The fact it was sent at all is impressive. Glad that the Senate is finally standing up.

The Senate isn't "standing up" Cam. One Senator suggested that they need some "cover" from the military or it isn't going to happen.

More than 60 senators oppose repealing DADT.

@Brian

If "More than 60 senators oppose repealing DADT" as you say, please name those against it and I'll do some legwork to see if its true. I don't think you're even remotely close to being right and I'd love the opportunity to prove it.

What kind of commander-in-chief sits around and waits for all of his subordinates approval, when it is clear that there is a consensus among the military brass that the policy must go. If democrats are looking for 100 percent political cover from the military, so Obama can go back on the campaign trail and say, "the military completely, 100 percent, every itty bittly bit, signed off on it," FUCK HIM. I want a stand up guy in the white house, not a Herbert Milktoast that needs a fictional military brass that will get his back 100 percent. Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and get it done. Only then will we get his back in the 2010 midterms. Commanders give orders when their soldiers are in danger, and does not take them.

"President Obama appears to have absorbed an unfortunate — and incorrect — lesson from the Democrats' alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the president must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the president ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it's done by showing the world that the president knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same. Ending the needless firing of gay troops is one of those times." – Nathaniel Frank, DADT expert and author of "Unfriendly Fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8j8IiLgvVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBTe2odMi4o

I thought it was the new senator from NY, Ms. Gillebrand, who already took the reins of Sen Kennedy's bill to repeal DADT. She already announced a couple of weeks ago that she is planning to start holding hearings on this in late Oct or Nov.

So, has the white house pushed her aside for Lieberman? Or, were they just lining up Lieberman as her co-sponsor?

No. 4 · Brian NJ

When was it clear that there is a consensus among the military brass that the policy must go? The report from the military brass and there recommendations, that were requested by Obama, have not come out yet. This has nothing to do with the president taking orders from subordinates, this is about receiving their counsel. The military's opinions and reasoning is important weather it is for or against the policy. The president needs as much information as possible so when he is ready to move forward he is prepared, and can carry out his policy as smooth and intelligently as possible. We have already seen the fruits of the leadership style that you are proposing in the George W. Bush administration. If George Bush had taken the time to listen to all the opinions at the table before invading Iraq, as his father did, even if his decision was still to invade he could have carried it out in a better manner saving U.S. lives and securing the Iraqi population. Leadership is more complex that being the fat cat at the table and shoving your views down other peoples throat; it takes differed gratification, discernment, flexibility, and openness among other things. If you ever get the chance to be a leader or boss one day you will find out that being a successful leader is much easier said then done. The president is methodical about his decision making, and more often then not it is to his benefit. Afghanistan is a prime example, he is taking the time to hear all of the opinions and gather the information he needs to make a sound decision, and it is bearing fruit, if he had hoped in feet first and made a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan he would be in trouble granted that it turns out president Karzai is now facing a run off election after cheating in the previous one. The situation is going to require a different strategy and troop levels, and he was able to discern what ended up happening way in advance because of good leadership skills. Even though some are angry that things are not happening fast; I would rather the president do things the right way so we may actually gain some rights that have alluded us under every other administration that has run this country.

@#Reason

You are totally incorrect. The Commander in Chief is responsible for putting a stop to the senseless loss of soldiers in a time of war. Obama is disgracing all veterans, alive or dead, by continuing the policy. Because of the urgency of the situation, Obama should issue an executive order suspending the policy immediately. There is no more consensus building or discussion required. The policy has been completely discredited by almost every government official. It is already illegal under the Equal Protection Clause, an a courageous president would end it, and stick by his guns, unlike Bill Clinton.

The White House is passing around misinformation by making it appear that more work and effort is required to end the policy, than there actually is. They are in a tough spot by putting action on DADT at the bottom of their to do list, and making the policy part of a political calculation. Now they are passing around the buck and making it look like they are doing work on the policy. Complete snow job, and a complete disgrace.