"Almost all serious experts who used to argue against allowing gays in the military have either changed course or died."

Good grief. I assumed that campaigning against DADT was limited to letter writing and petitions.

momentums are getting monotonous -- could we please accomplish something soon?

getting the antiquated, prejudicial DADT policy dropped would certainly be something.

then, maybe, you know, health care, integrity in government (and BushCo thugs in prison), full employment, and sparkly angel fairies following all children to school...

something, for Kerist's sake...

caution will be the cause of failure of the obama administration.

It will be refreshing if, one day soon, this country can throw away for good the shackles of bigotry and hate regarding gays. As the rest of the world has done, notably without the resulting issues and excuses that naysayers said would happen if said was done here.

There are a host of other issues of similar regard, such as health care, 'war on drugs', etc. too, but we are a geographically and world-view isolated lot, and too many of our decision-makers are 'old school' types who are beyond the age when 'established' questions can be revisited easily.

Correct, neill - However, one of the problems has been working with the RepuGs, who have thought DADT meant extra-marital affairs by their side of the aisle.

"Proponents of repeal are optimistic the hearings should move us closer to a more sensible policy"

Besides throwing it on the trash heap completely what would be a "sensible policy"?

"Nathaniel Frank, author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, said, 'Almost all serious experts who used to argue against allowing gays in the military have either changed course or died.'"

I think a huge factor is that most servicemembers, especially in the junior ranks, think gays should be allowed to serve openly.

To Neill and others complaining about Obama's 'caution':

a) despite the myth, the Democrats -- even with perfect 'party loyalty' -- do not have a 'filibuster-proof majority' -- because of the illnesses of Sens. Kennedy and Byrd. There is no such thing as a 'proxy vote' in the Senate. If they can't physically cast their vote, no one, not an aide, not another Senator can cast it for them.

And, btw, if either resigned or died, the situation would remain. Massachussets does not permit a Governor to make an interim appointment, and it would be at least a three-months vacancy before the election process could be completed. And while WV has a Democratic governor who can make an appointment, he's an NRA member, pro-life, and is infamous for his 'signing' a missile with the message ""Sending you to hell, from Almost Heaven, West Virginia." (As well as for a scandal involving his daughter's degree from WVU that cost several Administrators their jobs.) In short, not someone who is going to appoint a strong progressive to Byrd's seat.

Second, there are no rules for enforcing 'party loyalty' -- and the remaining Republican idiots show whay was wrong in trying to enforce it informally. You get the worst and most mindless of Senators going along.

Third, there is no Constitutional provision for 'suspending the Constotution and ruling by decree.' Again, Bush tried it, and I hope most of us condemned him not just for the positions he used it for but for the process itself.

Finally there are a lot of Democrats who will go 'off the reservation' on various matters, not just the usual suspects (Bayh, the Nelsons, Lincoln and Landrieux) but Webb, Begich, Tester and others are not reliable votes on all matters.

Then you have Burris -- who has, wisely, opted for a Vow of Silence so strong he's entitled to call the average Trappist monk a chatterbox. And, after the Hudson County scandals of last week, Sen. Menendez is asking Roland if there is any extra room in his cell.

Obama is cautious, yes, for good reason, and also because he's never believed in 'stirring up the base' by making promises he knew were impossible to fulfill. (See Reagan and Bush 41 on 'repealing Roe' which they knew wouldn't happen on their watch and which they probably opposed in private.)

But his record shows he is interested in actually winning his battles, and that he's always shown the patience to do just that. I'll still bet on him accomplishing his plans, but it will take time.

(Sadly, the economic meltdown came too late. If it had happened in June and people had felt the pinch when it did, they might be more supportive, but it looks -- erroneously -- like a 'predicted hurricane that vturned aside at the last minute, so why did we spend all that money on lumber to board up the windows.')

If we can't get DADT off the books, we should at reinforce it for everyone. NO ONE gets to talk about husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends. No family pictures to show that any member of the military is either gay or straight.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who tends to be rather risk averse

Others may complaing about your humor-by-understatement, Steve, but this phrase game me one of the best laughs I've had so far today.

Considering Spineless Harry didn't even know about Sen. Gillibrand's proposed amendment (for an 18-month moratorium on DADT-related discharges) until a reporter told him, I'm not too impressed with any assessment painting him as supportive. You can't support something if your default state of being is clueless, particularly if movement is coming from within your OWN DAMN CAUCUS.

Also, before we start painting Harry Reid as supportive of ANY LGBT-related issue, let's see how he responds when the GOP tries to strip Hate Crimes out of the Defense Authorization Act in the final vote and conference committee.