No Surprise: NYTimes's Nagourney Hails Obama's 'Historic' Risk-Taking on Gay Marriage
New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney departed from his L.A.-beat to comment on Obama's announcement yesterday in support of gay marriage, and didn't hedge on its "historic significance." The president's statement, delivered to ABC reporter Robin Roberts, predictably led Thursday's edition, and Nagourney's "news analysis" also made the front: "A Watershed Move, Both Risky and Inevitable."
President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage on Wednesday was by any measure a watershed. A sitting United States president took sides in what many people consider the last civil rights movement, providing the most powerful evidence to date of how rapidly views are moving on an issue that was politically toxic just five years ago.
Mr. Obama faces considerable risk in jumping into this debate, reluctantly or not, in the heat of what is expected to be a close election. The day before he announced his position, voters in North Carolina -- a critical state for Mr. Obama and the site of the Democratic convention this summer -- approved by a 20-point margin a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the 31st state to pass such an amendment.
As George W. Bush demonstrated in 2004, when his campaign engineered initiatives against gay marriage in a series of swing states, opponents are far more likely to vote on these issues than supporters. Mitt Romney, the probable Republican presidential candidate, was quick to proclaim his opposition to gay marriage after Mr. Obama spoke. And however much national attitudes may be shifting, the issue remains highly contentious among black and Latino voters, two groups central to Mr. Obama’s success.
Nagourney, who is openly gay, harkened back to President Lyndon Johnson's embrace of civil rights for an act of similar "riskiness" and "historic significance." So why didn't Obama make the announcement two days earlier, when it could have actually affected the vote in North Carolina? (To compare, the Washington Post's own front-page analysis, by Karen Tumulty, was far more sober and analytical than Nagourney's cheering tone.)
Mr. Obama’s declaration may have been belated and unplanned, forced out after his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., during a television interview on Sunday declared his support for same-sex marriage. Still, it is a huge voice added to a chorus that has become increasingly robust, a reminder that a view that had once been relegated to the dark sidelines of political debate has become mainstream.
The very riskiness of what Mr. Obama did -- some commentators were invoking Lyndon B. Johnson’s embrace of civil rights in 1964, with all the attendant political perils -- made it hard to understate the historic significance of what took place at the White House on Wednesday.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
As long as we're not talking about
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:05pm.
administration folks leaking intelligence information and effectively terminating successful CIA operations and potentially risking our national security for the sake of electoral politics...
all is well.
Or
Submitted by Ars21689 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:15pm.
High unemployment, record numbers dropping out of the work force, record debt and deficits, no budget for the past three years, etc. etc.
Yeah this is a repost from the Robin "chills" thread
Submitted by Ars21689 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:13pm.
He decided to stop lying about how he really feels about the issue while giving himself a way not to do anything too politically dangerous in an election year by saying that the issue should be left up to the states individually. This is a "watershed" moment? No, it is what he had done with almost every issue that has come up during his presidency. He punted, again.
Oh, please!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:53pm.
Historic? Does this president do anything that ISN'T historic??
And RISKY???
Puh-leeze!! Don't tell me this wasn't poll-tested to DEATH!!
They assessed the risks and judged it a risk worth taking.
mb,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:05pm.
No need for a test. From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-...
"A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay. His overall list of bundlers also includes a number of gay couples who have wed in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legal."
to steal and scar a line from Jimmy Walker..........
Submitted by Qtaug on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:35pm.
"Sodo-mite Mr. Present-dent" What will this ho not do to get re-elected?
Gonna be fun to watch
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:50pm.
Since it looks like he is willing to go pretty low.
Obama's Phony Evolution
Submitted by berlet98 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:36am.
Obama's Phony Evolution
Now that President Barack Hussein Obama has emerged from his political closet and announced he has resolved his long-standing confusion, indecision, and lack of surety regarding the morality–and practicality–of same-sex marriages, his motivations should be examined.
Republican low-lifes will no doubt attribute the president’s sudden, radical flipflop as concrete evidence that he has no core values and he “evolved” only because he needs both gay money to supplement his campaign coffers and gay votes to supplement the ballot box in November.
They will say he has long favored men marrying men, women marrying women, and undermining the religious institution of marriage and was being coy about it all until he had “more flexibility” in his second term.
They will say Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan shamed Obama into his alleged epiphany by indicating they would be “comfortable” with gay marriage.
They will say North Carolinianians forced his hand when they voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to join 38 other states in opposing same-sex marriages and civil unions.
They will say that since Obama’s Democrats have already repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and his DoJ secretary announced his administration would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, the president would logically have to endorse homosexual marriage.
And they would be absolutely wrong. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23610.)