So... in addition to having his administration file briefs saying that DOMA is unfair but reasonably likely to be constitutional or somesuch, President Obama has also been busy touting his plans to continue and indeed expand US involvement in Afghanistan, a mission that has now gone far beyond its original purpose of tracking down and killing Osama Bin Laden (a purpose, I would add, that pretty much everyone accepted as good and sensible, unlike our stated purpose in getting into Iraq-- something I say with total disregard to my own complicated feelings about both subjects).

My friend Jim Antle at the American Spectator senses a bit of change here, insofar as candidate Obama was pretty down on US military engagement abroad in the case of Iraq, defined by plenty of nation-building and other endeavors not consistently viewed as integral to ensuring the US' national security (two things that seem also to define current efforts in Afghanistan).

My friend Alex Conant, with whom I served at the RNC last year, also presumably sees change, insofar as Obama may now be avoiding the political mistakes George W Bush made with regard to the domestic selling of ongoing US engagement in Iraq-- something that ultimately entailed a lot of the same sacrifices that ongoing US involvement in Afghanistan will, by virtue of it being a very tough locale in which to operate and there being a (more) complicated (than originally defined) mission involved, similar to the complicated mission that ultimately applied to Iraq. ...

That is the essence of what the Obama administration currently has to say on DOMA, at least if you believe what is reported today in this AP piece: "Obama administration says marriage law unfair."  Excerpt:

The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.

Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.

In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law.

Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.

My gut says that John Aravosis, who has been very critical of the administration on DOMA (yay for non-cheerleaders with spines, even those I disagree with a good 60% of the time), has a point when he writes "the only reason this is 'good' is because of how 'bad' they did on the previous brief." 

Certainly, this doesn't feel very "change-ey."  It actually kind of feels like a slightly Clintonite maneuver, albeit one that would presumably only take place post 1990's, since, well, the Clintonite maneuver back then was giving a thumbs-up to DOMA in the first place.  It also feels really... lame, quite frankly. [intro]

It wasn't about North Korea releasing journalists, it wasn't about bust-ups at town hall meetings, it wasn't about health care, it wasn't Sotomayor's confirmation vote and swearing in.

It was this:

I'm an Arsenal fan and a Celtic fan whose family comes from Glasgow and who used to live in Islington.

I guess no matter what the result is, I should be happy, right?

But I have no idea who to support.  Please feel free to email with suggestions. [intro]