For those of you who regularly skip the intel presented, erstwhile, as enlightenment by major news outlets, allow me to quickly explain today’s title so that you will know with confidence that it is not just one of my many machinations. Recent headlines from two prominent news organizations have, pejoratively I think, labeled President Obama both the “The First Gay President” (Newsweek, dated May 21, 2012), and “BarackObama, The First Female President” (WashingtonPost, dated May 14, 2012). Certainly I intend no disrespect to women or to the gay community by suggesting these references are negative. Alternately, the media often gins up controversy, specifically in an effort to enhance sales, and ultimately to increase revenue…as a result of what you might call eye-catching headlines and salacious teasers.
Of course, a number of my friends, who consider themselves fierce defenders of capitalism and freemarkets, constantly remind me that for private sector entities, the bottom line is the bottom line.
These headlines and others similar to them followed last Wednesday’s announcement by President Obama in an interview with ABC News analyst Robin Roberts that he supports the right for same-sex couples to marry. While many speculated that unscripted, and presumably unexpected comments by Vice President Joe Biden (the preceding Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press) and by EducationSecretary Arne Duncan (the preceding Monday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe), the President had noted some time ago that his thoughts on the subject were evolving.
In fact there had been significant speculation that President Obama would likely clarify his support prior to the November Election, largely because a movement was looming for supporters of the issue to try and make the matter a plank of the Democratic Party at its upcoming National Convention in
All things considered, while there was considerable heat and light in the immediate aftermath of the President “coming out,” long term, it may be better to have settled the matter sooner rather than later. This way, if it really does prove to be a substantive campaign issue, the President, his supporters, handlers, bundlers, Super Pacs, and other FOP's (Friends of POTUS), have both the time and the opportunity to design and execute a strategic and robust response.
Perhaps it should be noted that this may be more of an issue among segments of the President’s supporters, than among his adversaries. The Republicans have actually been as near silent as possible on the question. MittRomney, while delineating his position in favor of the traditional one man/one woman view of marriage has pretty much given the issue as much distance as Superman would Kryptonite. No doubt a tacit concession that no matter how enthusiastically he mouths his current position, he has also evolved on the question. Given his efforts to shed the flip-flop label (and no, it's not the shoes, Money!...and if you didn't get that, perhaps you need to work on your cultural literacy quoitient...see Spike Lee), he no doubt has little if any interest in throwing down the gauntlet on this particular issue. Of course
So, while many elements in the always unwieldy Democratic Coalition have expressed concern; even dismay with the President’s stance, there is widespread hope, if not optimism amid his Camp that he can regain his support and burnish his Mojo before November 6th. Indeed, chances are, the outcome of the Election will turn on the state of the economy, not DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), or any other Alphabet Soup aspect of this debate.
That is my view, which is in stark contrast to that of Mr. Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage. Mr. Brown, in a Special (editorial) to CNN yesterday argued that
In all fairness, that victory, or defeat, depending on ones perspective could hardly have been more complete. The Constitutional Amendment, which declared marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the State of
As with Biden’s & Duncan’s comments, as far as POTUS’ chances go, the best thing about the Amendment One ballot initiative may be that it was on the ballot in May; not November. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Interestingly, in today’s political environment, opposition research and fact checking are normative processes. As a result Salon.com was quick to call Newsweek to task while offering a bit of salient, if not well-known, insight. Ergo, we have already had a gay President. Betcha didn’t know that!
No surprise there (that you didn’t know). It has been buried deeper than African American History in most of our nation’s classrooms. OK, to be fair, since African American History is usually ignored in primary & secondary education classrooms, maybe the appropriate comparison is that it has been buried just as deeply. Whatever…you get the point!
In its rejoinder, Salon.com “challenged Newsweek's basic premise,” arguing that “Obama shouldn't be considered the nation's first "gay president" because our 15th president, James Buchanan, was gay.”
The Salon piece goes on to cite Author John Howard’s book, “Men LikeThat,” in which Howard references correspondence from President Buchanan (dated May 13, 1844) to Eleanor Roosevelt, in which he not only expressed his sadness over the loss of his great love (who happened to be a man), but also mentioned his efforts to woo other men (in response to his loss).
In other words, for all those folks who like their Presidents male, white, and without saying so, straight, President Obama’s newly revealed position may be controversial, but to quote your Bible and mine, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes1: 9 The New Revised Standard Version). The illusion was nice while it lasted, but it’s over now; let’s move on.
On Monday, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank had an editorial in that paper which reeked of condescension toward President Obama. The editorial was entitled (And yes, I know editorial writers don’t pen the headlines) “Barack Obama, the first female president.”
At one point Milbank accused the President of “brazenly flaunting his feminine mystique.” I thought I was reading a Fox News piece for a moment, instead of a column from the Washington Post. Milbank incorporated the President’s appearance on The View, and delivering the Commencement Address at
Throughout the course of the piece, Mr. Milbank seemed somewhat agitated that the recently named “First Gay President, which as previously noted, is a misnomer, was paying too much attention to women. Who knows, perhaps Mr. Milbank was unable to attend the recent White House Correspondent’sDinner. Maybe POTUS should make sure he gets a ticket next year…along with an offer he can’t refuse!
In response to the great question of the day, “POTUS: TheFirst “Gay/Woman” President…Problematic? The answer; “Of course it is!” But, in relative terms, I have a feeling that is not nearly as much of a problem as:
·
Solving our
nation’s economic challenges
·
Eliminating the
budget deficit for more than one month (April 2012 marks the first monthly budget surplus in the United States since September, 2008)
·
Resolving the
issue of black-on-black crime
·
Implementing immigration
reform
·
Re-writing the
tax code
·
Whatever
happened to the War on Drugs, anyway
·
And, of course,
the current “Mother of all Problems,” reducing, in a significant way, the
national unemployment rate
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.
A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information
on a variety of aspects relating to this post,
consult the links below:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment