- DADT: The passage of DADT signaled that America had moved on from pretending it had a total ban on gays in the military. This was progressive then, believe it or not. Gradually though, we witnessed - under this policy - friends and family of gay servicemembers (including a star of MTV's "The Real World"), having to deal with these bizarre double lives: "How was your weekend?" "Oh, uh, great... My wife and I went to Fire Is.., I mean Long Island." Ultimately, this law allowed the nation to see - especially after 911 and our long wars - the heavy toll the ban on "talking about" gays was placing on unit cohesion. [Incidentally, DADT also helped pave the way for women in combat, as it exposed how both gays and women had for years been denied full military careers for the same bogus reason: that they were supposed "distractions."]
- DOMA: Happily, a distant memory. The passage of DOMA - which President Clinton called "unnecessary and divisive" (1996) - at least helped put a big fat spotlight on the discriminatory nature of the thousands of federal benefits and protections that had long been denied to committed same-sex couples. The GOP were just getting started using the LGBT community as their preferred "wedge issue" back then. DOMA, considering no gay marriages would occur in the US for another decade, was tame. The injustices brought on by this law would later pave the way for national marriage equality faster than most people ever anticipated.
"So there are two reasons why voters will turn out to vote. One reason is if the election is competitive. The other reason why voters will participate is when they see meaningful policy differences among the candidates. And so far when we look through the exit polls, Democrats are by and large satisfied with the two choices that they have. Most Democrats, about 70 percent or so, say that they would be satisfied with whichever candidate - Clinton or Sanders - if they go on to win the nomination." Professor Michael McDonald, University of Florida
UPDATE 04/09/2016 : Here's an important piece by New York Times' Paul Krugman, who says essentially the same thing about Senator Sanders.
"And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board." - Paul KrugmanThe article is currently 'most emailed.'
Ready for Her.
UPDATE 07/29/2016 : After the Democratic National Convention....
Not much to add after that breathtaking celebration of being not only an American, but a Democrat. Congrats and Godspeed to Clinton/Kaine on these next 100 or so days until the November 8 general election.
Hillary Clinton just concluded an early evening speech in Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania. She did an incredible job explaining what her campaign is all about. Save one issue, which I'll get to, it was pitch perfect. Her campaign builds on the victories over the last eight years, and gloriously reintroduces the idea of "green collar jobs."
The issue? Adding a reference to the last eight years of Republican obstruction, including with this latest Supreme Court hijacking, would give context to the anger people are feeling with DC. Congress did that intentionally to sabotage the recovery, to sabotage President Obama.
I hope she makes that clear over the next three months. Perhaps Trump's folks will realize they're angry with the wrong party.