Does Barack Obama plan to govern from the center, or is he just avoiding making Bill Clinton’s mistakes? As I report in this week’s issue of WORLD, some analysts view Obama’s hiring a plethora of former Clinton officials as a sign that the new prez may not be a stealth radical after all, but rather a New Democrat — moderate on fiscal and foreign policy, and liberal on social issues. (Not all analysts think that, BTW.)

Now comes news that Obama does not plan to move quickly on his campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the military, possibly delaying such a push even until 2010. The Washington Times reports:

Mr. Obama’s gay-ban pledge was not a major campaign issue. However, he provided a policy statement to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law. He also said that he wants the Pentagon to school military people on how to treat gays.

“The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute,” he told the group, in a statement posted on their Web site. “It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols.”

The law states that open homosexuality in the ranks would be detrimental to combat unit readiness.

Delaying the congressional vote a year would give those in favor of lifting the ban time to build support, but it would also let their opposition organize and possibly sway public opinion, as they did in 1993, when Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban but wound up having to compromise with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which supports lifting the ban, said national polls show that, unlike in 1993, the public supports removing the ban. Mr. Sarvis expressed optimism that Democratic gains in the past two elections make it “more likely” Congress will let gays serve openly.

Gay activists point out that gays currently serve honorably and effectively in the military and that’s absolutely true. The concern many Pentagon officials have is the effect of open homosexuality on unit cohesion and morale.

Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, said, “It’s true that many in the military have looked the other way and served alongside people they know are into homosexuality. But that is with the ban in place. Open acceptance would change the atmosphere entirely. If fraternization is a problem now between men and women, imagine the conflicts with openly gay officers who no longer have to be reticent.”

The Washington Times piece is fairly thorough. Please read it before commenting on this thread.

SCEPTER ALERT: This thread is closed to arguments about homosexuality, per se. Comments not directly related to the plusses and minuses of allowing gays to serve openly in the military are not allowed on this thread.

SCEPTER ALERT II: Please keep this thread reasoned and scrupulously scrubbed of personal attacks. That’s an order. :)