|
Personally, I look at this whole ignominious episode as an example of one person's expediency at the expense of his purported ideals, badly executed political chicanery and a classic example of the unintended consequences when sucking up to organized and cultural religion in politics.
What it calls into question is, for me, not so much his callousness toward gays but his Machiavellian willingness to turn a blind eye toward the overt bigotry of a constituency for tactical gain. In future power plays, where will he draw the line?
When certain gay posters tell the rest of us to "get over it" or that we're engaging in "false outrage", it is a claim of privilege. Sexual orientation shouldn't grant one the right to pass judgment on cynical acts of positioning or sloppy execution of them. The paramount issue is this: if expediency will compel him to jettison a downtrodden group while not-so-subtly appealing to racial solidarity and attempting to trump the opposition with big-time religion, what else will be thrown over for popularity? It's precisely the trouble I have with Senator Clinton: talking a good game is one thing, but performance is another.
Until the nominee is truly determined, all issues of character, tactical competence and especially morality are not only fair game but important to air in public. Personally, my only interest right now is to divine who's the most electable, and I simply don't know. Over the years, the crass and often very transparent maneuverings of Senator Clinton have chipped down my opinion of her character, and her stand (or lack of stand or multiple stands) on many issues leaves me cold, too, but this one act three and a half months ago stands out as the nastiest bit of politicking in a major race in this country for years. For something as truly nasty as this to be dismissed as inconsequential calls into question the morals of everyone adopting that stance.
For those of you Obama supporters who have expressed disapproval of this ploy, I have a kindred feeling.
In light of the opposition--both for the nomination and the general election--perhaps this act doesn't make him tainted beyond compare, but that is a far cry from it being a piddly little thing. Life exists in the grey area, and those who insist on it being black and white do nobody any favor.
More than anything else, what we risk this election cycle is a hardened opposition and soft support. Sure, I'll vote for either of the Senators from Illinois if nominated, but my heart's not going to be in it all that much. The more I hear from Obama supporters that this is just a piffle or the selfish "fake outrage" of narcissistic contrarians, the less enchanted I become. Soft support is a very dangerous thing, and if enough people are shaking their head in dismay and voting for "least bad", the armies of privilege and hatred from the other side may once again prevail.
Perhaps it's just me, but since Edwards dropped out, there has been a pall of disinterest over the board. The Kucinich supporters are quiet, many of the more staunch Edwards supporters have opted out of the discussion, and many of the unaligned have fallen silent, too. Yeah, it's great to see the frenzied zeal among many of Obama's supporters, but much as that energy is useful, it also turns off a lot of people. I see him as the Pied Piper of Hoopla, but I assure you that I, like most others disgusted by this, will hold our tongues should he be the nominee. Until then, it's a legitimate point.
It's not so much about sexual orientation as it is about honest inclusiveness.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
