The Health Care battle in this country is failing, and not yet because of the bill itself. Like every other piece of legislation that is influential (or juicy) enough to garner attention from the media, Obama’s potentially phenomenal – potentially catastrophic – health care plan has become so politicized that if it weren’t for today’s faint-worthy and not-so-healthy temperatures, you’d swear it was late October 2012 not August 2009.

This summer has felt like the summer before an election year. Not altogether surprising I suppose given the recession, a new Latina justice who made a mildly offensive gaffe early on, and a brave attempt at universal (a word which does not mean “socialist”) health care. Yes, we have been fighting a battle with extreme fervor and animosity under the guise of Obama fanatacs vs. critics, the left vs. the right, the uninsured vs. insurance companies, and the list goes on. Maybe, however, we’re missing the point. Maybe we are all fighting against something bigger, less governable, and certainly more chaotic. continue »

Image by SFBart via Flickr

Recently, it seems that all of my gay and lesbian friends have been asking, “Why is Obama ignoring the gays?” I’ve always felt compelled to defend the President, making the popular argument that federally legalizing same-sex marriage is both political suicide for a first term president and, perhaps, unconstitutional. I’m not as idealistic as many of my friends, and plus, the president has a lot on his plate right now.

Ever since Barack Obama initiated his presidential run, he has stuck by the notion that marriage should not be defined the federal government. Rather, it should be defined by the states. I can live with that stance, though admittedly I am a bit tired of hearing the President refer to civil unions as if they were some major privilege the LGBT community should be grateful to possess (if in fact their state allows them.) In truth, I don’t even blame Obama for saying that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. He’s a politician, and he first made that statement when he was a rookie running for president. Side note: I try to ignore that the infamous Miss California made almost the same statement on same-sex marriage. And, I try to forget that former Vice President Dick Cheney is apparently more supportive of same-sex marriage than President Obama.

Last night, on Brian Williams’ report, “Inside the Obama White House,” on NBC, when asked about same-sex marriage and whether or not gays and lesbians who want to marry have a friend in the White House, President Obama answered, “I don’t think that it makes sense for the federal government to determine what marriage is; that isn’t traditionally the federal government’s role.” OK, fine. We get it. It should be up to the states so there’s nothing you can do, Mr. President.

But wait a second. Did we all forget those four fateful letters? The ones that stand for more-than-a-decade-old legislation which betrays the concept of equal rights? Is Obama not aware that DOMA (otherwise known by its frightening name, the Defense Of Marriage Act) is still in place? Signed under President Bill Clinton in 1996, the bill federally defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The act also includes that no state is required to recognize a union of marriage that is performed in any other state. In other words, if you’re married in any of the six states (New Hampshire joined the pack yesterday) that have legalized same-sex marriage, your marriage is legally worth nothing if you travel across state lines, unless of course the state you travel to has a specific law recognizing your union. And there aren’t many of those.

Surely Obama is aware that DOMA exists. In fact, last year he called the law “abhorrent.” In addition, he said that he would “fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” Amazing! Oh wait, “On the basis of marital status” does not mean same-sex marriage. But yes! He said he’d repeal DOMA! But… It’s almost a year later and he hasn’t really mentioned it since.

If our President feels so strongly that marriage should be left up to each state, then why is DOMA, a law that federally defines marriage between members of the opposite sex, still in place? I don’t think the LGBT community, as a whole, is expecting President Obama to be a gay activist by any means. It’s his first term. In fact, we’re in his first 200 days. We’ve got two wars going on, an economic – ahem, GM – crisis, and the famous Obama health care bill to push through. That said, the fight for same-sex marriage is arguably the last great civil rights fight in this nation. The president who preached “change,” and whose parents would not have been able to be married in 6 states in 1967 because one was black and one was white, should surely understand the LGBT plight. Right?

As of now, wrong. There is no way of knowing President Obama’s personal views on same-sex marriage. However, as the temperature of this country turns to equality, watching states advance by a seemingly domino effect towards the legality of same sex marriage, I have to wonder how long Obama can “ignore” the gays before it just becomes bad politics.

I don’t expect President Obama to make statements replete with ire on Proposition 8, nor do I expect a proposal from him to legalize gay marriage on a federal level. What we should all expect, however, is for President Obama to start making a serious move to overturn DOMA. Because with DOMA in place, hearing him repeat time after time that he believes marriage should be “left up to the states,” is starting to sound less like liberal rhetoric and more like hypocrisy. I’m a cautious supporter of your White House, President Obama. And I’d like to keep it that way. Overturn DOMA, and I’ll be a bit less cautious.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The last time President Obama made a highly publicized overseas trip, he was called “soft” and “apologetic,” and Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren likened the voyage to “study abroad.” OK, props to Van Susteren – that’s hilarious.

The first trip, however, took place in Obama’s first 100 days, a time when, in my eyes, a little PR is just fine and even necessary. As Bush’s successor, President Obama is faced with some major challenges, one of which is to reinstate a positive United States image overseas. Although on his last trip Obama did not garner the support he was hoping for from NATO with regard to his mission in Afghanistan, Democrats and Obama supporters still argued that the trip was a success in that he improved the reputation of the United States abroad, which would lead to future support of US policy by its allies and the international arena. As I wrote in a “First 100 Days” piece for Fox Forum, this game was still Obama’s to lose.

Now, however, we’re far past the 100 day mark and you can almost feel the Obama Administration’s urgency in passing legislation and policy. They’re aware that they cannot just be a White House of perfect PR (and “perfect PR” is a stretch anyway when the Vice President is most often referred to as a loose cannon.) In Washington today, Obama called the next few months “key” in legislating a new health care system. Almost simultaneously, in Minnesota, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty announced that he would not run for a third term, lending to suspicion that he is considering a 2012 presidential run. We’re already talking about the next election? The Obama Administration knows that it’s time for policy-making and enacting the actual change that Obama’s presidential campaign called for, and Obama’s trip to Egypt to talk to the “Muslim world” will be scrutinized with that in mind.

Obama’s speech in Cairo on June 4th, where he plans to address the United States relationship to Muslims, has already received criticism and Air Force One hasn’t even touched down yet. Some are hailing Cairo as the wrong place to give a speech to the “Muslim world,” and that speaking there seems to equate Arabs and Muslims when only 15-20% of the world’s Muslims are, in fact, Arab. Perhaps the speech would be more suitable in Indonesia, where a larger number of Muslims reside, and where Obama grew up at an early age. That said, attempting to garner substantial support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a significantly smart and strategic move by the Obama administration as those two nation-states will be integral to enacting US policy in the region.

Another obstacle that Obama will encounter is the fact that his presidential campaign suggested to many (including those in the Muslim world) that we would be pulling out of Iraq at an expedited rate. Obama’s newest policy calls for 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, not to mention a more active approach to Afghanistan. As prominent Al Qaeda leader Al Zawahri stated today, “Muslims have already received President Obama’s bloody messages” and the Muslim Brotherhood has called Obama’s trip to Egypt “useless.”

What Obama needs to do in Egypt is to find the right mix of his usual smooth-talking that will win over the moderates in the audience, while reassuring the rest that United States policy will take aggressive action to remove more troops from Iraq. No matter what the President says with regard to the quagmire of Israeli-Palestinian relations, he will ignite ire from factions both in the United States and in the Muslim world. However, given that this Egypt trip is being looked at as his chance to lay down policy rather than attempt to coax the Muslim world with his words, he would be best advised to say something substantive on the matter, even if not a major policy decision.

In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and other extremist groups are losing power because they have not provided domestic solutions for the populations of the countries they inhabit. If Obama can spell out policies that would aid people in their daily lives, whether in policy with regard to the economy, health, technology, or education, he will be a big winner among much of his audience.

Finally, throughout his speech, President Obama must be very careful not to sound “apologetic” or soft when talking to the Muslim world. Soft and sensitive words that make him look like he was an innocent senator while the evil Bush Administration fired at the Middle East will not win him points at home or abroad. While Obama’s non-islamofascism is a welcomed departure from the words of his predecessor, the world is now watching to see if he can walk the way he talks, and to witness what he and his administration will “do.” While PR bought him some smiles (and some time) in the first 100 days, it will only buy him criticism and accusations of softness and inexperience now.