Was Biden's pro-equality statement Sunday a trial balloon?

[Bruce Wayne]

Or do you think it was more of an inadvertant "gaffey" forcing of the moment? Or, perhaps, was Biden nudging the marriage equality issue forward?

In other words, was this a calculated move on the White House's part or did they just sort of bumble into doing the right (albeit inevitable) thing?

Final thought: When Republicans start attacking the president for supporting gay marriage, can we start smearing them with being anti-marriage? I think that's an accurate description of their position.

Anyway, thanks for evolving, Mr. President!

[aquart]

1. I dunno. But they have been honing their rapid response skills.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Muy assumption has been trial balloon.

Nobody not in the Tea Party reacted badly to Biden, and I think that's when they decided it was safe for the Big O to jump on at least one liberal cause. One that wouldn't piss off the banks or anybody else whose importance could be weighed in likely campaign funds.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Of course it was. So was Arne Duncan's remark.

The White House also knew how the NC vote was likely to go down, and the setup was perfect. I don't think Obama does many things accidentally.

[craigmatic]

4. I'm leaning towards trial balloon just because that's what the VP is for. Plus Obama is trying to

get the gay vote. Plus he needed to push back against the new NC law banning gay marriage while still holding the convention there.

[LynneSin]

5. I just read on HuffPost that Obama was going to make the announcement closer to the Convention

But after Biden and Duncan he decided to come out today.

[Bruce Wayne]

8. Ha-ha

"Come out." Exactly. There's a hell of a lot of straight pols who are in the closet about being pro-equality. I hope this nudges a few more to wrap on the feather boa of civil rights and slide into the glittery stiletto pumps of justice.

[LynneSin]

9. I'm a firm believer that those GOP pols that scream the loudest against same-sex marriages...

are probably repressed homosexuals.

[gratuitous]

6. Hard to say

Sometimes things do indeed just happen. From my observations over the last three years, I'm not convinced this administration is that calculating; on the other hand, considering the confusion that ensued (Biden's initial comment, Carney's muddled statement, Axelrod's non-clarifying clarification, and other verbal bumbling), it's hard to say that the whole Keystone Kops aspect wasn't totally natural.

While I'm glad for the president's eventual statement, it comes too late for North Carolina, and too late for a lot of young people coming of age in the last three years. If it was a calculated, gradual process, a lot of people got really badly hurt waiting for the President to lead. Now, is that fair to say while everyone's exchanging high fives and feeling so good about this? I don't know; but it's a fact, and part of the job when you get the Big Chair is leading, which can be inconvenient at times. It seems to me to be of a piece with this administration's term-long effort to curry favor with people who aren't going to vote for them in a skabillion years. Why not govern boldly as a Democrat as a reward for the people who put you in office in the first place? It's not like the administration was ever going to win over the homophobe vote.

[Bruce Wayne]

7. Interesting thoughts so far. It's actually a hollow position.

The federal government doesn't actually have any direct say in most marriage issues. It's a state level responsibility. I think gay federal employees already have domestic partner coverage, so this isn't a change. Maybe they'll do a bit more with military same sex spouses--that'll be worth a bucket of popcorn. But a federal officer "supporting" gay marriage doesn't actually play out as that many concrete policy choices.

Still, it's about damn time. If it's an election year gimmick to drum up support, it works on me. I'm straight & I'm gonna vote D anyway, but it's nice to see the CINC flash a couple of balls every now and again.