Chuck,

This is a better place to discuss this than Twitter. I hadn't seen the Cory Booker statement, which is fantastic, and I completely agree with. And yeah, by contrast, Obama's statement is pretty mealy-mouthed. But Booker doesn't have to try to carry North Carolina in November.

I guess my thinking on this is that it's always been obvious that Obama supports full civil rights for gay people, but for calculating (and craven) political reasons, didn't think he could say so publicly. He supported gay marriage in 1996, for God's sake. You say that it seems like he should have known all along--well, I think he did, or at least since 1996. Now not using the bully pulpit is worth condemning (though he did make an "It Gets Better" video, right?) And pushing him to be on the right side of this issue -- well, that's what just happened, right? But I'd rather have a Lyndon Johnson in office, uninterested in being on the right side in a defeat while simultaneously accomplishing as much as possible. I mean, sure, I'd rather have Corey Booker. But better Johnson than Strom Thurmond. And if some kabuki about evolving on the issue is the price for making real progress, well, let's pay it.

I do think you underestimate the difference between people thinking Obama supports gay marriage and giving Karl Rove video footage of Obama saying it, which he can (and will) cut into hundreds of Citizen's-United political ads and run 24x7 in Ohio and North Carolina and other swing states with a sufficiently bigoted population that they'll help get the gobshits to the polls. Those ads could have implied that Obama was more gay-friendly than he actually was, before, but they couldn't outright lie. Now they don't have to -- and that carries a real political price. The issue is not that Obama will lose the black & latino vote. The issue is that the evangelicals will all, every last one, go to the polls because their preachers have been telling them God will destroy the country and make them have the gay marriages they keep thinking obsessively about, for some reason, if they don't vote.

Finally, getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may have been long overdue, but that doesn't make it less of an accomplishment. Every civil rights advance was long overdue. (By the same token, I don't think not defending DOMA was as inevitable a decision as you seem to; the Justice Dept. often defends laws the administration ostensibly doesn't support). I guess what I'd say is this: the moral calculus for these decisions is simple, and mind-bogglingly easy. And that makes anything less than full support seem stupid and craven. But politics is stupid and craven. The more the GOP can mobilize the bigots, the less likely it is that any progress will be made after 2012 -- a lot could have happened between 2000 and 2008 that didn't, because Bush was in the White House.

It's obviously much easier for me than you to say, "yeah, but you gotta look at the political costs," and so on--I realize that. I'm not saying "Look how far we've come," or "You should be grateful!" just to be clear. I just think, based on Obama's actions, his true position is probably closer to Corey Booker's than he's letting on. Anyway if I understand your conclusion correctly, we basically feel the same way about his statement--it's not earth-shattering, and it should be obvious (and he shouldn't be saying these things should be voted on) but it's still a good thing.