@firefly,
I doubt Obama has to worry about his support in the black community unless his chances are so slim that it could come down to a percentage point or two of the black vote.
At the same time, I doubt the NAACP's endorsement of the legalization of same-sex marriages is going to change the minds of very many black voters concerning their opposition to it.
As clear as it seems to be that there is only minimal support for Gay marriage, it's unlikely that they will allow this one issue to drive their voting decision.
Now if those who intend to vote for Obama simply because he is black could, similarly, broaden their perspectives...
To be fair, I can understand why some blacks would vote for a black candidate for president simply because he or she is black.
I'd like to think that it was different in 2012 and that blacks would ignore his race and vote based solely upon his record, but that would be disingenuous.
It's not enough to have one of your own rise to the top if he or she is shortly thereafter proven through an election to be something of a failure, and the fact of the matter is that one term presidents are generally seen as failures (not least of all by themselves - which made Dana Carvey's impersonation of Poppy Bush: "Don't want to be a one term president, no sir," so biting)
If Obama is, like Jimmy Carter, seen as a failed president, I don't think it will impact the chances of future black candidates for the office, but I can understand why someone might worry that it could.
Of course a great many blacks think Obama has been a hell of a president. I struggle to understand why they might, but then I struggle to understand why they so reliably vote Democrat (not to mention struggling with how anyone might think he's been Aces).
Call me cynical, but I don't think the NAACP's endorsement of the legalization of same sex marriages has so much to do with its commitment to equal rights as it does with its desire to support Obama. Why else would the organization have waited until now to express this position?
It's interesting that there is such a widespread assumption that any increase in the number of Americans who rely on the largess of the government ( see Mexican immigrants) benefit Democrats. In fact it may be sowing the seeds of their own demise.
Since leftists believe that wealth is a zero sum game, should they be able to establish total control over it (in which case it will be a zero sum game) those to whom the redistribute wealth are not likely to accept, without coercion, that their clan is not more deserving of the spread than another.
In a world where you can't claim a greater share based on merit and production, the clans are unlikely to accept a compliant egalitarianism and will fight to prove they, for all sorts of reasons, are more deserving than the others.
The demographics of Hispanic immigration to the United States has, as it stands today, more of an impact on blacks than whites.
If wealthy and influential whites still hold power in South Africa, how much easier will it be for this dynamic to exist in an America where non-whites outnumber whites?
Since the rich and powerful (or powerful and rich) always rise to the top no matter the ideology that fashions their government, those who must share what's left will, inevitably, compete.
Only the most wild-eyed ideologues believe that a workers’ paradise is truly possible and since those in power who, ostensibly, seek to take America there are so dependent upon the votes of folks whose subsistence is dependent more on government handouts than actual labor, what will they do when they win?
But, of course, they know better than to take their vision too far. They're not Socialists; they're really dedicated capitalists who care.
But I've wondered far afield from the original topic.
All is actually alright because America has its first Gay President.
I wonder if American Gays really appreciate how important their desire to legally wed is to the future of this country.
