• Ben Smith, among others, notes the polling difference when asked if “gay men and lesbians” vs. “homosexuals” should be allowed to serve in the military.  A great example to the limits of polling and more importantly, the importance of messaging.
• A New York woman marries a stranger when she’s not allowed to marry her partner.  More proof of the sanctity of marriage.
• Openly gay Providence Mayor David Cicilline runs for the seat being vacated by Rep. Patrick Murphy.
• A Washington Post poll finds 75% support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
• Two Iowa Republican House members want to stop protecting LGBT students from bulling.

Now, compare these numbers to those that we described earlier. Whereas a 54 percent majority opposes an amendment to ban gay marriage (versus 40 percent in favor), a 53 percent majority — between the last nine national polls — also oppose allowing gay marriage (versus 42 percent in favor).

What that means is that there’s a “swing vote” of about 10 percent of the electorate that is not yet ready to allow gay marriage, but is also not willing to ban it (at least not Constitutionally). This is enough to tip the national balance on the question of gay marriage. And it may have tipped the balance in Maine. Question 1 did not actually ban gay marriage but rather overturned the legislature’s affirmation of it.

School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.):

No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.

Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”

Reporter (VO): Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?

School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.

VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Pan Atlantic’s Patrick Murphy says the survey of 400 likely voters found 53 percent opposing Question 1, which would repeal Maine’s gay marriage law, while 42 percent favor the measure and six percent remain undecided. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

While the breakdown of demographics can be frustrating, I’m reminded of one of the most memorable speakers from the hearings back in April.  One of the factors that polling identifies as an indicator of how one will vote is age.  While this is sadly true, let’s remember that there are also older men and women who agree with Philip Spooner, a World War II vet.  (Update: Towleroad has this clip up too)

• New polling shows that the Maine vote is tied 48% to 48%. The release and demographic breakdown is available here.  None of the findings are particularly surprising.  The key is to get young voters out and to talk to registered Independent voters who are leaning towards voting yes.  That said, this poll reports a higher percentage of self-identified Republicans than the previous poll, though finds a roughly equal percentage of respondents identifying as “liberal” and “conservative.”  Interesting findings whatever way you cut them and most importantly a reminder of how important it is that we all donate and do what we can.

The vote is only two weeks away.

For an interesting comparison, this poll found that 56% of respondent voted for Obama over McCain.  In reality it was about 59% Obama, so that says the poll isn’t wildly out-of-wack.

The PDF of the poll is here.

When the President’s plan is described,* people favor it 53% to 43%.

When asked if they think the President’s plan is a good or bad idea based on “what they’ve heard” (this was asked before the description of the plan was read) 36% of people think it’s a good idea and 42% think it’s a bad idea.  17% don’t know how they feel.

The jump in support when people hear an accurate description of the President’s plan is pretty remarkable, if you ask me.  However, I do take issue with the fact that it’s described as the “President’s plan,” when he’s only issued broad outlines and left the actual planning to Congress (right or wrong).  This is part of the problem, if you ask me.  People are attacking the “President’s plan” with claims of death panels and public options that kill the private sector when there is no single plan for which he is pushing.  With five bills in Congress and no clear sense of what will be the final product, it’s nearly impossible for supporters to have a clear rebuttal to these disingenuous attacks.  Jon Stewart recently captured the Democrat’s challenge well (though their messaging challenge is understandable).

*The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.  It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured.  Families and individuals with lower- and middle- incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage.  Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans.

Favoring “civil unions” that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage — but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society’s approval — amounts to another dodge. I’m concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that’s for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture…

…I’m not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically — more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

I have always understood the political position he’s in, but the courage of a few small states and the compassion of state legislators who stand up and take a real position has shown real leadership.  I don’t need Obama to stand up front and center on this issue, but standing in the background (or standing at all) would help.  More importantly, he should follow through on his campaign position supporting the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  This would be a huge push forward for marriage equality.  I think Robinson is dead on that Obama is in the position (popular and progressive) to do this.  Support for same sex marriage has grown tremendously with at least two recent national polls showing that more people support it than oppose (still not a majority, though).  The recent Washington Post poll found that support for marriage equality has jumped significantly.

Most striking is the sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent said it should be legal for gay people to marry, and 46 percent said it should be illegal. About three years ago, a broad majority said such unions should be illegal (58 percent illegal to 36 percent legal).

My take on the moral position in this issue is clear, and I bet that off the record Obama is on the same page.  However, politically, I think it just makes sense to step forward.  The too many things on the plate argument is a valid one, but progress is moving quickly and coming late to the party just makes you one of the crowd, not a leader.

That said, I’ll leave you with this latest poll from Newsweek which certainly looks good for Obama…

Obama 54, Clinton 35.  Click on the link above to see interesting breakdowns with more insight.

And now the ad that I think is the perfect response. It casts the constant reply of the attacks on this as superficial and “silly season” to steal a line from one of my favorite people. I had seen video of this crowd’s response to Clinton yesterday and wanted to post it, but never thought what an effective ad it would be. Lesson for Clinton–know your audience.

Beyond the ads back and forth some interesting polls (this one being the most interesting as it shows that more people thought MORE of Obama after the Wright incident than thought less of him) have come in showing that this attack isn’t really sticking (at least in the primary). Another good one is the Quinnipiac poll. One reader commented that this will be very damaging in the general, but I’m still not sure. I know it will be used against Obama, but at the same time if it shows to be ineffective now (and in fact makes the attacker look desperate) I have to wonder how hard it will be pushed in the general. Even Rendell agrees. John Baer, of the Philadelphia Daily News writes that,

“What’s offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician’s words.

Are you kidding me?

They’re injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than “just words.”

They’ve been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.”

It’s also interesting to note the Real Clear Politics average has held with Obama 6-7% over Clinton nationally for the last several days and he’s only been moving up. Also, Gallup has him with his strongest leads yet.