Introducing ColoradoProgressive.com

Great news! I'm now blogging at coloradoprogressive.com. Same great insights, new name and location. Come check it out!

Belkin: Don't Like DADT? Blame Falls at the Top

Think President Obama ought to address Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy regarding gays in the military in a hurry? Then this will really get you fired up.

What I like most about Belkin's assessment is that the Pentagon and Congress can't protect the commander-in-chief from ultimate responsibility for the dismissal of capable, talented, and driven men and women from America's armed forces. Belkin cites a study--due out shortly, we're told--from a group of "experts in military law" who have determined that the president does indeed wield the power of the pen on the issue of gays in the military. If that's true, then Obama won't have to "spend his precious political capital trying to ram a repeal bill through Congress."

If political capital translates as media exposure, then at this point, if the administration feels wary about picking battles, I'd favor a quiet, Friday afternoon repeal versus a whole lot of public fanfare. Whatever it takes so long as guys like Dan Choi can continue to serve this country.

Why Wood and Sotomayer Won't be Activist Enough . . . for the Right

Should the Supreme Court ban a repeat pedophile from city parks on the basis of the individual's thoughts? Slate's Emily Bazelon takes a look at this very question as it pertains to Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and potential nominee to the Supreme Court.

To be clear, the case is not before the Supreme Court, nor is it scheduled to be. But in Doe v. City of Lafayette, in 2004, Wood joined a dissent that may mark her for targeting should she get the nod from Obama. Basically, Wood declared the banning of John Doe from city parks an infringement on Doe's First Amendment rights, since he was banned based on his thoughts, rather than his actions. (Doe's thoughts were made public after he caught himself wanting to molest a child, but he turned around and called his therapist instead. The therapist, concerned about the possibility of criminal behavior, called the authorities.)

Wood's dissent, along with Judge Ann Williams, who wrote the minority opinion, did not prevail. The ban was upheld. The article points out, in the end, that had the case been about dangerousness, then there likely would not have been a dissent. John Doe appears as a high risk to public safety.

[I]n other settings, the law does allow for punishment based on future dangerousness. In 2000 and 2002, the Supreme Court twice upheld a Kansas law that provides for the civil commitment of a convicted sex offender, after he has finished serving his criminal sentence, if a court finds that he "cannot control his dangerous behavior." The majority opinion in the Doe case relied on those Supreme Court rulings. When I called Yale law professor Robert Post, a First Amendment scholar, he brought up the Kansas law, too. "If you can be kept in jail because of future dangerousness, why couldn't you be kept out of a park?" Post said. "It's a mischaracterization to say this has anything to do with this man's thoughts. The case should be decided on the basis of his dangerousness."

Emphasis mine. That's how the case was decided, but Wood's position suggests that it actually shouldn't have been. Because Doe was brought as a First Amendment challenge, Wood's dissent suggests that the court had an obligation to treat the case as such. "By way of comparison, courts would not sanction criminal punishment of an individual with a criminal history of bank robbery (a crime, like child molestation, with a high rate of recidivism …) simply because she or he stood in the parking lot of a bank and thought about robbing it."

Bazelon's point is not to determine whether Wood's dissent was the right opinion to air, but to cast Wood as an excellent candidate who could cause the White House considerable angst were she nominated, precisely because she chose not to extend the role--and rule--of government from the bench. By dissenting, Wood refused to support the judicial activism that had played out at the state level.

One of the things I find most interesting about the discussion, however, is not about the thorny nature of the Doe case at all. There seems to be a narrative pattern emerging--albeit prematurely, given the absence of a nominee--that the right will target judges who don't take activist stances on particular issues, even though the right is screaming already about the risk of activist judges. Matt Yglesias makes the observation about short-lister Sonia Sotomayor, too. Yglesias points to Richard Cohen and others who say Sotomayer should have intervened from the bench when the issue at hand was affirmative action in Ricci v. DeStefano, in 2008. Instead, she sided with the majority to let the state decision stand. That case went to the Supreme Court and was heard last month.

In these two instances, Bazelon and Yglesias make the point that, really, there are some issues for which the right advocates for judicial activism. In other words, if Obama nominates a so-called activist judge, he'll get reamed. And if he doesn't nominate an activist (when he should, according to the right), he'll get reamed. Nice trick, huh?

Michigan's Granholm for Supreme Court?

Matt Yglesias makes an interesting suggestion. I have no opinion, but thought it worth passing along for consideration. Her name does come up in more than one place as a short list contender. Granholm, FWIW, was Biden's sparring partner in the run-up to the VP debate. Rumor has it she cut a mean Palin:

Many parallels have been drawn between the two governors as being attractive ex-beauty queen sports moms, although Granholm's educational qualifications and political experience dwarf Palin's.

Meanwhile, I did hear a request among Republicans Democrats that Supreme Court judges should have more to show than a lifetime in black robes. In other words, get somebody with some real-world experience (i.e. political experience) on the court. But watch out for the setup to the inevitable complaint--no matter who Obama nominates--about "activist" judges. A fine line, to be sure, and one which Repubs will certainly use to try and trip up both the president and his agenda.

While we're on the subject, this Granholm thing is not new. Speculation was rife as early as October, 2008.

Challenging Specter

So Arlen Specter switched parties. Have Democrats been too quick to get behind their newest senator?

Steve Benen offers some key insights as to why Specter might not be the team player Dems hoped to recruit. Which begs the question: Should the DNC and the DSCC necessarily rally behind the incumbent Specter?

It bears noting that, while Specter's switch certainly doesn't hurt the Democratic Party, it may not actually help the party all that much either. In the end, Specter's switch is determined from pure political survivalism. In other words, Senator Specter (D-PA) is good for Senator Specter. You don't get to be 79-years-old and one of the most senior members of the Senate by counting on others to have your best interests at stake, y'know?

With all that in mind, Nate Silver looks at Joe Sestak, Specter's most likely challenger (as of today) in a 2010 Dem primary. Progressives will be disappointed, because Sestak sounds like a candidate for the newly minted "ConservaDem" party. But still, there are some distinct advantages to not giving Arlen Specter a free ride. A little heat, Silver points out, could force the incumbent senator to vote with the president's agenda a little more often than Specter feels inclined to, so far.

Where's DADT on the White House Web Site?

Is revision of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy off the agenda? Via Benen, Greg Sargent catches a discouraging omission.

If it's About the Supreme Court, Then Specter Matters

I've been reading all week about whether or not the Specter switch is that big of a deal. Matthew Yglesias suggests that, in regard to the Souter announcement, Specter as Democrat really is a big deal because the switch covers a lot of ground on the partisan hackometer. See, if Specter has to run against a hardcore conservative challenger in the 2010 GOP primary, then the senator will come out against anybody Obama nominates. But since the switch, Specter is actually in danger of inviting a Democratic primary challenger if he doesn't toe the party line on this one. Pretty interesting math.

Jindal Watch

Think Progress looks into the budget wizardry of Louisiana's Bobby Jindal: NFL's Saints up $85 million, state health care and education down $1.6 billion.

GOP Lawmakers Contend U.S. Prisons Weak

Am I reading this the wrong way, or is it unseemly for grown politicians to beg the government not to house notorious criminals in . . . maximum security prisons?

Members of Congress were already pleading with Gates on Thursday not to send the detainees to their states. "Please not at Leavenworth," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Really, Senator? Because if I were a constituent in Kansas, I'd strongly prefer to hear my state voice in the Capitol argue that the maximum security prison near me succeeds at what it is designed to do, house and secure dangerous people away from the law-abiding public. The only way I can read Brownback's request is as a vote of no confidence in his state's most visible prison.

Relocating Guantanamo detainees is a tricky business, and it's not my goal to try and solve the problem here. But I don't think it serves the public interest to undermine the fundamental role of ultra high security prisons, such as Leavenworth and Colorado's Supermax, in the name of a little bit of politicking. I'm much more in favor of this response, tested in January by Colorado's Bill Ritter:

One of the sites under consideration is Supermax, located in Florence about 90 miles south of Denver. Inmates already at Supermax include Zacarias Moussaoui, a Sept. 11 conspirator; Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center attack; and Richard Reid, who tried to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with a shoe bomb.

Ritter wouldn't oppose transferring the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Supermax because it was built for just that type of high-risk inmate, Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said today.

"If Supermax is chosen, there's no reason to take a 'not in my backyard' approach," Dreyer said.

Moussaoui, Yousef, and Reid, known terrorists, right here in my backyard, and I never even noticed. That's good, right?

Understaffing the New Administration

I'm not sure which is more striking: that 100 days into the new administration more than two thirds of senior offices in every cabinet department are still vacant, or that, apparently, that's the norm.

A look inside the numbers paints an even bleaker picture. Only 48 of 349 positions have cleared the final hurdle to begin work, Senate confirmation. It's been pointed out before, especially in relation to the staffing woes at Treasury during an economic crisis, but is there really any reason for the Senate to confirm 349 positions? Now more than ever, can we not make the case that the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education at the Department of Education is not a remarkable or contentious position (at least not until the nomination goes to the Senate!)? See here for a full list.

Here's Gary Andres of Dutko Worldwide, a large consulting and lobbying firm, in a panel discussion last month at the Wilson Center:

It used to be that senators did not oppose presidential nominations on policy grounds because Members believed the president was entitled to have his own people carrying out his policies. The senators’ job was to determine whether the nominee was professionally qualified and ethically fit for the job. But all that has changed as senators and interest groups began grinding their political and policy axes at confirmation hearings.

Emphasis mine. I leave to the reader the possibility that, without all this premium grade political posturing (read "BS"), we could actually have a government system that is mostly staffed and ready to go after 100 days, as opposed to simply being ready to get ready to fight about being ready to serve the citizens of the country.

EPA's Jackson Fumbles Free Enterprise Answer

Somebody get Lisa Jackson a cheat sheet. She did a fine job in her interview on NPR today, until Michele Norris asked about the role of government.

In a discussion about strategies to regulate greenhouse gases from cars (starts at the 2:42 mark on the interview), and about how to tie such regulations to economic viability, Jackson stated that "the president has said, and I couldn't agree more, that what this country needs is one single national road map that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people."

Whereupon NPR's Norris astutely asked: "Is that the role of the government, though? That doesn't sound like free enterprise."

"Well . . . it-it [exhale] . . . it is free enterprise in a way. Um, uh, y'know . . . first and foremost the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second, and so some would argue that the government has a much larger role than we might have when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line."

Jackson went on to invoke the future of the auto industry and larger discussions that the president, Congress, and the EPA are having and will continue to have. So she saved herself, sort of. But I could hear Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly breathing heavily behind the tape as they get ready to tear into the clip in coming days.

Granted, I don't expect the head of the EPA to be an economic policy wonk. But I do expect her to capably field straightforward and predictable questions regarding the oft-thorny relationship between government regulation and free enterprise, especially when her own argument suggests that greenhouse gas regulation is good economic policy. In this interview, Jackson mentions the president and, for all practical purposes, speaks for the president. The only way to sell "big" government is to make sure policies work and to have your talking points in order and your bases covered. The easy way out would have been to tie government regulation to the government funds those troubled car companies are taking and to evoke a partnership toward progress in which free enterprise, frankly, becomes an afterthought.

Eugene Robinson on the Obama/Chavez Handshake

I generally like Eugene Robinson, and hats off to him for winning that Pulitzer. But yesterday's column advocating for theatrics from a traveling president leaves me dissatisfied. "Theatricality is one of the weapons in any leader's arsenal," Robinson writes, "and a well-timed glower or growl can have more impact than a sheaf of position papers."

When wingers and warmongerers chastise the president for shaking hands with Venezuela's little man, I get it. In a way, it keeps with a natural order we've come to expect in our politics. The predictable rant is that any sign of American openness is weakness. But when a voice of reason advocates a bit of superficial staging, I'm befuddled.

Eugene Robinson gets it just right when he characterizes Chavez and the essential relationship between our two countries.

Any idea that Chávez is some sort of threat to the United States is absurd. It's hard to see his fiery anti-American rhetoric as anything more than performance art, given that he has been scrupulously careful to avoid even the slightest disruption of the U.S.-Venezuela economic relationship.Venezuela owns Citgo, among other concerns, and is a reliable supplier of oil to the thirsty U.S. market.

Or, as Matt Yglesias put it yesterday:

For all the rhetorical heat generated by Chavez’s clashes with the American right, all he really wants from America is for Citgo to sell us oil and gas. And guess what? All we want from Venezuela is the ability to buy oil and gas.

So why would Robinson go on to argue that Obama should have been more rigid? Indeed, why argue that Obama should have recognized the slap Chavez intended--by presenting a tome on U.S. meddling in Latin America--and slap back? Because Robinson thinks he's speaking for moderates who like the new diplomatic worldview that Obama brings but still interpret the diplomatic landscape through the old paradigm, which, no matter how you slice it, hearkens back to the Cold War.

Guess what, folks. Chavez doesn't really intimidate the U.S. Nor should he. On the one side of the aisle, you've got a reactionary right that would seek to replay Cold War pageantry at every little opportunity. On the other side--I thought--you've got a moderate left that understands that Chavez doesn't intimidate the U.S. Why on earth should anyone, lest Eugene Robinson, see Obama's easy way in a crowded room as a faux pas?

Public perception is, largely, what the media molds of it. And if media outlets like the Washington Post and Pulitzer prize winners like Eugene Robinson were to deem Obama's stature in Trinidad as, say, a sign of imperturbable confidence, then that's what a majority of Americans would reliably repeat for the duration of a given spin cycle. Where are the commentators to remind us that America can afford to be big, that our chief diplomat can go ahead and indulge in some hand shaking and shoulder slapping and can accept a gift for the recycle bin without reeling like we've all got an insecurity complex? It could read "Obama didn't give Chavez a thing, not a single hint as to U.S. disposition toward Venezuela. The president smiled, enjoyed some token banter, and moved on."

I don't expect Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney to play any other role than to make the hackneyed call for strength and force that plays well to the wide right and gets our country into trouble time and again. But I do expect, and desperately hope, that saner voices will also choose milder interpretations when the president makes non-news on the diplomatic front.

Columbine Grads Return to Teach

Colorado is inundated this week with reminders about Columbine. This article about five of the student survivors is one of the most striking things I've seen. Ten years after the tragedy, those students still walk the halls of Columbine High every day . . . as teachers.

Army Standards Improve as More Americans Seek Work

Clearly good news coming out of a bad economy:

The Army last month stopped accepting felons and recent drug abusers into its ranks as the nation's economic downturn helped its recruiting, allowing it to reverse a decline in recruiting standards that had alarmed some officers.

Read the rest here.

Meghan McCain to Log Cabin Republicans

If Meghan McCain can keep talking truth to power within her own party, then I've got a lot of hope for the next wave of Republican figureheads, leaders, and--watch out--activists. Last month McCain asked Ann Coulter to explain some things, then a week later she took the fight to Laura Ingraham. Now, HuffPo's Sam Stein captures McCain's comments this evening to the Log Cabin Republicans, and the substance of her critique is pretty damn good:

"There are those who think we can win the White House and Congress back by being 'more' conservative. Worse, there are those who think we can win by changing nothing at all about what our party has become. They just want to wait for the other side to be perceived as worse than us. I think we're seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party. But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past."

Emphasis mine. There's a tendency to assume that unpopularity simply saddles each party at some point, usually as a backlash to the party in, or just out of, power. Dems were seen as weak and ineffective coming off the Carter years. Then the Republican Party enjoyed a wave of enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's charm and appeal. George H.W. Bush couldn't sustain that enthusiasm ("Read my lips" didn't go over as well as "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!"), and the pendulum swung the other way. And no sooner did Bill Clinton get into the White House than Dems lost popularity and took a thumping in the midterms. A few years go by and it's George W's turn, and wash, rinse, repeat. Meghan McCain seems to be here to say to her party "Hey, wake up! There's something going on in the country, and we can't assume that it'll just be our turn again if we sit around and wait for the other guys to screw up."

When McCain says war is brewing in the Republican party between the future and the past, what she means is that the grand old gentlemen who run the Grand Old Party have failed to connect with the most important new force in American politics: 18-25 year olds. (I suspect it's more like 18-40 year olds, but that's really just a hunch.) Democrats, on the other hand, clearly have connected with that young crop.

Democrats have gotten a young president with a Blackberry into the Oval Office, and they've excited what looks to be two generations worth of voters who still have the bulk of their voting years ahead of them. We could argue about whether Democrats really did this, or whether it's just the power of Obama, but I suspect Howard Dean has been enjoying the resurgence and renewed effectiveness of the DNC he helped turn around. Meanwhile, there is no one Republican figure who can excite a clear majority of Republican voters nationwide. And Republican politics among the states has become a clear race to the bottom.

McCain's got something to say about that, by the way:

"Simply embracing technology isn't going to fix our problem," she said. "Republicans using Twitter and Facebook isn't going to miraculously make people think we're cool again. Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further will. That's why some in our party are scared. They sense the world around them is changing and they are unable to take the risk to jump free of what's keeping our party down."

Emphasis mine. Now, this might all be a part of a book tour for the young McCain, but I'm hoping it's something more. An interesting thing has happened in American politics since Barack Obama arrived on scene. We've finally got the right combination of appeal, charisma, and intelligence at the forefront of a national dialogue, and a leader who genuinely seems to enjoy a thoughtful and respectful debate. A lot of Republicans have responded simply by raising the volume. Meghan McCain sounds like she's ready to raise the bar. Here's hoping she can bring quality ideas to match her tone, and that she won't be destroyed by her own party.

Iran Speaks Conflict: Understanding the Case of Roxana Saberi

NPR's Jacki Lyden spoke with Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. Ghaemi, an Iranian dissident who has spent the last 25 years in the United States, says Iran doesn't know how to respond to the new, open hand of the Obama administration, and that hard-line elements within the country have seized on the case of Roxana Saberi to sow conflict with the U.S.

Ghaemi has studied human rights and Iranian foreign policy since he left Iran. He says he's surprised by the ruling.

The verdict was much, much harsher than anything similar to it. The surprise here is that Roxana is neither an activist, she has not been involved in anything that could domestically be considered a threat to Iranian government, and for Iranian leadership to use her this way, it only sends the message that she has become the tool of Iranian foreign policy at the moment. Now what is the message and use of that tool is something that there are a couple of different possibilities.

Ghaemi thinks the appeals process presents a possible glimmer of hope, and that Iran actually could review the case very quickly and render a different decision via appeal. Certainly, this is what he hopes will happen. At the same time, however, Ghaemi considers Saberi very much a pawn in a broader--and more troubling--diplomatic picture, which outcome is none too clear.

She's being used by hard-line elements in Iran to torpedo, uh, possible improvements of relations with the United States. I think the Iranian leadership is very confused and insecure at the initiatives that President Obama has presented toward Iran. So I think by creating this crisis they do get the opportunity to perhaps make the U.S. policies return to more confrontational basis.

Ghaemi's assessment is hardly reassuring. But if his take on the internal politics is correct, then I'd go so far as to say that President Obama's approach to Iran is working. All the more reason NOT to adopt a tone of aggression (as advocated here) which would only play into what appears to be Iran's strategy of choice, haphazard as that strategy may be. If Iran's hard liners are hoping to provoke a hard-line U.S. response, then the last thing the administration should do--and the last thing Saberi needs--is to give that contingent what they want.

U.S. Journalists Still Detained in North Korea

NPR ran a story two days ago on the very quiet, ongoing detention of U.S. journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, captured last month by the North Korean government. AP's Jean Lee discusses the high-stakes nature of the journalists' detention as Pyongyang looks for ways to increase leverage in global nuclear negotiations.

At 3 min, 39 seconds, the story gives a brief hint at the complex relationship between the reporters' detention, the frustrated nature of North Korea's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and the frustrated nature of U.S. diplomatic options in North Korea. Well worth a quick listen, especially in light of Iran's conviction of U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi on charges of spying. At least on the surface, the two cases present similar dynamics, though any interactions with Iran are arguably more complicated. Either way, the State Department has its hands full.

Iranian Court Sentences Saberi to 8 Years for Spying

The New York Times tells us that American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi has been convicted of spying in an Iranian court and sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Scott Lucas offers food for thought about what propels the case inside Iran. I'm neither informed enough nor imaginative enough to speculate as to what may happen next. Ed Morrissey calls on Obama to drop the folksy charm so far employed toward Iran and get heavy. Morressey's suggestions strike me as Iran's biggest hope. What would be a greater success than provoking empire to come assert ourselves in our most bellicose way?

Right now the Iranians don't have much to stand on but have successfully chipped the American image. I don't think America can stand back and do nothing. But that chip becomes a deep fracture if the U.S. makes empty demands. Our escalation right now will more or less give the Iranian leadership a platform from which to fight. Lucas speculates that, hopefully, the State Department is reaching out to friends who are connected to Iran's decision makers.

No doubt this all becomes political here at home. Silence is unacceptable in the 24-hour news cycle, even on a Saturday. Immediately, expect conservatives to lambaste the administration for doing nothing (no, I don't think the pundits will have learned from last week's pirate escapades) while progressives do much the same. Fortunately, I am encouraged that the administration is sufficiently above the spin on this. I have to believe that the president, his advisers, and the Secretary of State are smart enough to wait until they have the right hand to play. Here's hoping that there is such a thing. And that Roxana Saberi can afford to wait.

Culvahouse on Palin: "She knocked those questions out of the park."

Andy Barr has a striking piece at Politico citing John McCain's lead vetter in the quest for a VP candidate.

A.B. Culvahouse, a powerful Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Reagan, told an audience of Republican lawyers that for McCain, selecting a vice president came down to three questions: Why do you want to be vice president? Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons? And the CIA has identified Osama bin Laden, but if you take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?

“She knocked those questions out of the park,” he said at an event held at the National Press Club by the Republican National Lawyers Association. “We came away impressed.”

I shudder to think what answers Palin gave to those three questions.

Okay, it's actually just the second question I'm having trouble with. The first one is fluff, the third one is superficially tough (as in, "Do you have the stones to make the hard call?"). But the second one? "Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons?" What's the correct answer to that question?

Barr's piece never gives a hint as to Palin's answers. But I'm left feeling so much more relieved that, at least for the time being, we don't have to consider a scenario that leaves either John McCain or Sarah Palin with the launch codes.

Same-sex Marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (All in a Day)

TPM posts divergent pieces today on equality for gays. While Steve Schmidt prepares to drag the GOP kicking and screaming toward acceptance of gay marriage, Robert Gates throws cold water on high hopes regarding the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy under the Obama administration.

Schmidt earned all my scorn as the architect of John McCain's 2008 campaign of bile. But this move makes me wonder if Schmidt learned something during the campaign; namely, that the big tent can't help Republicans if it's empty. Steve Benen asks how prominent Repubs will treat Schmidt for his breach with party etiquette. True, it may not be pretty. But Schmidt is on the right side of this one and, I believe, is reading the social change tea leaves correctly. He may get lambasted today, but if the GOP has any hope for a reemergence in the foreseeable future then they'll need guys like Schmidt, high-profile operatives who can move the party forward around some bigger truths. We'll see, of course, whether Schmidt truly is that guy. But I give him props for demonstrating reason at a time when, to be blunt, the Republican establishment seems to delight in shunning that particular quality.

DADT is a little harder to get my head around. It'd be one thing if administration figures framed the debate as "We have to be deliberate, we have to be smart, and our policy has to be sound." There's been some of that floating in the ether since March, when Gates made his "push that one down the road" comments on FOX. But TPM points out that Gates now goes so far as to invoke the conditional. "If we do it, it's very important that we do it right, and very carefully." My question is why does Gates invoke the conditional?

Obama and Gates may have different politics, but I think they're both smart, both thoughtful, and both very intentional. Also, I believe they both want what's good for the country. So why the hedging? Gates is Obama's guy on DADT policy, and yet he can't just come out and say "We're working on this, we're going to make this happen." Why? The NYT piece TPM refers to gives us Gates invoking Harry Truman: Truman signed the order to integrate the military in 1948, and still it took five years before it happened. Gates: “I’m not saying that’s a model for this, but I’m saying that I believe that this is something that needs to be done very, very carefully.’’

More Gates:

“To get people’s real feelings about it, you have to have almost a one-on-one private conversation,’’ Mr. Gates said. “I think it’s very difficult for people to speak in front of their peers about this issue.’’

Man, I just don't get it. Sure it's politically tricky. The idea of gays in the military always has been. But Gates sounds like he's giving cover here. Just as the GOP has to come around to same-sex marriage (if the party wants to survive), the military also has to quit discharging capable, talented, and effective soldiers who want to serve. This is not rocket science. So what's all this "if" crap?