This mashup of animated GIFs and YouTube (start the video pls) works freakishly well.
Several people are wanting a "No on 8" comment or two from Senator Obama, hoping he'd help turn the tide against the marriage-banning amendment to the California state constitution. Me, I wonder what the hell crack they're smoking. Not because it'd be bad - no, it'd be really nice, particularly given his overwhelming popularity in California and the anticipatedly strong black voter turnout, which will according to polling results also mean a strong anti-gay turnout in this case - but because he's never done something like that.
Remember several months ago when a variety of people were hoping that Senator Obama would lead opposition to the FISA bill and retroactive immunity? The bill he'd previously condemned? And then instead he actively endorsed the mass warrantless spying provisions, and voted for both that retroactive immunity for separate and specific telecom lawbreaking. Tho' he did still claim to be against that second part, for whatever little that's worth.
More, he has no reason to have any intention of doing so now. As one Slog commenter correctly notes, "Nobody cares about gays other than gays and people who have gay friends." As another one notes, "Gay-Americans are not important enough to a national candidate to risk alienating a much larger voting block, i.e. African-Americans or Right wing leaning voters in the middle of the nation. This is Democracy and politics, not feel good therapy." And the essentially-unanimous consensus of the commenters is to tell the queers getting uppity about this to sit the hell down and shut the hell up and stop screwing things up for the real people who actually matter by asking for equal treatment under the law, and political support to that end. And that's on the slog.
Given all this, what do you think he's going to do? C'mon, people, think.
eta: I want to add a bit about those comments to the posts in question.
Many people in the commentaries, particularly on slog but not just there, talk about queers "ruining" the election "like in 2004" by even bringing up this idea of support from Senator Obama in the California marriage ban initiative campaign. Nobody who has brought up this idea has suggested dropping their support of Senator Obama when he doesn't provide that statement against Proposition 8; they're just saying it would be nice if he did it. But that was enough to trigger quite a negative reaction, and the "like in 2004" part is of particular interest.
It's one thing to talk tactics of 2008; it's quite another to reach back to 2004 and bludgeon us with it as part of that talk. These commenters who bring up 2004 are, essentially, blaming GBLT people for the wave of fundamentalist/GOP organised anti-gay initiatives across 22 states that election year, and by extension, are blaming queers for the re-election of George Bush and the GOP-controlled House and Senate. Now, these initiatives were obviously not put on the ballot by queers; they weren't our plan; we fought them - without a lot of Democratic Party support, I might add - and mostly lost. But the fundamentalist-driven effort did energise the Republican base and pop up GOP turnout, which helped Mr. Bush's party that election cycle.
But we didn't file those initiatives. We didn't support them. We weren't the ones running ads against us. We weren't the ones proclaiming us a threat to western civilisation. But many of the slog progressives in particular appear to have responded to this assault against us by blaming, well, us. Blaming us for being there. Blaming us for being visible, for working to be treated equally under the law; or, given where most of these initiatives were held, just for being rumoured.
They're blaming us for being around to be the target of someone else's hatred, and they're telling us to keep our damn mouths shut and keep the hell out of sight or we'll get it again, and it'll be all our fault, just like last time, in 2004. So if anyone still wonders why I don't have much faith in a "progressive realignment" represented by the Democratic party, well, here's yet another example why.