I searched the forum and at least one person did call Obama a bigot at the time:
Let’s say you want rights A, B and C. A has majority support, B is 50:50, but most people are opposed to C. Is it better to have a politician who promises to do A, and does A and possibly B if they have enough support, and meanwhile try to change people’s minds on C, or a politician who promises to do all 3 and risks losing the election and being unable to achieve anything? What if the opposition is a historically awful candidate who’s a threat to democracy in the US?
AFAIK the Harris campaign did tack towards the centre, so presumably they made this calculus. But it didn’t help or wasn’t enough to overcome the unfavourable economic situation and her ties to an unpopular Biden administration.