Back in the day (OK, last year), President Obama was known for saying things like "don't tell me words don't matter" and pointing out that some couplings of "just words" were actually far more than that, bearing historical significance and carrying great weight. He was right, to a point. "I have a dream" was one such instance of words being more than "just words."

But I'm afraid that Obama's planned speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner this coming weekend is an instance of, well, words being... just words. Per Phil Klein:

President Obama is scheduled to speak to Human Rights Campaign's dinner this Saturday in order to quell concerns within the gay community about his failure to act on gay marriage and the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. I think that this is a telling metaphor for his presidency. Faced with a difficult dilemma -- whether to keep his promises to an important political constituency at the risk of causing a huge controversy that will threaten other domestic priorities -- his solution is to just give a speech. In this case, the matter happens to be gay rights, but it could just as easily be any other issue. The problem for Obama is that while speeches are enough during a campaign, they have diminishing returns when you're president, because at some point you have to actually make decisions that are sure to anger one side or another. ...

That's the title of my new blog post over at Hynes Sights.  Check it out. [intro]

The NY Times notes that "an article in an official military journal argues forcefully for repealing the 'don’t ask, don’t tell' law, which requires homosexuals in the services to keep their sexual orientation secret," calling the journal a "rare source of attack on 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.'"

I'll say.  Apparently, the article was reviewed by the office of Admiral Mike Mullen (you know, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and made it through.

Is this a sign that the military could be moving towards a public change of stance that would signal more ambivalence about, and less opposition to, gays and lesbians openly serving?  I guess it's possible.  The Times says the article "may well signal a shift in the official winds."

Here's hoping.  The Obama administration has been pretty clear in expressing that it does not wish to press the issue without the military at least visibly softening its position on DADT ahead of pushing for repeal, if not outright giving repeal the thumbs-up.  Will this begin to give them cover to actually begin acting on a key campaign pledge, as opposed to merely paying lip service to it?  We'll see. [intro]