I know I promised no more, but ...
Could there be room for both inside-the-tent pressure politics AND outside-the-tent avid activism? For good or for ill, the inside-the-tent is Democratic party now. The GOP is not ready for that, yet.
Why pressure eveyone to be the same, to choose to be either inside or outside? Isn't that doing the same things as Petrelis lamented, which was adopting a tone/attitude that there is 'one voice' (or ought to be) for the 'Community'?
I don't mean to imply that people cannot bring criticism, well intoned, to shift support (and dollars) to their viewpoint. But, unless there is malfeasence, why impugn people's motives? It's one team. Some people are bound to have different strategies for how much change, how fast, and how to go about it. Why not welcome that diversity into the campaign? After all, there are differening views, even, of how much leverage the GLBT community has to pursue single-issue politics, at the national level.
Besides, diversity sets up the possibility of strategic game theory for "good cop" and "bad cop". What's more, it might make sense, even in an inside-the-tent strategy, to imply a soft-conditionality: you get a first term endorsement for various forms of 'symbolic support', but a second term requires {insert incremental requirement or effort>.
sullylink
