Thanks Bev and Teddy, and everyone else! Great questions.
See http://www.obamaandthegays.com

The only thing I can speak to on this is what was done in a public way, and there are not indications that Obama’s team lobbied for ENDA. I just do not have the answer to what might have happened behind the scenes–but from my perspective DADT was somehow given the priority after hate-crimes passed. Who made that decision? I am not sure and I am not privy to those compromises made on what route to justice.

Yes, Obama does not “get it” that the holy grail of marriage is the one issue that matters most–not because I believe in marriage at all as a government-sponsored institution. It actually is government-sanctioned discrimination against single people (where do THEIR social security and pension benefits go?) It’s an actuarial conspiracy.

Rather, marriage is important because IF you believe in full civil rights for ALL, then how can you possibly say “except those who love someone who happens to be of the same gender”? How can any rational person think this is OK in 2011? So Obama’s big mistake is not seeing that people who see him compromise on gay marriage believe he will sell ANYONE down the river.
This is NOT about same-sex marriage. It is about personal integrity.
I applaud a lot of what has happened in this Obama White House; I simply can not understand how one can compromise their integrity on equality.

This is where the Democrats made their biggest mistake. They were able to take over the House and Senate in recent elections, and the White House, by blaming the Republican-controlled Congress/WH on everything. They campaigned and raised dollars and votes saying that if we control it, we promise you — a million things. That was of course unrealistic. But by making those promises, they have only caused disappointment. So next time, when they ask for money and votes, so they can “take back” Congress — well, a lot of people simply will not believe them. Their two years in control did not fulfill what they said they could do — it was unrealistic, yes, but it is what they promised.

The marriage issue will likely never be resolved in Congress, no matter if Obama wins again. It is likely to change in the courts. So you are right, his opinion shift may have little impact in his second term. But he may be willing to use more political capital for controversial causes if not facing re-election.

I am not sure I see him “attacking” LGBTs. he may get a bit perturbed when he perceives us as not appreciating what he has done, but I do not see him actively attacking LGBTs. Some would say he is not doing enough, but that is more of a passive thing, not attacking us. Other parts of the progressive base probably have even more to point to, though, such as his lack of backbone on closing Guantanamo, or the lack of progress on environment and other issues. It is more a benign neglect for LGBTs, but again I stress that some of the problem is that the administration has not been good at communicating some of their major successes for LGBT rights.
Can you give an example of something comparable to Sister-Souljah?

The main issue on gay rights that Obama keeps “adjusting” on is marriage. He was with us (1996), then against us on political practicality grounds (2004) and then against us on religious grounds (2008). In 2010 he says he is re-thinking this, but can’t quite get the courage up. Well, if he does not prior to 2012, I think he will “find” that courage on gay marriage if he gets a second term.
To those LGBTs losing ground NOW because of the marriage issue (social security, estate taxes, etc.), that is no solution. But politically speaking, I think that is his reality.

The LGBT community is so diverse, it is hard to generalize. More than 20% voted for McCain in 2008, and I wonder if those who voted for McCain will continue to support the Republicans as they move even further to the right on social issues.

As for LGBTs who voted for Obama, I have heard quite a range of responses, and in part it depends on race and gender. This is not true across the board, but I find that most African-Americans are very patient with the pace of change under Obama, while some whites, especially those who supported Hillary Clinton, are more likely to say “What would Hillary have done?” However, I do not believe Hillary would have had any more success than Obama on these issues. She would have had similar successes.

There are also a vast number of LGBT Democrats who have been impressed with Obama’s pace of change, and take a longer view of progress than just two years. Many of those interviewed in my book still strongly support Obama and in fact are big donors. Now that DADT has been repealed, that will probably be enough for most to continue to support the president. And of course, a lot will depend on who he is running against. A moderate may cause lower voter turnout, but if the Republicans nominate a true right-winger on social issues, I think most LGBTs will turn out to vote.

But Obama MUSt do a better job at communicating all of these successes on LGBT issues, small and large, to confront the mistakes and missteps (in DOJ especially).

While there are leftovers from Bush and Clinton, I believe Obama has to take responsibility for DOJ actions. He would get credit for wins, he needs to take responsibility for mistakes, too. The whole justice system is weakened by the stalling of appointments by Republicans, so I do agree with that. But the DOJ approach to the DOMA and DADT cases is very perplexing, and something Obama will have to answer to. In fact, I think those appeals are possibly the top concern LGBTs have with the Obama administration, so we need to have much more information coming from Obama himself about this strategy.

Some of there close friends believe that michele might be even stronger on LGBT rights than Barack. That is easy to say since she is not an elected official, but it may true. Similar to rumors that Hillary was more supportive than Bill while he served as president. But the accountability stops at the person elected–so she may have influence, but he is the one we vote for. Maybe she will run for office next?

I do think it is important to look at some of the smaller changes, smaller in the media eyes, that have happened. Just take the State Dept. changes alone and they are leap years ahead of anything ever done on LGBT issues internationally. That chapter in the book is particularly emotional, as you realize what a difference a true leader makes. Our state dept. is actually documenting the incredible rights abuses LGBTs face around the world, and trying to make changes to help, thru the UN. There are hundreds of other examples that do impact everyday LGBTs around the world, and in the U.S. It’s just hard to track, and not as “big picture” as DADT. But in fact DADT impacts a relatively small number of people compared to the changes already done across almost every federal agency.
I really am not an apologist for Obama. I did the book because I wanted to just document it all so people had all the info they needed, to decide if it was enough, or not, to support him again.

That was just crazy stupid micro-management. The changes were subtle, but clearly meant to paint a less controversial and perhaps more realistic picture of what Obama was going to do. The fact is perhaps less than 1% of the people would even care about what was on that website. But by CHANGING it, it called attention to the change, and was yet another early misstep by the administration. The problem Obama faced coming into office was that he had to prove himself. First, to those who supported Hillary in the primary. Second, to those who were offended (rightly so) by Rick Warren giving the invocation at his inauguration. And third, within months, the bad moves in the Dept. of Justice. So he was back on his heels with our community from before day one. It really was a mis-calculation.