Would it be worse if he was afraid of the military and what they, or their leadership, would do if he supported repealing DADT or if the President actually believes DADT is appropriate and won't say so himself?

What if not repealing DADT is a purely political decision? Would that be worse?

I'm sure the reason is in one of these suggestions. The Obama administration doesn't really talk to the base on things like this does it? Or on lots of other things come to think of it.

All that support Obama had from the under-30 set in the last election? He shouldn't plan on getting them out to vote if the next 3 years are like this.

Is a 100% political animal.

and I'm having a hard time with it. I know that politics is like chess, but come on. I can't imagine that advocating a repeal of DADT is so politically risky that it can't be done.

DADT is an awful, ineffective policy that hurts our military more than it helps it. All of these Arabic speaking translators being kicked out for being gay- Gee...doesn't it seem like they might be USEFUL right now?

why stick one's neck out for groups to the left of the Dem party? not that i don't think he should -- there are a host of instances where obama has let his left flank sit out on a limb very unfairly.

but where does it get him? it wins him support for the groups who have no (real) choice but to vote Dem, and it alienates a huge swath (hate to say it) of the electorate that they are trying to attract.

again -- i ain't sayin' it's right -- but if you're looking for cold political calculation, here it is.

Obama breaking a promise and failing to stand up for gay and lesbian people--shocking, absolutely shocking! What's next? Failing to close Gitmo? Failing to stop the war in Iraq? Failing to end Bush-era wiretapping? Oh, wait a minute . . . . (But he makes some damn fine speeches and takes some nice vacations, huh?)

A person who breaks promises willfully and, in the case of gay rights, gleefully, has no honor. Barak Obama is such a man. I will be supporting a primary challenger to him in 2012. The suffering people of this country deserve so much better that this lying, torturing, treasonous SOS.

That must be the explanation. Or are we to believe that a Democratic candidate for President catered to a voting block by making empty promises for actions he had no intention of making?

Somebody remind me again: Why did we elect this guy?

I'm curious as to whether the administration really argued "in favor of the policy," which would be substantive, or simply argued against the court considering it at this tine, which might well be strategic. I may be naive, but I believe Obama both opposes DADT and has a plan for eventually getting rid of it. Key word: eventually.

OK, can we finally put to rest once and for all the myth that Obama is a liberal or anything close to it?

And to the poster above, those on the left do have an option -- the Green Party -- but many who would lean in that direction are either too lazy to learn more or too easily cowed by the bullshit that "you're gonna lose and rig it so only the GOP wins" mentality that "pragmatists" have used so successfully in the past to make the change. Until the left holds the Dems accountable for its actions, we're just gonna get the same watered down conservatism as official policy over and over again.

"Not as bad as the GOP" makes NO DIFFERENCE if it's still bad (and look at Obama's record re: presidential power to wonder if it's even different at all).

...for the members of my tribe who kept slamming Hillary for the Clinton Administration "throwing us under the bus" in the 90s, and declaring that Obama was so different than any other candidate, to admit that a politician is a politician is a politician. I never cared about what Melissa Etheridge thought about politics and now, quelle surprise, we have radio silence.

By that I mean, is the Solicitor General required to always defend the law as it is, regardless of his or the President's personal views? Is he allowed to oppose a duly enacted law in open court or even take a pass and not participate?

...continue to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this and other LGBT issues. His administration keeps telling its prominent gay supporters that it is working "behind the scenes" to further their causes, quietly trying to build consensus. They ask for patience, and they remind us of Bill Clinton's disasterous foray into this arena early in his administration.

But I am beginning to fear we are not going to see any support from him on these issues until he's safely in a second term, and that worries me tremendously. There is wide support for repealing DADT right now, so you have to ask -- if not now, when? What happens if the right wins back some Congressional and Senate seats in 2010?

Yep, just one more broken promise. The disillusionment continues. While I was traveling in SE Asia right after the election one of my tour guides was asking about Obama. His summary was basically that Obama is "just another politician". That, sadly, seems to have been a dead-on observation.

Defending the put upon powers that be

Keeping Washington/Wall Street safe from the dirty rabble

Putting the lessers back in their places

Upholding the Unitary Executive

Standing up for Truth, Justice and the American Way of Business

(This guy is really turning out to be a bit of a douchebag)

How many people commenting on this recognize that there is a difference between the Obama administration and Obama as an individual? Obama is not going to get personally involved in every issue that passes through the U.S. Justice Department.

Nonetheless, I am disappointed that Obama, the individual, did not step up on this one and press the DOJ to come out in favor of SCOTUS hearing the case.