Eh, maybe I'm old and bitter, but I sort of do? The former worries me more because they're liable to actually push and enact policies, while the latter might just use them to get votes and then not actually push for harmful policies. I actually used to be in your camp, but during the '04 campaign, actually had a discussion about gay marriage w/r/t Obama's views. I found it messed up that he was against gay marriage publicly when I don't particularly personally believe he really cared too much. (Aside: my amazingly logical reason for being for it was that I didn't trust legislators to come up with a way that made civil unions have all the legal benefits of marriage without fucking something up...go dumb young me. Also, I was of the opinion that once you involved tax benefits and government shit in marriage, you have no choice but to open it up to everyone.)
But the person's response was that even if they weren't 100% sure about whether they were on board with it as a matter of faith, he knew that Obama wasn't going to do anything to hurt the LGBT community, and would push for protections and pro-LGBT policies and legislation once in the Senate. So if Obama stays honest about his feelings about gay marriage (which aligned with the vast majority of the country at the time), and that helps him get elected, and then he can use his position to actively help the LGBT community...isn't that better than stepping out on a limb on a position you're not completely sure you agree with, not getting elected, and then someone who is actively going to harm the LGBT community taking that spot?
One of the things that I have long admired about Obama is that (to me), he's always found the perfect balance between pragmatism and principle. Clinton's too pragmatic (and too ends justify the means) for me, and Sanders is too principled for me. Every time I would hear about XYZ compromise (I was fucking furious after the health care bill, for instance), I would always read into the details and realize what good he had gotten actually done and enshrined in for folks. It's easy to be super principled and demand the moon and refuse to budge (universal cheap health care for all, national laws forcing XYZ policy on all states), but it's hard to sit down and realize the reality of the situation (shifting to single-payer would have taken more than 4 years...which means that an Obama loss stops the whole process, states can give federal laws no teeth and fight back on constitutional grounds).
That's what I like about Obama. He realizes that principles are important, but they can't completely stop you from helping people in the here and now. Gotta find a balance. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
