Why Gay Donors Are Supporting Obama
Here there is some controversy over gay donors supporting Obama. As roundabout as it seems, there's a reason why gay donors are supporting Obama despite a lot of simmering resentment and lost promises.
I'm in a government class, and the long story short is that campaign funds almost never go to a "maybe" 'I can do a lot of things' candidate, but a "definitely" 'I can do some thing' candidate.
Unless an extremely liberal - and effective - candidate shows up who is likely to defend gay rights, then funds are going to Obama, because he has actual progress he can point to, and he has the ability to back up his own competency in the area. IT may not be much progress, but it is progress, which is better than a gamble and a LOT better than nothing.
Or to put it this way: if Dennis Kusinich were to run for president, he wouldn't get much funding; not because serious donors doubt his dedication to his causes, but his ability to get them through, in that, as much as we don't like it, there are still a helluva lot of conservatives with legal power in this country, and the POTUS will HAVE to work with them somehow. I'll be frank and say I wouldn't donate to him over Obama, because I'm looking at the Republicans in Congress that Kusinich would have to compromise and work with, and I'm thinking, "I love the guy, but he's not going to get anything done." For all that we complain about Obama taking so long on gay policy, he was stuck on fiscal reform and healthcare for the first two years of his presidency not because he didn't care about gay rights but because Congress didn't - when it comes to policy agenda, the POTUS is pretty much at Congress's mercy, along with everyone else except voters themselves, and to demonstrate why things concerning money took first place, "There isn't much point to giving gays the right to marry if they can't afford a wedding, anyway."
Come 2012, I'll donate to Obama if I have change to spare and I'll vote Democrat, and it is extremely unlikely that another Democrat will gain 2012 nomination. While I know there are other people out there who care far more about gay rights than Obama, he has actually gotten shit done, and he stands a strong chance of being able to work with Republicans for gay rights.
Now, if Hillary Clinton runs and shows promise and dedication to gay rights, I'll totally vote for her because she has also shown a strong ability to get shit done, and I can absolutely believe that she will support gay rights, even if she hasn't actually said much on it so far, based on her past causes. But if she doesn't run, Obama it is, because a lot investment is better than a high-stakes gamble.
There has been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin and a possible 2012 run, but I doubt that'll happen - not because of her radical platform or dubious background (though those certainly don't help), but because of her past performance. As a rallying point for conservatives, there is no doubt that she performs well and brings in results. But as an executive officer of government? Her terms as mayor and governor respectively are extremely spotty and unstable, and in short, if you project her past performance onto the White House and assume, "she was this successful at the city and state levels so she will be as successful at the national level", then it doesn't look pretty for America, even if you're a Republican. Even before you get to the fact she is essentially "too famous" by now and too alienating for the Republican party to risk running her, the simple matter is she is best in her role as a supporting player, not main cast. Whoever does run for the GOP in 2012, she will support and bring them tons of votes - but she can't run, herself, because with little historic she is too much of a risk for the White House, and with what little background she has being as unstable as it is, it's just a high-priced investment with low returns. Lose-lose even for the Tea Party, let alone anyone else.
I'm in a government class, and the long story short is that campaign funds almost never go to a "maybe" 'I can do a lot of things' candidate, but a "definitely" 'I can do some thing' candidate.
Unless an extremely liberal - and effective - candidate shows up who is likely to defend gay rights, then funds are going to Obama, because he has actual progress he can point to, and he has the ability to back up his own competency in the area. IT may not be much progress, but it is progress, which is better than a gamble and a LOT better than nothing.
Or to put it this way: if Dennis Kusinich were to run for president, he wouldn't get much funding; not because serious donors doubt his dedication to his causes, but his ability to get them through, in that, as much as we don't like it, there are still a helluva lot of conservatives with legal power in this country, and the POTUS will HAVE to work with them somehow. I'll be frank and say I wouldn't donate to him over Obama, because I'm looking at the Republicans in Congress that Kusinich would have to compromise and work with, and I'm thinking, "I love the guy, but he's not going to get anything done." For all that we complain about Obama taking so long on gay policy, he was stuck on fiscal reform and healthcare for the first two years of his presidency not because he didn't care about gay rights but because Congress didn't - when it comes to policy agenda, the POTUS is pretty much at Congress's mercy, along with everyone else except voters themselves, and to demonstrate why things concerning money took first place, "There isn't much point to giving gays the right to marry if they can't afford a wedding, anyway."
Come 2012, I'll donate to Obama if I have change to spare and I'll vote Democrat, and it is extremely unlikely that another Democrat will gain 2012 nomination. While I know there are other people out there who care far more about gay rights than Obama, he has actually gotten shit done, and he stands a strong chance of being able to work with Republicans for gay rights.
Now, if Hillary Clinton runs and shows promise and dedication to gay rights, I'll totally vote for her because she has also shown a strong ability to get shit done, and I can absolutely believe that she will support gay rights, even if she hasn't actually said much on it so far, based on her past causes. But if she doesn't run, Obama it is, because a lot investment is better than a high-stakes gamble.
There has been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin and a possible 2012 run, but I doubt that'll happen - not because of her radical platform or dubious background (though those certainly don't help), but because of her past performance. As a rallying point for conservatives, there is no doubt that she performs well and brings in results. But as an executive officer of government? Her terms as mayor and governor respectively are extremely spotty and unstable, and in short, if you project her past performance onto the White House and assume, "she was this successful at the city and state levels so she will be as successful at the national level", then it doesn't look pretty for America, even if you're a Republican. Even before you get to the fact she is essentially "too famous" by now and too alienating for the Republican party to risk running her, the simple matter is she is best in her role as a supporting player, not main cast. Whoever does run for the GOP in 2012, she will support and bring them tons of votes - but she can't run, herself, because with little historic she is too much of a risk for the White House, and with what little background she has being as unstable as it is, it's just a high-priced investment with low returns. Lose-lose even for the Tea Party, let alone anyone else.