I applaud President Barack Obama for finally endorsing same-sex marriage.

There’s certainly reason to be cynical about his election-year “evolution. After all, in 1996 when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law, Obama was running for the Illinois senate and proclaiming in a questionnaire to a Chicago gay publication that he fully supported gay marriage. A dozen years later when running for President, he proclaimed he felt marriage is between and a woman but supported civil unions. And with a restless base threatening to withhold their support and, more importantly, their cash, from Obama’s re-election campaign, here we are today.

However, I take the president at his word that he personally is in favour of allowing gay couples to tie the knot.

Now what?

Given that same-sex marriage is an issue that has Americans evenly split, it’s a safe bet Obama won’t be too eager to make his endorsement of such unions a prominent part of his stump speech. It’s just too politically risky in an election year.

It’s also a safe bet he will not be pushing any harder on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which now completely goes against his personal views. He’ll be content to stick with simply not enforcing the law.

And in giving his endorsement, he pretty much deferred any action on the issue to the states.

So, nothing changes.

The question becomes what does his announcement mean to the political battle ahead. Will it help him? Will it hurt him?

Yes, it will energize his base on the progressive left and bring in some of those coveted gay dollars. On the other hand, it will energize his opponent’s social conservative base and bring in some of those coveted God dollars.

So it’s a wash.

Well, maybe not.

The wildcard is how Obama’s support of same-sex marriage plays in the two constituencies he desperately needs to win by huge numbers if he hopes to stay in the White House another four years — blacks and Hispanics.

Both constituencies have strong blocs of socially conservative voters and both have polled a majority opposing gay marriage. In fact, a recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed black Americans opposed legalization of same-sex marriage by a 55-42 margin.

If Obama were to invest whatever remaining political capital he has in discussing his personal view, he may be able to stem any losses from these critical voting blocs, at least to a point where he can eke out a second term victory.

Again, it’s not likely he’ll expend that capital.

More importantly, if we continue to see the kind of disappointing job numbers we saw last week, whatever anyone thinks about same-sex marriage — the President, Romney, independents, blacks, women, whoever — won’t matter one bit.

Social issues work when economies are in good shape. Gay marriage opposition helped George W. Bush secure a second term in 2004. The social issue bogeyman helped the Alberta PC party score a stunning win against the insurgent Wildrose Alliance in that province.

When times are tough, it’s still about the economy, stupid.

There’s a lot of anger being expressed today following the resounding victory for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

It is unfortunate that such a measure was endorsed by a strong majority of voters, but not all that surprising considering that of the more than 30 times same-sex marriage has been put on state ballots, only once was it actually endorsed. In most cases, the results were as or more lopsided than those of North Carolina.

A Gallup poll released this week suggests that the country is coming around the issue. Half the country supports gay marriage. Half does not.

Some of those who vote against gay unions do so because they are truly bigoted people who despise homosexuality or believe strongly it is deviant and abhorrent. We don’t have to like it, but they are entitled to those beliefs. I submit most are opposed because marriage is an institution so steeped in the tradition of being between one man and one woman, they don’t support changing it.

No matter the institution, the older it is, the more difficult it is to change.

The real anger out of Tuesday’s results should not be directed at those who did turn out to vote, rather toward those who did not.

Only 33 percent of registered voters in North Carolina bothered to cast a ballot on the issue. That was considered a high, robust turnout.

It’s hard to tell whether the result would be different if the remaining 67 per cent of voters bothered to cast a ballot on Constitutional Amendment 1. I suspect it may have been closer, but still have passed.

However, when a full two-thirds of the voters don’t bother to show up to to exercise one of the only duties of citizenship asked of them, those people have no one to blame but themselves when the results are not what they wanted.

If the issue of same-sex marriage is the defining civil rights challenge of our time and is so important to the fabric of the nation — or any state — then supporters better get their butts out to the polls and do their part to make it happen.

Nearly one year ago, Osama Bin Laden was killed.

Since that day, President Barack Obama has wasted no opportunity to personally and politically bask in the glow of the culmination of 10 years of military work and the bravery of the Navy SEALs who raided Bin Laden’s compound and ended his life.

Shortly after, Obama summoned his media lapdogs to follow him as he went to personally thank members of Navy SEAL Team 6 for the successful raid. In doing so, he drew heavy criticism for potentially breaching a long-standing protocol of keeping the whereabouts and identities of SEAL team members secret.

Then his White House granted full access to Academy Award-winning director Katherine Bigelow to film a movie about the SEALs hunt for Bin Laden that was set to be released the middle of this year, which just happens to be Obama’s re-election year.

Now Obama is continuing to spike the ball and take a bow for the demise of the Al Quaeda leader, releasing a new ad showcasing how incredibly difficult it was to make the call to authorize the raid and suggesting that his opponent this fall, Mitt Romney, would not done the same.

Never mind that the video’s praise for Obama comes from former President Bill Clinton who didn’t take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Never mind that killing Bin Laden should be one of the easiest decisions any president should make no matter what political stripe. Never mind that Obama is attempting to score political points off this historic event — and to be fair, everyone tried scoring political points off 9/11.

This is a true failure of leadership.

Simply put, a true leader gives full credit to those who leads for the successes, not himself.

A true leader takes full credit himself for the failures, not those he leads.

Examples of Obama failing on the latter part are numerous. Now he’s failed the full measure of leadership.

Pollsters and pundits have days of head-scratching ahead of them in the wake of the come-from-behind win by Premier Alison Redford’s PC Party in Alberta.

It’s unfortunate that strong poll numbers for Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance did not materialize at the ballot box and the trending-left Tories held on to their dynasty.

We shouldn’t be so surprised, however.

Yes, the fear and smear campaign against Wildrose in the last week of the campaign probably did some damage. Clearly there was some strategic voting going on to stop Smith’s party from making good on its rapid ascent.

That’s not what turned this election — incumbency and voters dancing with the devil they know won the day.

Let’s face reality. In the last year, we have had six provincial elections and one federal election. Incumbents won all of those elections. The closest to an upset was Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty reduced to a minority. Not surprisingly, his is the only province of those that went to the polls that was actually not faring well economically.

When the economy is in good shape, incumbents win. When the economy is failing, incumbents are turfed out on their ear. McGuinty would have met that fate had the Tories not run a campaign weak on principles and political skill and McGuinty himself holding out on the public that the finances were as bad as they are.

Voters also tend to like to date new grassroots parties for a bit before they hand them the keys to government.

Saskatchewan voters took a couple of elections to warm up to the Saskatchewan Party before giving Premier Brad Wall a majority government in 2007. The party was handed an even bigger majority last November.

The federal Conservatives had to bide their time in opposition for two elections as voters got over their jitters about the grassroots Reform Party that had been merged into the new right-wing standard bearer. Even when the voters decided to give them a shot at government, they had to settle for two minorities before getting their coveted majority nearly a year ago.

And even in Alberta, the Peter Lougheed PCs that started this 41-year dynasty didn’t form government on their first try. They had to settle for a handful of MLAs before sweeping to power in 1971.

Smith and the Wildrose were elected as one of the strongest official oppositions the province has seen in decades. This gives them a far greater platform and a chance for voters to see them in action. That almost always quells misgivings the public might have about a party.

Don’t be surprised if the dynasty comes to an end four years from now and Smith and the Wildrose finish what the started in this campaign.

It has come to this.

This new web ad has been going viral urging voters in Alberta to vote PC to stop Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party from taking power.

It’s quite the piece of work, I must say. And it’s so wrong on so many levels.

Here you have a handful of actors who remind me of the obnoxious, self-absorbed collectivist types who hang out at the student union offices with a “street-wise” Latino thrown in to pump up the diversity factor. A profane, mocking collective rant didn’t win the Occupy Wall Street crowd any love, what makes those behind this video think it will work for strategic voting?

I don’t doubt for a moment that the braintrust behind this video is hunkered down not far from me in downtown Toronto doing everything they can to stop Wildrose in their tracks.

“BFFs with Stephen Harper?”

“Would you vote for that?”

Evidently yes. Less than one year ago, more than two-thirds of Albertans voted for the Harper Conservatives sending 27 of a possible 28 MPs to Ottawa (and nearly a full 28). My guess is they’d do it again tomorrow if an election were held, too.

Cue the requisite stereotypes of gun-toting, slack-jawed, flat-earther, redneck Albertans that are really only held in the hearts of the enlightened class dwelling south of Bloor Street.

Perhaps the video’s makers are trying to start a vote mob or some such nonsense to rev up young voters who often don’t even bother showing up to the polls, let alone actually figure out which candidate in their riding has the mathematical chance of winning. But the early buzz about this video seems to be helping the Wildrose cause.

It’s even more ridiculous that this ad tries to paint Danielle Smith as some “out there” wingnut. She doesn’t believe in gravity. She thinks the Flintstones are historically accurate. Spare me.

Clearly they’re blissfully unaware that Smith is well-known journalist and public figure in the province and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who could credibly paint her as a lunatic ideologue.

Albertans have put up with years of fear mongering about the Reform Party, Canadian Alliance and Conservative Party. It hasn’t worked. When Alberta voters are warned to fear the devil they do not know, they’re more inclined to rally to that unknown.

This ad is juvenile and desperate and speaks volumes about the people who heed its message.