i half expected obama to endorse gay marriage last night in new york (finally). he didn't. i can't believe he actually does oppose it, and that's the real problem: that you take positions based on political calculations, and with extreme caution, on fundamental matters of equality - especially when you yourself completely understand the situation - is rather a devastating indictment of your character. this is the kind of thing that does make you wish (as i know a bunch of you would anyway) for a democratic primary challenge. bernie sanders maybe.
see one dimension for assessing whether you want people to be political leaders is whether you agree with their views, their policy proposals, and so on. another might be how effective they're likely to be in implementing those things. but a third is whether they are sincere, whether they have integrity, whether they are hypocrites. now let's say we're dealing with michele bachmann and her opposition to gay marriage, which i suppose she takes up on biblical grounds. you might quibble with her interpretation of the bible (i wouldn't bother, really). you might argue against the bible as a source of political opinions, or go all reason vs. faith, condemning her basic approach to coming to believe things as irrational. you might say that you disagree with her, that she's wrong, that you don't want her to be president. but one thing i don't think you'd say (probably) is that she's insincere, that she doesn't actually believe what she's saying. but you have to say that about obama on this. that's not the only dimension of evaluation, but it is an important dimension.