I wasn't saying that.

You're operating from the assumption that political actors are inherently motivated by a desire to affect the public in a positive way. More often than not, their missions becomes about codifying their legacy (a particularly relevant issue in President Obama's case) and the inevitable re-election campaign. No one is…

Exactly.

Are you seriously trying to make the case that political figures did more for queer rights than activists did?

The only thing stopping it from happening is this attitude. Literally. That's it. We could've had a Bernie had we not given in to the laughable conventional wisdom that Clinton was somehow more electable despite her historic unpopularity and her weaker poll numbers and had dispensed with this kind of "we're never…

It doesn't have to mean that. That's the norm, and it's a serious problem. That's why we actually have to back candidates who talk about that issue and have fought against that systemic corruption throughout their careers as opposed to those who have helped prop up that system.

Believe me, I was paying attention. You missed the populist anger in the country, the underlying white supremacy, and the economic anxiety aimed at the political establishment and backed an unelectable neoliberal who was seen as an embodiment of that establishment and lost to a clown. The state-by-state polling was…

Ahh, the always wonderful "magic wand" dismissal. The ideal does exist; powerful presidents can corral Congress and get what they want accomplished. Look back at American history, or, better yet, look to the hardworking congressmen and women who have been fighting for progressive measures in Congress all of their…

No, it didn't. It proved that if Democrats put establishment, neoliberal, historically unpopular candidates up against a hateful wildcard (who bashed banks and trade deals and "the establishment", though obviously disingenuously) and underestimate the prevalence of white-supremacy in the US in a time when people were…

Absolutely not. But when these glorified self-aggrandizing circle-jerks become the norm (as they have on this site), his significant missteps bear repeating.

Thank you.

Have my previous comments implied otherwise? If so, let me clarify: I'm very liberal. I was referring to conversations like this where 30-something liberals sit around patting themselves on the back for voting for President Obama without addressing these negatives.

Absolutely. That's exactly right.

I agree with all of this. I only list the negatives because we so often ignore them.

You misunderstood my response. I invoked the work of previous activists to counter your counterintuitive nihilism.

I'm a young queer person who saw this president tell myself and my queer friends that we did not deserve the right to get married until other queer activists forced the public to sway in our direction and it became politically expedient for him to come out in favor of that right. My opposition to neoliberals is not…

This next generation is literally the most liberal generation in recent history. We're overwhelmingly liberal. Unbelievably liberal. The conservative faction is a fraction of the liberal faction.

I'm arguing against glorifying deeply flawed individuals, not for criticizing them as they leave. I've criticized President Obama throughout the entirety of his eight years in office.

You're right; If anything, we just haven't been nihilistically snarky enough. If activists throughout history had simply given up and accepted the status quo, things would be much better.

When it's paired with a glossing over of his failings, then yes.