Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration’s willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.

– Richard Socarides, “Ask Obama About Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Wall Street Journal

Yes, many of us out here do wonder what is going on in the mind of our “fierce advocate” besides his own re-election and clinging on to a majority in Congress, which at this point and time, is certainly not a given. You see, despite running away from questions about any specific timeline or whether there was a strategic political plan to pass legislation to eliminate the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving, the Obama administration has been suffering in the polls.

Rather than taking the bold steps early on to eliminate a policy that a vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum agree must go, here we are, watching the administration unravel anyway. Richard Socarides, who worked in the Clinton administration as an assistant to the President and served as an adviser on LGBT rights, has a piece in the WSJ that hits the nail on the head – this is all about fear.

Most administration observers who follow this closely believe that the Pentagon has already signed off on supporting an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell once the White House decides the timing is right. But Messrs. Gates and Mullen have yet to say so publicly. Their upcoming testimony is the result of pressure from New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, who last year called for legislation that would have placed a moratorium on gay military discharges.

…A big part of the reason why the White House hesitated is fear of a backlash similar to the one suffered by President Bill Clinton in 1993 when he tried to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Recently we saw the potential beginning of an antigay fear campaign-much like the one in 1993 when then Sen. Sam Nunn (D., Ga.) was leading the charge-in the form of a leaked memo from a legal adviser to Mr. Mullen. The legal adviser opined that “now is not the time” to lift the ban because of “the importance of winning the wars we are in.” Also, the New York Times reported recently that the Pentagon had begun considering “the practical implications of a repeal-for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns.”

Socarides goes on to explain that the Department of Defense could clearly choose to take a very strict line on the current policy to reduce the discharges, such as invoking national security concerns to retain gay service members. but it hasn’t. The political homophobia has paralyzed this White House so badly that the avoidance takes on the appearance of disdain for a loyal constituency. Some would leave out “appearance” at this point.

An increasingly frustrated bloc of gay voters-angry over marriage setbacks in California, Maine, New Jersey and New York and emboldened by Ted Olson’s and David Boies’s high-profile effort to declare unconstitutional laws that prohibit gay marriage-are growing impatient for equality. As Mr. Olson said in federal district court in San Francisco recently, discriminatory laws serve only to “label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal and disfavored.”

The White House has also avoided comment on the above-mentioned federal trial. As the clock winds down on opportunities to act on repealing DADT, will the President and Congress agree to finally greenlight this? This year’s elections are coming up, and the appeals for cash and GOTV efforts will be coming fast and furious — do they really think LGBT voters will open the gAyTM and line up at the polls if nothing is done about DADT?

***

Also, in a laughable display on Meet the Press yesterday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested that President Obama’s administration is flailing because it governed “hard left”! What’s he smoking?

For McConnell, the president’s whole problem is that he isn’t moderate enough. “The president decided to go hard left,” he said. “That’s why he doesn’t have many of my members. If he chooses to govern in the middle he will have broader support,” said McConnell.

UPDATE: David Mixner astutely observes that from day 1, this administration thought it had two terms in the bag, and thus did not feel compelled to move on social issues first, since those would be, ostensibly the ones that would jeopardize a second term. Of course, look at the mess they are in without having moved on our critical issues.

No longer is it enough to simply throw up our hands and say, “At least he isn’t George W. Bush.” Although true enough, this is Obama’s presidency now and he must be held accountable for his lack of success in his first year. For those who feel he could not have done any more, I would suggest they review the history when Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson had incredible majorities in Congress and see what they accomplished.

In addition, the administration has, in a major way, alienated most of its powerful core constituencies. Some, like the LGBT community, are feeling so discouraged, betrayed and stunned that it will take considerable work and policy shifts to bring them back into the fold. There seems to be some magical mystical mystery plan at work in the White House where everything was supposed to be unfolded neatly over the course of eight years. When is the last time in politics anyone ever remembers such long term planning to prevail with the changing complexities of the world? Those of us who questioned were shunned and viewed as impatient and unreasonable.

Never count your chickens before they’re hatched. Have the people in the WH never heard that old saw? I remember back in 2008, Kate and I were speculating about who the Dem prez nominee might be, and we both came to these conclusions that sadly, are turning out to be heading in that direction now.

1) It doesn’t really matter which Dem is in charge, since we’d need 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate before we had a chance to pass anything.

2) The Republicans will be relieved to have four years to turn the blame for not fixing any of the mess Bush left behind on the Dems, knowing that the American public is impatient and has an attention span of zero.

3) The Dem would find getting significant health care reform passed a politically insurmountable task.

We both were wrong, however, that whichever Dem made it to the WH would immediately get Congress to move to get hate crimes and DADT out of the way early on. And now, DADT repeal is looking grim.