While I agree that it won't happen immediately, I would like to see some sort of progress ASAP. The reality is that there is an increasing conservative backlash policy-wise to LGBT civil rights issues. I personally believe that DADT and ENDA are the least controversial policies that he could take up.

While I agree that it won't happen immediately, I would like to see some sort of progress ASAP. The reality is that there is an increasing conservative backlash policy-wise to LGBT civil rights issues. I personally believe that DADT and ENDA are the least controversial policies that he could take up.

But no one has challenged the military in 40 years.

I really don't expect Barack to be the first. If the rumors about Hillary Clinton become fact, well, then…

Clinton actually campaigned on integrating the Armed Forces more fully – don't you remember how all Vietnam-Era vets got their shorts in a wad because Clinton didn't serve in the military, and were also afraid he'd implement a non-discrimination policy against LGBT?

Truman had already decided he'd do it – he just picked his time when to do it, and kind of did without a whole lot of fanfare. WWII had already depleted the ranks, and it wasn't until late 1948 or so – before the on set of the Korean Conflict, that full integration was actually being achieved.

You dropping knowledge, Craig – and it explains why there hasn't been another POTUS actually gunned down since Kennedy – no one else has challenged or taken on the military in over 40 years.

Barack will do it, I believe. But not a minute too soon.

Jack Kennedy was one of them…and Lincoln was, too.

“Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religious or national origin, sexual orientation/choice/identity, will NOT BE TOLERATED within the ranks of any BRANCH of the ARMED FORCES, and any incident of discrimination in promotion, assignment, policy implementation, etc., WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, UP TO AND INCLUDING termination, imprisonment and fines for any violation found therewith.”

Barack Obama has no more excuse than Bill Clinton did back in 1993. Lukewarm support = tacit consent to discriminate by the powers that be. The Chief sends the message AND sets the tone.

Look, Truman ignored his southern redneck buddies back in the 1950s and fully integrated the Armed Forces so that brothas, Latino brothas, Asian and Native American brothas could have the right to die in battle right alongside their rednecked Brethren. So, if Truman had the cajones to integrate the Armed Forces at the height of Jim Crow, as I've said, Clinton didn't have an excuse for his lukewarm support 15 years ago, and Obama would do well not to repeat Bill Clinton's mistakes.

Co-sign. If necessary, Barack should wait till 2014 (his last two years) to initiate (unless it percolates through the legislature as JunePearl has suggested).

As much as people hate on DADT, it's better than if nothing had been done at all. It would not have been necessary if Clinton had been a “more effective” politician. DADT and failed Healthcare Reform in 93 cost Democrats the Congress in 94. We need to keep Nancy and Harry in power beyond 2010.

Allow me to be a dissenter on the criticism people have been leveling at Obama for wanting to move slowly on DADT. The public and younger folks may be perfectly supportive of opening the military to gays serving openly, but that's not the case with the military. No matter how delicately the administration approaches the issue, there will be resentment within the military. And it could turn violent at the lower echelons.

My fear is that moving too quickly and creating resentment by repealing the ban will simply make things dangerous for gays who are currently serving. I want Obama to take the time building consensus and support. I want him to work with the JCS to make that happen. If servicemembers see that the policy isn't being ramrodded down the military's throat, there may not be as open hostility as there currently is or will be.

I want DADT repealed and the ban on gays lifted. Badly. But, I've been with the military for the past 11 years under DADT. Another year is not a long time and worth it if the policy change is implemented smoothly and people are safer as a result. I don't want Clinton's mistakes repeated or compounded.

I think we need to let the man govern. He's not even President yet.

The criticism in the blogosphere is completely unwarrented.