil rights. It's a very cynical calculation for an African American president to say that he believes that a particular civil right should be left to the states to decide. As a constitutional scholar, he knows that this flies in the face of generations of strong feelings. States' rights were overturned to ensure equal treatment of African Americans throughout America. It is a matter of great pride for progressives, and a source of bitterness for white racists.

[FrenchieCat]

28. I don't see it......

But then, I don't always see the worse that can be seen.

I see the next step to this statement as DOMA being repealed as unconstitutional.....
and I see our job as giving Congress the number of Progressives
in our next congress that will vote just that way.

I don't see how Pres. Obama making a statement on this one particular issue
that actually jives with his recent stance that DOMA will no longer be defended
due to its unconstitutionality as him doing Dog-whistle, as you implied. I think
you are using a broad brush and coming up with a terribly cynical interpretation....
which although I can understand why one would be cynical.....I still don't take
one statement on one particular issue meaning a whole lot more than what I see as
being consistent with his recent stance on DOMA being repealed.

I also don't see how the cynicism and the accusations of making Pres. Obama
appear to be using "dog whistles" to folks he knows won't vote for him will help
the cause of marriage equality progress. I think what would help would be for
folks to really, really start promoting progressives that need to replace current
congressional critters that are on the wrong side of a possible DOMA repeal.
But that's just the approach that I believe would bring us closer to what we want...

[yardwork]

33. I'm worried that he's going to lose North Carolina.

That's the point of my OP. I think that he's using the wrong strategy. The fact that he's using it as part of his annoyingly fence-sitting approach to equal marriage is actually extraneous to my point. I didn't bring up states' rights in reference to equal marriage. He did.

Why on God's green earth is a Democratic president talking about states' rights. That's what I want to know.

[MineralMan]

35. I'm afraid President Obama is on a tightrope with no

balancing pole in many ways. I don't understand his thinking on some issues, but I think he's trying to balance strategically and get to the platform on the other side of the tent. All I can do is hold my breath and cross my fingers, sometimes.

[yardwork]

69. He didn't have to bring up states' rights. He didn't have to say anything at all.

If he can't bring himself to state that he believes that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else, it would be better for everyone and his career for him to say nothing at all about the issue.

[Ignis]

44. +1. Well said, yardwork.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

52. Thank you!

[tekisui]

17. Marriage, and when it is recognized has a direct impact

stemming from a variety of federal issues. What Obama needs to do is not just say he isn't going to defend a section of DOMA any longer, but call for the repeal of DOMA and unambiguously call for marriage equality.

Who the federal government recognizes as married is critical in many people's lives.

[dsc]

22. loving vs virginia

and a whole slew of other cases, make it crystal clear that there is a federal right to marriage.

[girl_interrupted]

70. Loving v Virginia: Legalizing Interracial marriage

"Sixteen states still had "antimiscegenation" laws (laws prohibiting interracial
marriages) when, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Court held that laws
forbidding interracial marriages violate both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection theory is more
obvious: the law depended upon a racial classification. The Court rejected Virginia's argument
that the law did not discriminate because it was enforceable against everyone, not just
African-Americans.

The reason the law also violated the Due Process Clause was that it
interfered unreasonably with the right to marry, a "fundamental right" in constitutional
jurisprudence that cannot be denied or interfered ."

Loving Decision: 40 Years of Legal Interracial Unions

On June 12, 1967, the nation's highest court voted unanimously to overturn the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving, a young interracial couple from rural Caroline County, Va.

That decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws — written to prevent the mixing of the races — that were on the books at the time in more than a dozen states, including Virginia. Richard Loving was white; his wife, Mildred, was black. In 1958, they went to Washington, D.C. — where interracial marriage was legal — to get married. But when they returned home, they were arrested, jailed and banished from the state for 25 years for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047

[jberryhill]

18. I think you are confusing "state's rights" with "state issues"

Family law is not in general an area of federal jurisdiction in the first place.

States are all over the map on who can marry in the first place - ages, first cousins, etc.

It is a state issue.

[yardwork]

19. I listened to his speech and I know what I heard.

Edited to add -

Even though different states have their own rules about who can marry, once a heterosexual couple is married anywhere in the U.S., their marriage is considered legal in every other state. For instance, two cousins not allowed to marry in one state can marry in another state and their marriage is still considered legal in the state that didn't allow them to get married there. That's what makes marriage a federal issue.

Not to mention the fact that there more than one thousand rights and benefits given to married couples and that many of them are federal benefits, such a social security, health insurance, filing tax returns, etc.

[jberryhill]

30. That is why DOMA needs to be overturned

But most at DU opposed the idea of taking the First Circuit decision on DOMA to the national level.

[MineralMan]

21. The problem is in federal RECOGNITION of marriage.

It accepts and grants privileges to heterosexual marriages, wherever they are performed. It rejects same-sex marriages and does not recognize them. That is a huge thing. From passports to immigration, people are affected. Your marriage in New York is not equivalent if you are the same sex, with a heterosexual marriage in that state.

That is unequal treatment under the law. It is unconstitutional on its face. The federal government must accept marriages in every state, no matter who is married. Actually, every state must accept marriages in every other state. Currently, neither situation is true.

Marriage is a specific thing in federal law, and impacts many areas of life, from taxation to military service.

[yardwork]

24. Thank you for that very clear explanation.

[MineralMan]

29. My pleasure. That's been a stumbling block all along.

I think it represents part of President Obama's dilemma. He has no way to make that recognition happen. About the only thing he can do is to direct the Attorney General and US Attorney not to defend in court cases. Everything else requires congressional action.

I wish we had a SCOTUS we could trust with this issue. I truly do.

[jberryhill]

26. I totally agree with that

...which is why I'd like to see the First Circuit decision concerning DOMA taken to the national level, but that was opposed by many here.

[MineralMan]

31. I wish I were able to believe that it would get past the SCOTUS.

I'm afraid that I cannot. And a SCOTUS decision that goes the wrong way could be a huge stumbling block for years.

[jberryhill]

40. Not necessarily

If the Supreme Court found DOMA Constitutional, then it can still be repealed. IMHO they would really have to engage in some gymnastics to get the wrong result.

[alp227]

23. Bush never tried to cave to liberals, so Obama shouldn't cave with conservatives. n/t

[progressoid]

27. Not just trying to appease white racists - it's also trying to appease homophobes.

[yardwork]

34. I'm sure that he thinks that appeasing homophobes is a winning strategy in the south

and he could be right, sadly.

What is not a winning strategy in the south for a Democrat is to defend states' rights. That is a bridge too far.

[EFerrari]

37. Of course. n/t

[Johonny]

43. do progressives get angry about the term states rights?

not right now if your live in New York.

I think you care about this term vastly more than the average Obama voter.

[provis99]

58. you misunderstand the term "states rights".

It is a code word, nothing more. States do not have rights. What the code word means is white supremacy in the South. It is a code word just like "young bucks", "welfare queens", or "busing".

[suffragette]

45. Very selective states rights, at that

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/04/14/obama-adminstration-warns-it-may-prosecute-state-employees-if-gregoire-signs-medical-pot-law

The top federal prosecutors in Washington sent a stern warning to Washington State that a medical-marijuana law passed by the legislature this week, which would license dispensaries and growers, could result in a wave of criminal charges against cannabis providers and even state employees. At the same time, in a mixed message, they telegraphed that the Obama Administration's policy of tacitly permitting states with medical marijuana laws would proceed.

"The Washington legislative proposals will create a licensing scheme that permits large-scale marijuana cultivation and distributions," wrote US Attorneys Jenny Durkan and Michael Ormsby, respectively representing the Western and Eastern districts of Washington State, in a letter sent today to Governor Chris Gregoire. "This would authorize conduct contrary to federal law and thus, would undermine the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly, the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal law. ... In addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability..." including "criminal prosecution."

May 18, 2011 in City
Feds raid more Spokane marijuana dispensaries
Thomas Clouse The Spokesman-Review

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/may/18/feds-raid-spokane-marijuana-dispensaries/

Federal agents, assisted by Spokane Police, raided marijuana dispensaries today, including one on Freya Street just north of the intersection with Sprague Avenue.

Spokane Police Detective Tom Hendren said he was assisting the federal Drug Enforcement Administration with a federal warrant, but he could not give any more specifics.

~~~

Federal agents hit seven dispensaries on April 29, but none of those cases have yet resulted in charges.

The U.S. attorney’s office sent dispensary operators notices in April advising them to shut down or risk federal enforcement action. Many of the estimated 40 medical marijuana dispensaries reportedly complied, but not all.






So, they conducted high profile raids of dispensaries and put pressure on the Governor to veto the medical marijuana law licensing dispensaries by preemptively announcing they would bust state employees if the law was passed as written.


My State Senator and State Reps (all Democrats) were highly engaged in this in an effort to provide consistency and to honor what citizens here have voted for - the right for people to be able to legally acquire and use marijuana for medical purposes.


But in this case, I guess states rights did not matter so much.


K&R

edited for typo

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Yes there is that as well, isn't there...

the hypocrisy of his statement made me cringe.

[suffragette]

60. Yep, that and the calculation in it.

[yardwork]

55. Very good point!

[suffragette]

59. Very good OP!

Another kick for you.

[mitchtv]

47. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

48. k&r

[Tatiana]

49. Honestly, I think the President is wrestling with reconciling his personal vs. religious beliefs.

I noticed back in 2007-2008, he had a hard time answering the question of whether same-sex couples had the right to marry. He eventually came over to the idea of civil unions, but refused to use the word marriage. Some of it is trying to curry favor with Southern states such as Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia. But I believe the President actually wrestles personally with the issue of whether same-sex marriages should be legal.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

51. If that is the case, why was he in favor of equal marriage in 1996?

[tishaLA]

53. I don't believe that.

I am a big supporter of Pres Obama, but I really believe that the opposition to marriage equality is a political gambit. He's too smart and too cosmopolitan to have such beliefs about marriage equality, especially when you consider the church he attended in Chicago. It just doesn't fit.

That said, I also believe that there are limits to what he can do vis-a-vis marriage equality. He has done one thing--getting the DOJ to stop defending it--but he hasn't done the other: using the bully pulpit. It is likely that, like Loving v Virginia, this will be decided in the courts rather legislatively, so the important thing we have to look to is making sure the courts are as favorable to progressive social issues, and marriage equality especially, as possible.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Seriously, do a public opinion poll on people with Ivy League graduate degrees...

Who are Obama's age. The amount of them that oppose marriage equality is extremely small. The fact that it looks very much the opposite when you are just looking at politicians isn't a coincidence.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. John Edwards said he was trying to cross that bridge...

but he cited his deep religious view of marriage as the reason he could not cross it, although he crossed many, many bridges and other barriers to have an affair outside his marriage and lie to the world while doing it. Just saying, 'wrestling' and religionism. Heard it before.

[JI7]

57. i disagree, i don't think Obama really opposes same sex marriage, it's just political strategy on

his part.

the church he was a part of for years with michelle supported same sex marriages also.

[gkhouston]

63. If he thinks his personal religious beliefs trump someone else's rights,

then he doesn't belong in office.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. The President started going to church when he decided to become a politician

Religious beliefs don't have jack shit to do with it.

[dflprincess]

71. For 20 years Obama was a member of the United Church of Christ

the first mainstream denomination to endorse Gay marriage. His opposition to Gay marriage is about political expediency - and apparently so are his religious beliefs.

[John Paul Jones]

67. States rights are a big deal to anyone who understands the Constitution.

More Americans than ever are taking the time to educate themselves with respect to the intent of the Constitution and most astute politicians realize this.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. The country would have collapsed during the Great Depression (if not sooner)...

If our standard for whether something was constitutional or not was "is this how a bunch of men in 1789 envisioned things" aka the Scalia doctrine. The framers were smart enough to know that they could not envision what the world would look like in decades or centuries and so they wrote the constitution so that their successors could adapt to the challenges of the time. The current balance of power between the federal government certainly isn't what the framers had in mind. But they didn't write anything into the constitution that prohibits the current balance of power.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

73. Federalism is the supreme power when states laws conflict

with federal law. There are state's rights, most notably the police power. But, state's power is extremely limited, thankfully.

Without a strong central government true progress in this nation cannot occur.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sofa king]

76. If you shift your thinking just a little bit...

The President's own reelection is in the bag, and because of the greed-driven interference from the Republican Party, the two biggest problems he has are the House and the Senate.

Not the wars. Not the flooding, or the potential famine in its aftermath, not the wrecked economy, not gas prices. Republicans. If the Republicans have the chance to interfere, all those other things get worse for the American people.

So the President's primary goal right now is to destroy the Republican Party, or at least force it onto more reasonable political turf, first by flipping the House. He can do it himself just by campaigning for himself in hot Congressional districts, using his influence and coattails to blast the Republican Congressional opponents.

It's not a straightforward problem, either, because only ten Republican Senators are up for reelection this term and it's not really possible to secure a supermajority in the Senate this election. So this election has to set up the next election victory, too. If he can take half of those Senate seats over the next five years, every Bush v. Gore Supreme Court justice has to go (it's clear now they were rewarded for their decision).

The problem is further complicated by the woeful ignorance of the American people, who do not understand how a bill becomes a law no matter how often they are told, don't know the functions of the House and the Senate, and who are conditioned to vote against their own best interests (which in this case, also happen to be President Obama's interests). The American people do not know which party best represents their own interests, because they do not know how their best interests are realized in our government.

So the President has to instruct, to triangulate, to tack and wear, to constantly emerge on the side of common sense and decency in a maelstrom of greed, money and disinformation. He's so successful that he actually has the luxury of pursuing this more difficult course, but to pursue it he must carefully balance his positions to solidify an even more populist approach. It's not all for Congress: remember that he won the first time by generating overwhelming popular support that prevented the Republicans from coming close enough to steal it in the states where they have already shown they can steal it (Ohio, Florida).

Thus we should expect many of the President's future positions to perform several duties at once: they should placate his base, but not necessarily enthuse them because; they must also not directly offend his voting opposition, because that would encourage them to turn out in higher numbers; and they must also be rational, compassionate positions which spark the interests of independents, third-parties and neutrals. Hence the annoying moderation.

The state's rights angle is a perfect example, because it allows him to stand above the issue itself and reach moderates and less-stupid conservatives from a position which they themselves often endorse, or at least they think they do. We can't get too miffed because he's on our side, even if he's not saying what we wish him to say. They can't get too miffed because he's applauding the decision on the basis of locally-controlled politics, which is what they think they want.

None of those objectives would be achieved if he directly endorsed the decision and called for it to be repeated everywhere (even if that is what he wants, and I think it is). I love our GLBT community, but they are fighting for their freedom and they will not be satisfied in that regard for a very long time no matter what, and will not be fully satisfied with the President as a result. The conservatives in turn would be motivated and would rally to their favorite cause of keeping some social out-group oppressed (recall 2004). Moderates and independents would be annoyed to see the President muddling his way into this issue when there are more pressing concerns. Nobody is happy, and we all lose as a result.

So try to think of the bigger picture of how to confront a remorseless, ruthless, criminal enemy, by using only the mechanisms outlined in our Constitution. This is a revolution from within. And it's working! By God, I think it's really working.