Politico published an analysis of what led to Annise Parker’s victory in Houston, a victory which may tie into a larger shift in identity politics as demonstrated by Barack Obama’s presidential victory in 2008.  While Parker’s sexuality did not hinder her as a candidate, and may have even helped, Politico finds the achievement important in a national context:

(T)he election of an out lesbian who made her name initially as a gay-rights activist, one who embraced her partner on stage on election night, nevertheless reveals a breakthrough in the country’s march toward what could be called either tolerance or just plain apathy toward homosexuality.

Indeed, save for an 11th-hour flurry of mailers paid for by allies of Parker’s opponent, Gene Locke, her sexual orientation mattered little in a race dominated by conventional municipal issues such as crime, jobs and education. What was remarkable about the contest was just how unremarkable the voters found it that Parker was a lesbian.

Longtime observers and participants in Houston politics agreed that, if anything, the attacks on Parker hurt her rival.

Stephen Klinerberg, a sociology professor at Rice University, summarized the election: “In the end, it was better to be a homosexual than a lobbyist.”