He does no such thing. He's on record with his views......

Obama's letter opposing same-sex marriage ban
The text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

The "pattern," or whatever you want to call it, was clearly stated in Obama's June 2006 speech to the Call to Renewal conference sponsored by Sojourner's:

...if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality....

I recall a lot of the liberal blogosphere was very upset by that speech, based on a few sentences of it. That was back when many were John Edwards' supporters. But most seemed to eventually loose those thoughts and became Obama fans, forgot all about it. (Heh, for example, I recall that when Obama wouldn't renounce and reject McClurkin, that TPMCafe member cscs did a post along the lines of "that's the last straw, Obama's really lost me now, no way will I vote for him.")

Obama didn't forget about it, it's a very important part of his whole approach to politics.

Recommend rereading the whole speech again. He wasn't "pandering," he believes what he said. He doesn't pander, rather, he studies movements and groups beforehand and he picks out the ones where he sees potential for forming majorities on certain issues. He ignores issues that only appeal to a minority.

I am actually surprised at how remarkably consistent he has been with what he said in his books and what he said back in the days of being just a Senator. He really believes in this post-partisan, new majority stuff and really believes that you can't accomplish anything in two of the branches of government that the majority doesn't want. He's clearly a student of the constitution who believes that minorities and special interests should seek redress in the courts, and that the other two branches should do what they can with what the majority is willing to do.

He has said it over and over again in many ways. Get used to it, he's not going to fight for minority groups or special interests. That's not what he sees his role as. He's only going to push "progressive" goals when he thinks he will see a majority behind them, because he believes that's the way this country is set up. Gays who want marriage via support of the executive branch or Congress will have to get a majority of the populace behind them. Obama doesn't see it as his role to be advocating for marriage for them, because he doesn't see any movement towards the majority wanting that yet. He does see movement of religious conservatives twoards other more liberal views, and that's what he's going to pursue.

I think anyone who thinks Obama is going to be different from Bill Clinton as far as paying a lot of attention to polls on issues is in for a surprise. I think Obama believes in following the polls on issues moreso, he does it on principle.

If he has any ideological bent at all, it is about majority rule as to the government (ya know "of for and by the people?") I suspect thinks cultural change cannot be forced by government (not our government, at least, not the way it is designed) that it must come from other sources, i.e. MLK Jr. first, followed by cultural changes, then government, assist from the judiciary branch if civil rights of minorities are being egregiously violated. And the whole of Jim Crow was not outlawed by the judiciary in a single day or week.

By the way, I think those who think he was "pandering" with his speech to AIPAC while he was still running against Hillary are going to be just as surprised. He simply decided ahead of time that everything he said in that speech was supported by a majority of the American people, so he could say it.

He's made his stance on this pretty clear to me long ago, and where he thinks the public is at on it. He chastises in speeches, like to fellow black church parishioners, about lack of tolerance and even love of gays. But he won't be an advocate for marriage for them, because he doesn't see the majority ready able and willing to do that yet. He's basically saying they have more work to do on that front, not the executive or legislative government, that those branches can't force it. And a glance at the tug of war in many state governments, back and forth as to gay marriage, shows this to be an accurate reading.

I want to make it clear that I'm not defending him on this. I merely pointing out he is turning out exactly as he has always presented himself, and I think a good number of liberals who voted for him really blocked out what he was consistently saying about himself. I think there is a major difference in the definition of "progressive" as used by Obama, and that as used by many liberals, at least judging from what I have seen in the blogosphere.

If we were to throw Lieberman into the pattern and look beyond the issue of gay rights, we would find the pattern of a politician and of a leader who consistently reaches out to those who are sometimes capable of unsavory contributions to our discourse, and he does so to such an extent that he is even capable of forgiving and reaching out to those who direct their negative discourse at him himself.