If Obama wants to put this on the backburner for a little while, that's understandable.

And all you gays get under the bus!

But Obama cannot forget about his campaign pledge altogether. He promised during the campaign to pursue a repeal through a process in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he still appears ready to do so.

I suspect if he forgets about his pledge his disciples will console themselves by imagining it's for the greater good.

2010 is an election year, that magical time when Congressional Democrats avoid gays like the plague.

And then it's 2011, which is the beginning of the 2012 reelection campaign for Obama.

And then ...

i'm a gay man, and while i wish that repeal of dadt was one of his first acts, i'm realistic enough to know that (a) there are far more important issues that bush has left for obama to deal with, and (b) if he tries to move to fast (like clinton did) it might backfire.

and unlike the concern troll, obama still has my complete confidence and support

Repeal of DADT will happen in Obama's first term. This would not have happened in a McCain administration.

That said, it's also important for people to realize that Bill Clinton went in with guns blazing back in 1993 and pretty much got it snapped off in his ass in the ensuing shit-storm, very likely setting the timetable back years if not decades.

LGBTs are not getting "thrown under the bus" as the writer above asserts -- please realize that the goal is to get DADT repealed, and that is exactly what will happen (if not necessarily tomorrow)...

Obama is finessing it so that the military asks him to lift the ban. He could do it by fiat to be sure. The result would be years of "Obama made our troops serve with the gays when they really don't want to. Obama hates the troops."
I can hardly wait for the clamoring for pro-Gay Marriage Amendment to start up.

Iraq is not in Sarvis' top 4. It is so yesterday, I guess. But I'd suggest cleaning Iraq up is more important than DADT.

I wish someone would say something like this to the Joint Chiefs, or to whoever is impeding progress in this area: To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed that gays are not capable of serving in the military. So if the only rationale for wanting to exclude them is that the heterosexual soldiers would be unable to tolerate their presence, which group actually has the problem?

If DADT is repealed in 2010 or 2011, I suppose it's possible that the following will happen:

Gay and liberal Obama voters will feel immensely betrayed, and regret their votes, because it wasn't done in 2009. Barack Obama will forever be scorned at "The President Who Repealed the Ban on Gays Serving Their Country...A Little Later Than I Might Have Liked." Meanwhile, cultural conservatives will spend the following decade hi-fiving each other, celebrating their immense victory at seeing DADT repealed towards the end of Obama's first term rather than at the beginning.

But I think that's pretty unlikely.

Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held "informal discussions" with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.

Why would a supporter of Gays in the Military take this story to Moon's Homophobic Washington Times? Something strikes me deeply suspicious about this. This may be some sort of sophisticated triple carom shot with a twist. But it seems that the place to raise consciousness among the left on this issue would be in a more left-friendly venue than the Times.

aMike

Sure it doesn't have to happen first. We remember 1993. But pushing it off to 2010, an election year, is just asking for it to be pushed off indefinitely.

No surprise. I voted for Hillary in the primaries because at least I knew exactly what happens when gay rights stands between a Clinton and their other goals, and supported Obama knowing full well this would happen and keeping my eyes on other goals.

Do you think that integrating the military was popular? Truman did it because it was the right thing to do and because he knew that, in the long run, it would serve the best interest of the military. He told the generals that opposed it that they either got behind it and supported it or they resigned, and that mere acceptance of it was insufficient.

He didn't wait for it to become popular, and he didn't wait for a "consensus of generals" to emerge. He led, he didn't follow. Today the title of commander in chief is used endless and with unprecedented frequency, but the president is constantly "being guided by his generals" and waiting for until "Petraeus will tell us" when something can be done, and waiting for a consensus to allow gays to serve openly in our military as they do in almost every civilized nation in the world.

Is Obama going to be a real leader, or is he going to be another "commander in chief" who gets ordered around by his generals? Repealing DADT will take about five minutes of his time, although it make a few hours to find replacements for a handful of dinosaur generals.

It's a Nike thing: just do it.

What Bilby said.

After the vote to repeal Same Sex Marriage in California, I think there is a little more pressure on the Pres-Elect to get rid of DADT.

The real solution to ending DADT is to review the records of commanders who pursue homosexuals and see to it they don't get any promotions. THAT is how you get the homo-phobes out of the system.

Spare me. We have much bigger issues that affect the whole nation right now. The only attention the military needs over the next couple of years is how to manage it's downsizing.

Some really big time gay campaign donors might be disappointed.

What Bilby said.

And, what Bill H. said.

And, Steve Benen, are you really either dumb enough or gullible enough to believe Obana needs legislation to do this? No! Like Bill H. notes on integration, he can do this by executive order.

Have you already drunk a full gallon of the Obama Kool-Aid? Are you becoming Kevin Drum?

Just Bill... nice diss, calling somebody you disagree with a "concern troll." Please.

Dennis... and the brass will ask for this when? In 2027, when you become less homophobic yourself?

God forbid Obama not make this his first order of business, and a huge controversy and distraction to start off his administration--it worked so well for Clinton.
Just because he's not doing it right away, doesn't mean he isn't going to do it, and it doesn't make him a big promisebreaking failure before he ever takes office.

I suspect if he forgets about his pledge his disciples will console themselves by imagining it's for the greater good.

And I suspect you have to console yourself with an imaginary broken promise to distract from the fact that you lost and Obama is the next president.

Just Bill... nice diss, calling somebody you disagree with a "concern troll."

It's not someone he disagrees with, although he may, it's someone who's basically accusing Obama of breaking a promise when he's done no such thing. Why are you flying off the handle at everyone who recognizes what the priorities and focus should be at the beginning of the administration?

Oh, and scolding someone for name calling when you yourself accuse someone who you disagree with of being homophobic, nice hypocrisy there, Socratic Gadfly!

Mr. "God is in the mix" has absolutely no intention of ever doing anything to see that LGBT people are treated as human beings. "Separate but equal" is fine with him on marriage, so why should it be any different with military service?

Sure, you can have equal legal rights for fmaily and kinship! Just don't go thinking you're as good as straight gendernorm people in doing so. Sure, you can serve in the military! Just don't go thinking you're as good as straight gendernorm people in doing so.

Let's not fool ourselves. Obama will do the same thing to gays that every Dem politician does - he'll promise the moon to get campaign contributions, then throw us under the bus because it's politically convenient to do so. Does he even know what a transgender person is? And we keep letting them do this. After all, who are we going to vote for? A Republican?

Ã…llan Snyder, first, you're assuming Bilby voted for McCain on zero evidence. Instead, like me, he may be a left-liberal of some sort who voted third-party.

Second, if someeone gives the appearance of being homophobic, well, that's the shoe, even if it pinches.

Ditto for my saying how readily, not just in this post or at this website, the phrase "concner troll" can be used as a convenient way to say "STFU although I'm not going to leave my fingerprints on that statement."

Allan, you're a concern troll.

===

Keori. No. Stop enabling the latest "middle-moving" Dem. Vote Green. Or Socialist.

God forbid Obama not make this his first order of business, and a huge controversy and distraction to start off his administration--it worked so well for Clinton.

I'm starting to wonder if the people fulminating about this weren't old enough to vote in 1992 and so don't remember what an enormous distraction Clinton's attempt to repeal DADT as the first order of business was.

I know the first instinct of liberals is to always shoot ourselves in the foot as soon as possible, but can we at least put it off for six months or so?

Ã…llan Snyder, first, you're assuming Bilby voted for McCain on zero evidence. Instead, like me, he may be a left-liberal of some sort who voted third-party.

And you're assuming that someone is a homophobe based on a completely non-homophobic statement. Do you always lack such self-awareness?
Not to mention assuming that Obama will or won't do something fast enough for your satisfaction based on a report in the Washington Times, which makes you look like a typical moronic wingnut. Might as well declare him a failure before he ever takes office, perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, but the shoe fits.

Obama has made it abundantly clear that separate but equal, is quite alright for gays. I'm a tremendous supporter of Obama, but as a gay man I don't expect him to do anything of substance for homosexual rights. I think it makes him nervous.

SocraticGadfly,

I don't cast my vote based on how a politician will treat LGBT people because the options are to either ignore us and maintain the status quo or make things worse. I'm reduced to voting on all the other issues because how I'm treated as a human being and a citizen isn't an item of concern. Sad, isn't it? Especially since I'm a veteran.