Barack Obama

Obama Adviser Says Obama Repeatedly Lied About Gay Marriage for Political Gain

|

Credit: C-SPAN

Democratic Party operative and longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod has a new book out called Believer: My Forty Years in Politics. At Time, Zeke Miller reports that Axelrod's book offers a decidedly unflattering portrait of President Obama and his purported commitment to political principles. Miller writes:

Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

"I'm just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. "Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a 'sacred union,' " Axelrod writes.

Read the whole thing here.

Related: They Lied: Obamacare's 12 false premises and broken promises.

NEXT: Four Reasons Why Freedom Lovers Should Cheer a Restrictionist-Led DHS Shutdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m shocked to hear that a hack produced by the Chicago Democratic machine would ever lie…so poorly.

  2. OBAMA LIED AND TEH GAIZ HITCH GOT TIED!

    Or something…

    1. Obama fibbed and we all had a rib.

    2. Obama Lied,
      Faggots Cried?

    3. Obama Lied,
      Faggots Cried?

  3. “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod

    HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. If that’s true he is literally the dumbest president we’ve ever had.

      1. Oh come now. That just shows his inherent modesty. He just didn’t feel comfortable bragging about how good a bullshitter he was.

        1. humbleliebrag

        2. Just everything else, apparently

    2. You don’t have to be when your audience is full of your Kool-Aid.

      1. Kool-Aid. Nice euphemism.

        1. “But, baby – the last chick said it tastes sweet, just like Kool-Aid.”

    3. VG Zaytsev|2.10.15 @ 9:55AM|#

      “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod

      HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      That is exactly what I was just going to post, VG, but you beat me to it.

    4. Well, I don’t know that his statement there is untrue. Note that he said he isn’t very good at bullshitting, not that he doesn’t do it quite often. And, yeah, I’d say his bullshit is pretty transparently so.

      1. He managed to bs his way into the presidency twice.

        1. You know what, if I had most of the major media outlets trumpeting my bullshit as brilliance and saying anyone who contradicted me was wrong or a liar, I could probably win the presidency.

          1. Well, I guess we will get to see if it works for Hillary.

          2. Not just that, but I think plenty of the voters detected the BS, but voted for him anyway, either despite it or approving of it. Look at the process of getting elected, and understand that voters expect a heavy dose of combined horse, bull, and chicken shits, and that many of them even desire it, and consider the choices the primary & general election voters had along the way. Remember also that they elected Bill Clinton POTUS X 2.

      2. I agree, & that’s how I took it too.

  4. NO WAI!

  5. Wow this book is going to be groundbreaking. Politician lies for political gain, news at 11

  6. If I understand my FB friends properly, this is not “lying”, it is “playing 3D chess while your opponents are playing tiddlywinks”.

    Lying is something Bad People do.

    1. As is often said here: “Principals, not principles.”

    2. Well I can think of worse presidential lies, and I’m not talking about BJs. Obama is forgiven. Being the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality kind of makes up for his earlier political cynicism.

      1. Obama is forgiven

        I’m sure nobody saw that coming.

      2. Dick Cheney was able to support marriage equality long before Obama did. What does that say about Obama?

        1. Has Dick Cheney updated his position that it should be left to the states? Who can say who supported marriage equality first. Obama has been a serious liberal his entire adult life. Dick Cheney has a gay daughter. If only Dick Cheney had a soldier for a child.

          1. If only Tony had some gray matter between his ears.

          2. If only Dick Cheney had a soldier for a child.

            That goes triple for Obama.

      3. It is astonishing, to me, the number of sins “being the first president to endorse marriage equality” seems to wash away. Particularly because his opinion on the matter (especially given the delay in his endorsement of same) affected the progress of marriage equality in the US exactly a whole none.

        1. You guys are trying to squeeze a bigger deal out of this than exists. Gay people have had to be essentially invisible members of the population for centuries. I’m not gonna begrudge the first president to support their equal right to be married because he didn’t happen to be born into a world that accepted that opinion yet. You want something to smell foul here because you’re obsessed with hating the president. It’s just not interesting.

          1. Agreed; this isn’t all that big of a deal. How about all the lies regarding his position on war in the Middle East, the President’s authority to conduct unilateral war, domestic surveillance, etc.? Don’t bother answering; I have a feeling that I already know what you’ll say.

      4. Tony|2.10.15 @ 10:36AM|#

        Well I can think of worse presidential lies, and I’m not talking about BJs. Obama is forgiven. Being the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality kind of makes up for his earlier political cynicism.

        I can think of worse ones, too – many of them told by Obama. As for being the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality, he is merely the first one to find himself in a political climate in which it was safe – nay, wise – to do so. He shouldn’t get any credit for it.

      5. Being the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality kind of makes up for his earlier political cynicism.

        You do realize, I hope, that that means that, if the politics hadn’t moved in favor of same sex marriage, Obama wouldn’t have made a peep in favor of it and would have been more than happy to stick with exactly the same position on the topic George W. Bush held.

        And you’d still probably be coming here telling us what an awesome guy he was.

        1. But that’s not what happened. You’re asking me to defend supporting a politician despite his doing something he didn’t actually do. This is absurd.

          1. No. I think Bill’s pointing out that Obama merely leaned in the direction that the political wind was blowing. Once to denounce gay marriage, and another time to embrace it.

            The takeaway is that Obama has no balls. He is a eunuch cock on top of a weather vane.

            1. But he did the right thing when cornered like a rat in a trap, and to his net benefit…. which makes up for everything.

              /Tony

            2. The takeaway is that Obama has no balls.

              Oh sure he does – Michelle keeps one in her purse and his mother-in-law keeps the other one in hers.

      6. I have no problem with gay marriage and I have no problem with Obama’s lies. That’s politics. Anyone who believes a politician is a sucker. What I can’t stand = twits who still ardently claim Obama is honest, or “almost always honest,” or much more honest than fill-in-the-blank (typically some mendacious “ReTHUGlican Kochtopus sycophant”). Logically, that view is unsupportable. Obama (like many other successful politicians) lies whenever necessary and maybe sometimes just for fun. That is all we know and, by that standard, the liars are equal.

    3. it is “playing 3D chess while your opponents are playing tiddlywinks”.

      Revisionist semi-autobiographical history.

      I wouldn’t blame him if he had Jimmy Fallon airbrushed out of any and all photos they took together.

      1. Has anyone ever actually played 3D chess? It is absurdly tedious. Sucks all the fun out of the game.

  7. You mean his thoughts on the subject didn’t really evolve?!? He lied to us?!?! Say it ain’t so!!!

  8. He didn’t have to be good at bullshitting. He had plenty of hacks and kool-aid drinkers to cover for him.

    1. Well yeah. The book was written by David Axelrod after all.

      1. The first word in the title of his book says all I need to know.

  9. The bottom line is he didn’t care enough about gay marriage to say anything. That makes him a moral coward.

  10. Oh what a shock. Insider releases book showing Obama is more of a true believer than he lets on publicly. Is this the legacy narrative shaping phase of his presidency now?

    1. The funny thing is that this makes him look so much worse to me than before. It should be clear to anyone that he’d rather have the votes of the haters than to stand up for what he thinks is the right thing for gays.

      But as Tony has shown, he is going to be given credit for being so brave.

  11. “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,”

    How does he not burst into flames when he says stuff like this?

    1. Given his history, he is obviously made of asbestos.

    2. Because he’s good at bullshitting?

  12. “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,”

    Damn straight. It’s such bullshit, I don’t even buy it when Axelrod publishes it.

    A last ditch attempt to fuck over any moderate republican elements that voted for BarryO and save face among team blue.

  13. In this country, if an intelligent person wants to be a successful politician, it means he has to grit his teeth and lie about his love for Jesus on occasion.

    1. So you support politicians that lie to you? Oh yeah you are a Leftie, that makes sense then.

      1. It’s a tough call between them and the ones who don’t understand the definition of plagiarism.

        1. The left thinks that lying (and cheating, stealing, etc.) to achieve their ends is perfectly okay when they do it. Because they are obviously the good guys and their opponents are evil. This is what moral midgets like Tony really believe.

        2. Why are you down on Joe Biden?

          1. He understands the definition of the word.

      2. I once got a Team-Blue-bot to admit that Maryland Democratic politicians said exactly the opposite things to voters in different parts of the state. He actually said that that was a good thing. Whenever I hear about Team Blue’s heartfelt, fundamental principles, I remember that person.

        1. I think abject lying is the only way they can reconcile their direct democracy hard-ons with their “stupidity of the American voter” outlook.

      3. I would support libertarians lying to gain power, only to turn around and spring a bunch of libertarian policies on people.

        I’m pretty sure Rand Paul is currently lying about a bunch of shit to the Republican base. Such as how much he supports military interventions.

        1. I wouldn’t.

          For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

          1. You can buy a soul with enough profits. Our at least one of those vat-grown souls the Japanese have on the market.

            1. The vat-grown souls just don’t taste the same. /SATAN

            2. You can get your soul back through karma later.

              Would you lie to save a million lives?
              If the answer is yes, then why not lie to implement policies that will make millions of people freer?

              1. Would you lie to save a million lives?
                If the answer is yes, then why not lie to implement policies that will make millions of people freer?

                Because a political campaign isn’t streetcar ethics. Likewise, it’s not as if President Rand would have dictatorial powers. Once he pulled the switcheroo, he would lose the support of many who has been hoodwinked. How could he implement his policies without that political capital? Let’s be serious now.

                1. Why? Obama pulled the switcheroo on war, domestic spying, etc. Didn’t seem to hurt him too much with the left, who really just don’t want to see a GOPer in. I doubt that a Rand Paul switcheroo would incense the right, who really just don’t want to see a DFLer in.

            3. I was under the impression that 3D printing was the new trend in soul manufacturing.

          2. I don’t believe in souls. I believing in all that freedomy shit.

          3. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

            And if he doesn’t possess one in the first place?

            Or to paraphrase Elsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead – does this mean that in order to be truly wealthy one should collect souls?

        2. I hope you’re right about Rand Paul. I worry he’s lying to libertarians just as much as to socons and neocons.

          1. It’s a thought – he is a politician after all.

        3. I would support libertarians lying to gain power,

          If I understand Axelrod, Obama made carefully crafted statements that were not out-and-out lies. I would support a libertarian making such statements as well, but not clear lies – ie “I will close Gitmo within a year” or “If you like your doctor…”

          Maybe that’s what Obama means by not being a good bullshitter – he was ‘too clear’ in his lies.

    2. Or possibly, grit his teeth and lie about his love for the gays?

    3. As always, it’s about those ends and means.

      1. Tell the American people to stop being such morons.

        1. My eyes! The anti-irony goggles do nothing!

          1. Up and at them.

        2. Yes, the “if you weren’t so dumb I wouldn’t have to lie to you” rationale. I suppose it’s the only defense to the “if you were actually honest with people, they’d tell you to go get fucked 90% of the time” critique.

        3. Tell the American people to stop being such morons.

          Progs and other con artists always think they’re smarter than everyone else, but what does it say about someone’s own intelligence if he can only get elected in a country full of morons and fools?

          Sure, why not let Obozo and the other asswipes tell the American People what morons they are. Go right ahead – I’m sure they would take real kindly to their professed servants regarding them as such. Is your real name Johnathan Gruber?

          1. So you’re saying we’re an intelligent country? Did we express that intelligence by electing Obama?

            1. Anyone can fall prey to lies, dude. It doesn’t necessarily mean one is dumb. Usually it just means one is honest and expects others to be so. It’s a matter of being a person of good will and expecting the same of others until apprised differently.

              1. Exactly this. There are other things at play as well. One would be basic psychological failures shared by most people, intelligent or not. Things like confirmation bias, gambler’s fallacy, sunk costs fallacy, etc. It’s pretty well demonstrated that susceptibility to these things has little to do with intelligence. Mostly, it’s whether the particular failure of rationality has fucked you over yet. If so, you’ll pay a lot more attention.

  14. It was a noble lie, people. The Obamessiah (swt) knew that we weren’t yet ready for the truth. Okay, maybe it wasn’t so noble.

  15. This is the stupidest thing I’ve seen Tony post. Today.

    1. Oh – he’s just topped himself with the plagiarism comment. Thanks for cementing your place in the Tard Hall of Fame, Choney.

      1. What, now that Rand Paul doesn’t understand the definition of plagiarism, suddenly it’s cool not to understand the definition of plagiarism?

  16. How do we know he lied then and is not lying now? In both cases he is saying what is politically expedient.

    I read the other day that there are now only five Democratic House Members and two Senators who do not support abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy. Contrast this with Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s post yesterday about how the country is getting more not less anti-abortion.

    Whatever you think of gay marriage, the fact is there are a good number of people who might be inclined to vote Democrat that are against it just like there is a good number of people who have voted Democrat who are anti-abortion or at least somewhere closer to the center than NARAL.

    As time goes on, the Democrats tell more and more people “fuck you, you are a bigot and your view is no longer welcome in this party”. Obama was against gay marriage because a good number of Democrats were too and he needed their votes to win the nomination and the election. Have some of those people’s opinion changed? Sure but not all of them. Will some of them stay anyway? Sure, but not all will.

    And you wonder why the Democrats are in worse shape today than they have been since the 1920s. I can’t think of a single thing they have done since 2009 to expand their coalition. That is the problem with living and dying on the culture war. You always have to have a new one to fight so you are forever kicking someone out of our coalition.

    1. How do we know he lied then and is not lying now?

      Why not both? I see precious little evidence that he has any genuinely held principles other than what’s good for him.

      1. ^^^ This is the real answer.

      2. I don’t think he cares much about anyone or anything other than himself.

        Even that, however, says something about the Democratic Party as a whole. He is only doing this because he now feels like being pro gay marriage is the only acceptable position. So just like abortion, the Democrats have kicked another group out of their party. Next it will be anyone who objects to state funded sex change operations or anyone who objects to allowing Muslims to run private Shira courts for civil disputes.

        Think about it, when is the last time the Democratic party ever compromised on an issue among its members? When was the last time they agreed to disagree about something? A long time. They seem to be in a death spiral. They more left they get, the more people they kick out. The more people they kick out, the more left they get.

        1. It is the only acceptable position and is about to be applied to the entire country as law. What is this weird projection you’re doing? Republicans invent new, more hard-line positions every day with which to use to kick out apostates.

          Anyway, support of marriage equality is now a mainstream position; furthermore, it will never stop being so. That you can’t see this, and that you rely on absurd wishful thinking in your assessment of the relative fortunes of the parties, is not going to do you any good, don’t you think?

          1. Tony, you really are a museum quality example of leftest idiocy. I note the Democrats are trapped in a spiral of intolerance and your response is to explain how intolerant you are about gay marriage. And you do so without any awareness that you are proving my point.

            If you are not a sock puppet, someone would have to invent you, because you manage to fit every single Prog stereo type. Have fun kicking everyone out of the party who dissents on gay marriage just like you did with abortion and will do with the next culture war issue. I wish you luck with that. Maybe you can just force America to have some re-education to get your majority back or something.

            1. You’re right, I’m intolerant of people who believe I shouldn’t have as many rights as you do. I’m intolerant of people who are bigoted against gay people. Sorry. No offense?

              Another way of describing what you’re talking about is Democrats putting principle ahead of politics. Something you might call noble if you weren’t such a partisan robot.

              1. You seem to think that intolerance toward those who differ with you is somehow noble. Then you call yourself liberal. Intolerance is illiberal. It is not noble.

                The inability or unwillingness to entertain the possibility that others have good reason for their views is not at all noble, but is instead narcissistic selfishness. And, as John pointed out above, dooms the democrats to eventual second party status.

                Democrats have lost most state houses, senates and governorships. They hold only the presidency on the national level. This will of course fluctuate over time, but I think it’s safe to predict (again as John did above) that barring a change of heart and purpose, the democratic party is in decline.

    2. Well, we still don’t have a definitive resolution to the Liar Paradox.

    3. How do we know he lied then and is not lying now?

      Because he’s a highly educated worldly liberal. We support marriage equality, because it’s really obviously the correct position.

      There has been a faster shift in attitudes toward marriage equality than maybe any other cultural issue in recent history. It happened among all Democratic constituencies, including blacks, and they aren’t going to start voting Republican even if they aren’t on board with it yet.

      I’ll tell you one thing Democrats will do to expand their coalition: Hillary Clinton is already polling way ahead of Obama with white working class women, and she will probably get a few more white working class men than he did. Since white working class men are the only part of the Republican coalition, your concern is perhaps misplaced, but ever so appreciated.

      1. Because he’s a highly educated worldly liberal.

        No. He is highly credentialed. He has never shown a single sign of being highly educated or worldly. This is the guy who didn’t know Austrians spoke German and who was loathed by his colleagues at the University of Chicago because he was unqualified and lazy. No one but someone like you who judged people based on political views and nothing else could think he was educated or worldly. He just isn’t.

        We support marriage equality, because it’s really obviously the correct position.

        You support marriage because the party told you to support it Tony. The party supports it because they view it as politically expedient. If it ever isn’t, they won’t support it any longer.

        I’ll tell you one thing Democrats will do to expand their coalition: Hillary Clinton is already polling way ahead of Obama with white working class women,

        The white working class, men and women, have largely abandoned the Democratic party. And the Hispanic middle class is doing the same. Didn’t they send you John Judis’ article in your talking points? Or has he been exiled as an enemy now.

        The results speak for themselves Tony. Every year the Democratic party gets smaller and more insular. You are a minority part now and probably will be until you become more inclusive and less intolerant.

        1. I suppose being sophisticated means repeating random bloggers’ bullshit unquestioningly. Hey, it’s how real global warming science is done, I’m told by people like you.

          Don’t be so stupid.

          You don’t graduate magna from Harvard, and edit the Harvard Law Review, by being an idiot. Sorry John, given the evidence, far more than would be enough for you to be convinced of a white Republican politician’s intelligence, this “Obama is an idiot” line is veering hard into ugly territory. It’s also completely pointless poo-flinging idiocy that renders you hardly qualified to judge the brainpower of presidents. Get a grip and stop reading rightwing blogs.

          You support marriage because the party told you to support it Tony.

          Only people who think gays should not be treated equally under the law have any principles. The rest of us, those who support the constitutional position, are obviously cynical dupes.

          You are a minority part now and probably will be until you become more inclusive and less intolerant.

          What is this? Sarcasm? Welcome to the GOP, the party of diversity and tolerance!

          1. That’s cute. Tony’s pretending he never heard of Affirmative Action. If Obama is so brilliant, why won’t he release his college transcripts?

            1. Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard means he was in the top 15%?20% of his class. You don’t get grades through affirmative action. You do get claims about affirmative action with respect to black politicians from racist assholes, however. Never fails.

              1. You also get demands for affirmative action from racist assholes.

                There are lots of people in this world who manage to make good grades in school – doesn’t necessarily mean they know anything, be they black, white, purple, pink or pokadot.

              2. magna cum laude from Harvard

                What courses did he take? Racial studies? Feminism in America?

                If one engineers his course load properly it is not that hard to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard. A lot of course can be taken pass/fail so they don’t hurt your average.

          2. He is over fifty years old and the only intellectual accomplishment you can point to he did in law school. Editor of the law review is an elected position. I have personally published more law review articles than Obama ever has. Obama is the least intellectually curious person ever to hold national office in this country. He literally has never had an interesting or original thought in his life.

        2. John|2.10.15 @ 11:11AM|#

          Because he’s a highly educated worldly liberal.

          No. He is highly credentialed. He has never shown a single sign of being highly educated or worldly. This is the guy who didn’t know Austrians spoke German and who was loathed by his colleagues at the University of Chicago because he was unqualified and lazy. No one but someone like you who judged people based on political views and nothing else could think he was educated or worldly. He just isn’t.

          + a whole bunch. Dude isn’t any more worldly or educated than Dubya was. Just not as tongue-tied.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Because he’s a highly educated worldly liberal.

        Leaving aside for a second that your non sequitur does not even come close to answering the question which you bothered to respond, why would it matter if he’s a highly-educated and worldly liberal? Do you mean to say that highly-educated liberals have a tendency to lie effectively?

        There has been a faster shift in attitudes toward marriage equality than maybe any other cultural issue in recent history

        That may well be the case, but that does not mean the president is being sincere now, only that he’s bending with the wind out of political expediency. Maybe the guy is a closet Muslim who would throw the first stone against them sinning gays if he had the chance, but he’s right now playing the politician – who the heck knows?

        1. Do you mean to say that highly-educated liberals have a tendency to lie effectively

          I mean to say they tend to come to the correct opinions on social matters before buck-toothed hillbillies. Given Obama’s political history (and recorded evidence), he was probably among the first waves of supporters for marriage equality. Anyone else getting bored by this? Almost as if we’re trying to wring a controversy out of a bag of nothing?

          Maybe the guy is a closet Muslim who would throw the first stone against them sinning gays if he had the chance, but he’s right now playing the politician – who the heck knows?

          Do you seriously believe this to be a possibility? Look, I don’t care if you’re a bearded woods-dwelling anarchist, but Obama derangement syndrome wears just a little sad on you.

          1. Tony|2.10.15 @ 11:42AM|#

            Do you mean to say that highly-educated liberals have a tendency to lie effectively

            I mean to say they tend to come to the correct opinions on social matters before buck-toothed hillbillies.

            Correct? According to whom? People who’ve had the good fortune to have either been born without dental deformities or to have finagled enough money to have them remedied? People who’ve chosen to live in urban rats nests for one reason or another?

            Interesting that you seem to think only people with nice teeth have any intelligence or moral faculty. I’ve known both black and Latino people who had unattractive teeth and who lived out “in the sticks” – would your estimate of low intelligence extend to them as well? Or is it just white folk?

            I think I’ve stepped in mud puddles and cow plops that had more depth to them than you do. You seem every bit as shallow and hateful a little bigot as you accuse others of being.

        2. That may well be the case, but that does not mean the president is being sincere now, only that he’s bending with the wind out of political expediency. Maybe the guy is a closet Muslim who would throw the first stone against them sinning gays if he had the chance, but he’s right now playing the politician – who the heck knows?

          No, Old Mexican – he’d be the one to throw the second or third stone.

      3. ” How do we know he lied then and is not lying now?
        =
        Because he’s a highly educated worldly liberal.”

        So, *definitely* lying all the time then.

        thanks for the clarification

        1. FWIW = its notable that Tony feels compelled to throw this kind of lavish plaudits on someone with nothing but a bachelors degree, and a career composed largely of mastering the arts of Urban Democratic campaign politics, which are nothing but the combination of Huge Lies with massive corrupt sources of campaign funding.

          He’s a hack democratic strategist, not the editor of the Paris Review. But tony wouldn’t know the difference because he’s an idiot liberal from podunkville who thinks simply wearing a Blue Tie means you’re halfway graduated from the Sorbonne.

          1. I’m referring to Axerod, btw. which was the original question = ‘whether he’s lying now’

      4. Since white working class men are the only part of the Republican coalition…

        You believe your own talking points. Is Rand Paul, Ben Carson, or even John McCain, a member of the working class? How about many of the commentariat here at Reason?

        Oh you of little knowledge.

    4. Obama was against gay marriage because a good number of Democrats were too and he needed their votes to win the nomination and the election.

      Which indicates something else, something the likes of Tony won’t ever dare admit to themselves. If the politics had worked out differently, Mr. Obama wouldn’t have hesitated to sell the gays down the river. He’d just as easily have continued George W. Bush’s policy in that regard as changed it.

      1. Fortunately it turns out that he’s objectively the most pro-gay president in history. Why does that seem to stick in your craw?

        1. Other than perhaps James Buchanan, who probably was gay?

  17. Next up, Axelrod breathlessly reveals that…Obama is from Chicago! And that sometimes it snows in Chicago!

  18. I don’t think this is intended to be unflattering at all. It’s intended to make the case to obama base that he was always one of them, and just had to tell a noble lie so that he could get in a position to change the government to the liking of the obama base. The obama base will see this as a good deed. Case in point, Tony’s comment above.

    1. Yes it is exactly that. It is also an acknowledgement that you can’t be in the Democratic Party anymore unless you support gay marriage. So Obama has to not only change his position but also explain that he never really held the now objectionable one.

    2. Yes. I mean, if that’s what he did, then good on him.

      I’m not sure I believe that he was secretly-pro-gay-marriage all along though.

      1. I doubt we will ever know Hazel. Obama is adept at one thing; concealing his views and making the people around him think he is one of them. I guarantee you Reverend Wright and the black political mafia in Chicago were not pro gay marriage. Did he agree with them all along and now change his mind? Or did he not agree and just let them think he did? Who knows. And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama knows. If you spend your entire life living in that kind of mendacity, it is easy to lose track of what you actually think or just stop having your own views altogether.

        1. Third possibility: Obama doesn’t actually care one way or the other and is just going whichever way the wind is currently blowing. He wasn’t against it then and he’s not really for it now.

          1. He is still lying. That is no different than supporting it and lying about not.

            1. I’d argue it’s actually worse than lying. A liar knows what the truth is an deliberately chooses to say otherwise. People like Obama are completely indifferent as to whatever they say is true or not.

              1. Yeah that would be the guy in my example who conforms to those around him for personal gain to such an extent that he stops having any views of his own. And yes, that is worse than a liar.

                1. Who gives a shit whether he’s lying now or was lying in the past? The man is a pathological liar, on this and so many other issues. Who cares? It strikes me as a symptom of pathological narcissism. I’m not sure that he actually believes in any of his positions beyond their political expediency in the moment. It’s lie all the way down. He’s a politician.

  19. I just checked Facebook. (Don’t judge; it’s easier than more conventional forms of masochism.) Even some of the Obamessiah (swt)’s biggest shills are turning on him for this.

    1. Why are they turning on him? He is admitting he was with them all along and just had to lie to get the idiot public to vote for him. They should like that.

  20. So wait, we’re supposed to be mad that someone pretended NOT to support a policy we like in order to get into power, so he could turn around and implement that policy?

    Damn, if only actual libertarians could be so unprincipled.

    1. Would they still be libertarians, if they were?

  21. Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office

    So black folks woulda voted for the clean-cut white boy had Obama stated his support for gay marriage?

    1. They might have stayed home. Voter turnout is a bigger deal than commonly supposed.

      1. I took that more as a move to overwhelm Hillary. Did the opposition happen before or after the primary was decided?

      2. Yes. And I suspect they will in 16 like they did in 14. Blacks still are not particularly supportive of gay marriage and black ministers are having a fit over Obama’s Christianity is just as bad as Islam remarks.

        I really don’t know how Hillary is going to motivate blacks to show up and vote in numbers anything like they did for Obama. She isn’t one of their own and Obama has basically kicked them to the curb and remember his half white side in the last two years of his presidency.

        1. Which states would have given their electoral votes to Romney except for a couple percentage points of the black vote?

          1. Without a huge black turnout, the Democrats are going to have a hard time not just at the Presidential level but at the state level as well. There wasn’t an historically large black turnout in 04, 10, and 14. How did those elections work out for you? Other than 06, the Democrats have been massacred in every election since 2000 where there hasn’t been a large black turn out. And I seriously doubt 16 is going to look like 06.

            Beyond that even if Hillary wins, so what? The Dems have no hope of taking the house and even if they manage to take back the Senate, they have to defend 25 out of 33 seats in 18. So Hillary will get at best a divided Congress for two years followed by a hostile one.

            You are a minority party Tony. Obama didn’t so much transform America but he did transform the Democratic party into a generation or more of minority status. Hope you enjoy that.

            1. he did transform the Democratic party into a generation or more of minority status.

              That’s way over the top.

              How recently did we have a ‘permanent Republican majority’ and then in 2008 a ‘permanent Democrat majority’.

              All it takes is the party to be in office for a while and run the govt and they make all sorts of enemies. Govt is evil and the people in power will be seen as evil eventually.

            2. Democrats have like a 10 point edge in party identification over Republicans. You’re speaking complete nonsense, and it’s coming across as a very early attempt to make yourself feel better for when Hillary wins the election. Republicans lost the national popular vote in five out of the last six elections.

              But congratulations to the Republicans for engineering district maps that help them win Congress without actually winning more votes from people. Really something to be proud of.

              1. If Team Blue had such confidence in its greater popularity among the electorate, it wouldn’t have to draw districts like these.

              2. Democrats hold fewer elected offices today than at any time since Reconstruction Tony. They couldn’t even win the governorships in Maryland and Massachusetts last year. Those results speak for themselves and say a lot more than the results of some partisan push poll you read about on Salon.

              3. But congratulations to the Republicans for engineering district maps that help them win Congress without actually winning more votes from people. Really something to be proud of.

                Oh, please. The Democrats (Democratic-Republican Party) invented Gerrymandering.

              4. You heard it here first: the borders between states are just a Republican manipulation to win the Senate!

                1. And the only reason the Republicans were able to control redistricting is because they own so many state houses. If the Democrats were not so uncompetetive in so many states, that never would have happened.

  22. This is just confirmation of what anyone that actually thought about what he said already knew. The weasel word “evolving” was so obvious, yet it worked. That’s the most shocking thing about this admission, not his views themselves.

    Now if only he would come out as an atheist we could start getting somewhere.

    1. That would certainly add prestige to the atheist movement!

  23. Obama Adviser Says Obama Repeatedly Lied About Gay Marriage for Political Gain

    No way!

    “I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod,

    “You’re being too modest, Senator!” replied Axelrod… inside his head.

    1. Obama’s not very good at bullshitting. His just doesn’t let his lack of talent stop him from bullshitting all the time anyways. But it’s usually obvious that it’s bullshit.

  24. Dick Cheney was able to support marriage equality long before Obama did. What does that say about Obama?

    His daughter’s still in the closet?

  25. my best friend’s sister makes $61 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her income was $15147 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page…………..

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  26. SURPRISE, SURPRISE…….GOLLEEEEE!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.