Indeed, as ThinkProgress’ Zack Ford points out, there has been no significant, organized effort to boycott Oreo or its parent companies — just a lot of incoherent threats and one Facebook group that appears to have been taken down.

Kraft knew things would turn out this way because its move has plenty of precedent. Over the past few years numerous corporations have issued public statements in support of gay rights, with no major damage to their bottom lines. Starbucks, Nike and Amazon — companies not exactly known for their dedication to social justice — all went in for marriage equality this year.

And then there’s JC Penney, which earlier this year came under fire from anti-gay group One Million Moms for hiring Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson. Rather than back down amid the criticism, JC Penney stood by its decision, and a few months later, to further crystallize its stance, put out a few ads featuring same-sex parents.

In each of these cases, the companies calculated the risks of making a pro-gay rights proclamation and determined that doing so would be in their best interest. Frankly, gay rights is good business. The Washington Post’s Dan Zak reports:

The risk-reward equation for corporate advocacy has changed over time, says Bob Witeck, president of the District-based Witeck Communications, which specializes in the gay and lesbian consumer markets.

What’s the worst thing that could happen to Kraft? A denouncement from a special-interest group like One Million Moms….

What’s the best thing?

An army of people sends your product around the Internet, and your century-old brand suddenly seems cutting-edge.

Indeed, Oreo’s “gay cookie” stunt got a lot of people who might not ordinarily be inclined to shill for one of the largest food corporations in the world to declare its love for Kraft products all over social media.

Capitalistic motivations aside, it is good news that Oreo put out that rainbow cookie image; it reinforces the fact that LGBTQ acceptance is now something close to mainstream. And it shows what little tolerance our society now has for outright bigotry.

This is a lesson the Salvation Army is learning, rather painfully, this summer. The international charity made waves earlier this month when one of its employees, Major Andrew Craibe, went on an Australian radio show and was questioned by one of the show’s gay hosts, Serena Ryan:

Ryan: According to the Salvation Army, [gay people] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

Craibe: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

Ryan: So we should die.

Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

The Salvation Army has long been the target of LGBTQ rights groups for its anti-gay policies and lobbying efforts. (The group professes that homosexuality is a sin forbidden by the Bible and has been accused of denying services to LGBTQ individuals and pressuring clients to renounce homosexuality.)

In the past, efforts to draw attention to the charity’s policies have not reached a particularly mainstream audience. But now, Craibe’s inference that gay people deserve to die has blown up all over the media. It’s bringing a ton of attention to the policies that the Salvation Army is perhaps less open about these days, given the shift in attitudes about LGBTQ rights in the U.S.

The Salvation Army may not be a corporation like Nike or Kraft, but it is a major international charity, and charities are big business these days. There’s no question that the group is motivated at least in part by improving its bottom line (i.e., maximizing donations).

Indeed, it certainly seems that the group is now trying to backtrack. The organization has apologized ”to all members of the GLBT community and to all our clients, employees, volunteers and those who are part of our faith communities for the offense caused by this miscommunication” and said that it wishes to build “a more healthy relationship with the GLBT community” — something it seems unlikely to do as long as it continues to declare homosexuality a sin.

In other words, the Salvation Army is learning the lesson that Kraft obviously already knows: the tide is turning, and you have to turn with it to keep making a buck.

Lauren Kelley is the activism and gender editor at AlterNet and a freelance journalist based in New York City. Her work has appeared in Salon, Time Out New York, the L Magazine, and other publications. Follow her on Twitter.

Let the record show that I’m a huge Tom Cruise fan. I love the guy. I became aware of him as an actor, as opposed to just a guy in the movies, when I went to see Interview with a Vampire. Anne Rice had been outspoken in her disappointment at the casting of Cruise as Lestat — and he wound up being the only thing in the movie worth watching. He killed in that flick. He kills in every flick. “Jerry Maguire,” “Eyes Wide Shut,” “Tropic Thunder,” “Magnolia,” “Collateral” — stand-out performances, all. Is he limited? Sure, but who isn’t? I may not like every movie he does (“Mission Impossible” is wretched, and “Vanilla Sky” is a train wreck), but I always like him. The guy is a movie star, plain and simple, and he’s been one for a staggeringly long period of time.

His personal life, however, is harder to get behind. It’s not so much what we know as what we don’t — or, rather, what we think we know. Yes, he’s a Scientologist … but what does that mean, exactly? Does he really believe all that stuff, or is Scientology just another high-profile acting job?

And then there’s the elephant in the room. The big, pink elephant.

The rumors have dogged him for decades now, since before he rocked out to Bob Seger in tighty-whities. That he wants to do it to for Johnny. That Mimi and Nicole and Katie were beautiful beards. That what he really desires is A Few Good Men.

If there is fire to be found in this great cloud of gay smoke, it would be remarkable. The guy’s been A-list famous since 1983, and there has been no public evidence at all, none, to support the rumors. Masseurs have not pressed charges against him; photographs of him kissing other men on the lips on a tarmac have not popped up on the Internet, unlike other movie-star Scientologists we can name. In this day and age, when so many celebrities rise and fall by virtue of a stray tweet, when everyone in greater Los Angeles has a camera phone and thus the capability to catch him in flagrante delicto, it’s almost inconceivable that he could be acting on these alleged homoerotic impulses. Either he’s straight, or he gives new meaning to the term Cruise control.

But if the rumors are true … if he does prefer the company of men … if his impossible mission is to be an openly gay action-movie star, his course of action now is clear: Tom Cruise needs to take a page from the Anderson Cooper playbook. He needs to come out, he needs to come out big-time, and when he gets hitched again, he should marry a guy.

It’s not like this sort of disclosure is unprecedented. Cary Grant confessed to bisexuality when he was an old man; so did Richard Burton. Why not Tom Cruise?

Yes, this would be incredibly brave — the sort of courage we come to expect from a man who so convincingly played Maverick and Ethan Hunt. It would also be admirable to the Nth degree. One press release would transform him from thrice-divorced Scientologist weirdo to civil rights hero and gay icon. He could live his life out in the open, and in so doing, make the world a better, more tolerant place. And instead of jumping on Oprah’s couch, he could jump on Ellen’s.

That’s if he’s gay. (Note to the attorneys for Mr. Cruise: I am merely repeating oft-repeated rumors, and this should not be read as an endorsement of them). If he’s not — if the real Tom Cruise is exactly what he’s shown us — then take note, Mila Kunis and Eliza Dushku and Amber Heard and every other hot Hollywood 20-something on the make: Mrs. Tom Cruise is a plum part, and auditions will be held soon.

Democrats did manage to hold on to a single-seat majority in the state Senate. By this narrow margin, Gronstal has blocked a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, proclaiming last year that “people’s rights should not be put to a popular vote. We didn’t put slavery to a vote of the people.” This has made him public enemy No. 1 to Iowa’s conservative activists, who have been waiting patiently since for the chance to put up a candidate against the Democratic Senate majority leader in his swing district in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Now, less than five months before Election Day, leading social conservatives in the Hawkeye State are simply focused on “hold[ing] Gronstal in check,” in the words of leading conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats. Not only that, they are shifting emphasis from social issues to economic ones, in an attempt to capture some momentum in the district.

Craig Robinson, a leading conservative activist in the state and founder of theiowarepublican.com, notes that “the marriage issue always plays somewhat, but it’s not what the entire race is going to be about.” Instead, Robinson emphasized the failure of the Iowa Legislature to pass tax reform, which he blamed on Gronstal. This was echoed by Gronstal’s Republican opponent, Al Ringgenberg, who said, “The number one issue I’ve noticed is property tax reform.” Robinson also downplayed the significance of the race, noting Gronstal’s “incumbent advantage” and adding that it was more important for Republicans to simply take back the Senate rather than claim Gronstal’s scalp. This was echoed by Vander Plaats, who said he and his organization, the Family Leader, were as focused on keeping Gronstal “pinned down” to prevent him from helping other Democrats “as defeating him.”

Taking back the Iowa Senate is not the only concern of many Iowa social conservatives; they also want to take back their own party. Steve Deace, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and prominent local activist, noted a real lack of conservative enthusiasm on the ground in Iowa. He said there’s “much more discussion among conservatives about what is the purpose and point of the Republican Party than about Mike Gronstal.” Instead of blaming Gronstal for the local GOP’s failures, they’re blaming the Republicans who failed. In fact, Deace actually praised Gronstal’s leadership, saying conservatives “could use a few Mike Gronstals on our side.”

The GOP is also putting up an imperfect candidate. Al Ringgenberg is a retired JAG prosecutor in the Air Force who likes to go by “Colonel Al.” Prominent Democratic insiders variously described Ringgenberg as “a goofball” and “pretty goofy.” He has also posted weak fundraising numbers: His campaign committee, “Patriots for Colonel Al,” had less than $7,000 on hand according to its most recent report. When I talked to Ringgenberg, he felt confident that he’d have the money he needed. Colonel Al was about to mention what he thought his campaign’s budget would roughly be, but then he backed off, saying that he was going to use “Sun Tzu military tactics, not going to give it away.” Instead, he merely noted it would be both “realistic” and “sizable.” Ringgenberg did note later that he thought it would be a “conservative wave” during which he could be outspent by a margin of 7- or 8-to-1 and still prevail.

In contrast, Gronstal, who could not be reached for comment, has almost half a million dollars on hand, including significant donations from out-of-state gay donors who support his efforts on marriage. This makes a difference, as Council Bluffs is in the Omaha media market, which has the most expensive television advertising in the state. As Iowa-based Democratic consultant Mark Langgin noted, based on the cost of the advertising as well as the flawed Republican candidate, the race just isn’t an efficient one for Republican strategists to focus on. Further, Gronstal doesn’t just have a massive financial advantage, but according to one well-placed state Democrat, organized labor already has staff on the ground supporting him in addition to his own campaign workers.

This should be a race that Republicans can win. It’s a vulnerable incumbent in a tossup district who has already alienated many swing voters with unpopular stands. But it says something about the salience of social issues in November that in southwest Iowa, Republicans don’t feel comfortable running on gay marriage against a politician for whom that has been his signature issue.

Put Cuomo’s declaration next to those numbers, and the revelation emerges: in a political arena dominated by corporate money, the governor is acknowledging that politicians will champion initiatives that don’t challenge corporate power, but will avoid promoting those that do. Not only that, Cuomo is admitting this is the case regardless of public opinion.

Events in New York illustrate the larger dynamic at work. As the New York Times reported, despite lukewarm public support, Cuomo was able to get the state legislature to legalize gay marriage after Wall Street financiers dumped cash into the campaign for equal rights. Knowing that marriage doesn’t threaten their profits, these moneyed interests opted to help their ally Cuomo notch a strategic win — one that allows the governor to preen as a great liberal champion to the state’s left-leaning voters, all while he simultaneously presses an anti-union, economically conservative agenda that moneyed interests support.

Now, of course, the situation is reversed. With New York’s recession-battered voters supporting a minimum wage hike, the greed-is-good crowd is firmly aligned against the initiative. Why? Because unlike gay marriage, which requires no corporate sacrifice, the modest minimum wage boost may slightly reduce corporate profits — and that’s something the fat cats in the executive suites never permit without a fight.

Knowing this, a hack like Cuomo — a guy who asks “how high?” when his campaign contributors say “jump” — is using his power to undermine the popular minimum wage initiative. In this case, he is cooking up a self-fulfilling prophecy about the measure being a political non-starter.

Not surprisingly, this sleight of hand is not limited to one locale. In Colorado, Democratic activists have cast Gov. John Hickenlooper as a great liberal for supporting same-sex civil unions, all while he loyally shills for oil and gas corporations. At the federal level, the Obama reelection campaign is doing the same, trumpeting the president as a progressive hero for endorsing gay marriage, all while he slow-walks tougher bank regulations.

Even on Wall Street itself, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has lately portrayed himself as a great humanitarian. As proof, he doesn’t cite any willingness to acknowledge financial-sector crimes. Instead, he cites his decision to become the Human Rights Campaign’s national spokesman for gay marriage.

Noting all this isn’t to disparage the push for same sex marriage (I’m a strong supporter!) — it is merely to spotlight a bait and switch whereby social issues are increasingly used to perpetuate the economic status quo.

Obviously, it’s possible to simultaneously guarantee equal rights and fix the economy. But as New York most recently proves, it’s much harder to do both when money dictates political outcomes, and when bought-off politicians employ social issues as an excuse to ignore economic justice.

Chait took particular aim at lefty image guru Drew Westen, a one-time Obama admirer who criticized the president in the New York Times not merely for what he hadn’t accomplished, but for failing to tell a compelling story. Chait accused Westen and other progressives of embracing:

…a model of American politics in which the president in not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen’s telling, every known impediment to legislative progress — special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion — are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama’s failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.

Chait caricatured Westen’s argument (and the beliefs of those who agreed with it), but he got lots of love for both pieces in the pro-Obama blogosphere, where folks finally felt they had a real diagnosis for the illness of those they dismissed as “emoprogs.” But now that we see the changes wrought by Obama’s politically risky embrace of gay marriage, maybe it will be easier for folks to understand that it’s the job of political advocates not merely to praise, but to push their leaders forward.

Steve Kornacki runs down the astonishing political changes we’ve seen in the mere two weeks since the president carefully announced his supposed change of heart on gay marriage. The nation’s largest African-American organization, the NAACP, has come out behind it – and maybe most important, recognized it as an important civil rights issue. Maybe most dramatic, in Maryland, African-American voters have now flipped to support the state’s gay marriage ballot measure 55 to 36 percent –almost the exact percentage by which they opposed it in previous polling on the state issue. And in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, African-Americans’ support for gay marriage jumped to 59 percent from 41 percent in the wake of the president’s historic announcement.

Now, I’m not going to argue that Obama’s turnaround alone caused this sea change. The arc of the moral universe has been bending toward justice on gay rights for a long time, and as I wrote last week, the president gave it an additional tug. There have been advocates within the NAACP working to make this happen for a long time, and they deserve a lot of credit. African-American voter opinion had already been trending in this direction, even if black voters had been less receptive to gay marriage than other demographic groups. There is also an emotional and personal component to the president’s stance that makes his moral suasion hard to replicate on behalf of, say, the jobs bill or the public option. (And let’s also remember it’s white voters who are most hostile on some of those economic issues, thanks to the divide and conquer politics of the GOP over the last 40 years.)

Still, it’s hard not to conclude that Obama’s words made a significant difference in the political course of this debate. Ironically, it was once critics of Obama who mocked the power of words, and specifically the candidate’s own oratorical gifts. Obama shot back at them many times.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he told Wisconsin Democrats in February 2008. “‘I have a dream’ — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ – just words. Just speeches.” At many times over the last three years, I’ve been amazed at how Obama’s critics and supporters seemed to change sides on the question of the power of his words.

I give the folks who call themselves “prag progs” – pragmatic progressives, as opposed to “unreasonable” emoprogs – a lot of credit for fixing attention on what the president has accomplished, and reminding others not merely to fixate on what he hasn’t. But I think it’s time that all of us acknowledge that there’s a role for constructive pressure, too. Progressive change has always required impatient agitators – and it will continue to.