There's much more to Russert's question - and the candidates' responses - than is posted here.

First, the Solomon Amendment has a long history that goes beyond "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." While it's true that, yes, the military's gay ban has been the primary force behind Solomon in recent years, the Amendment was also a result of the Vietnam War, for example, when pacifism was widespread on campuses and universities attemped to block recruiters as part of an anti-war statement. Indeed, colleges have attempted, throughout recent history, to keep recruiters off-campus because of anti-war sentiment, the military's treatment of women AND because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," among other reasons.

When you look at the historical context of the Amendment, Russert's question of "class" isn't as far off the mark as this post makes it seem.

Nor are the candidates' responses. Here's why:

All 3 of the candidates in the Nevada debate - Clinton, Edwards and Obama - support repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." So, if you work on the premise that Solomon is based primarily (in today's climate) on the gay ban, then if the next commander-in-chief is successful in repealing the law, the underlying controversy becomes a moot point.

The truth is that there are many LGBT college students who would be interested in military careers. And they should be able to take advantage of military job opportunities, regardless of their sexual orientation. By repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," we accomplish several important things:

1. LGBT Americans can serve openly in the armed forces;

2. The military will be in compliance with the non-discrimination policies of colleges & universities (the main protest of the anti-Solomon movement correctly being that schools should not have to abandon their non-discrimination policies solely for the military);

and

3. The current Solomon controversy is resolved.

We should support colleges & universities that want to uphold their non-discrimination policies. And we should also support a military where America's best and brightest - regardless of sexual orientation - have an opportunity to serve.

The easiest way to accomplish those objectives - and render Solomon a non-issue - is to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- a position all 3 Democratic candidates fully support.

(For more on the topic, see this excellent New York Times article on Solomon and the gay ban.)

You know im all in favor of any one who is medicaly and mentaly fit being allowed to join the military.

But the big 3 still are not realy comfy around the GLBT issues they love to talk around them but not directly at them at least with the Republicans you know where you stand from the momment you ask them about GLBT issues.Which usaly is a big old blank stare and next question please response.BTW this is real fun when its coming from another Republican asking abut these issues!To see the look of horror on there faces.
Pity im in a backwater and cant ask anyone but local candidates about the issues ah the joy of being in a Mega Tuesday state.

DADT is an expression of the bigotry embedded in the politics of the ruling parties and the military brass and has to be opposed on that basis alone. It designates us an inferior class of citizens, emboldens the dangerous homobigotry of the military brass and encourages discrimination and violence. DADT is a Democratic Party initiative supported by Republicans. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and they don’t have the votes in their own party to repeal it.

The ruling parties are currently perusing a military and diplomatic policy that encompasses imperial wars to acquire the resources of other nations. Using a propaganda model earlier utilized by the Nazi’s to justify their attacks on Czechoslovakia, Poland, the USSR etc. the Bush Administration lied about Hussein’s regime to make a grab for Iraqi oil. The US Senate has demanded that Iraq surrender its petroleum resources to US companies and divide themselves into three national entities to make it easier for the US to establish control.

They plan on being in the region indefinitely and are building an enormous infrastructure of state of the art military bases and a 36 building embassy in Baghdad. Bush and Clinton want to expand the war into Iran using nukes. Obama wants to attack Pakistan, a particularly demented idea since they DO have nukes and can bite back. 650,000 plus Iraqis have murdered as a result of Bush’s invasion and as of Friday, January 18, 2008 3,926 GI’s have been killed and 28,770 have been wounded, 12,918 of them seriously.

Opposition to DADT should be limited to repealing it. We should NOT encourage GLBT folk to enter the military or make a career of it and we should oppose their wars of resource piracy. If they broaden the war we should oppose reintroduction of the draft. We should support the idea of the total and immediate withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East. We should look for allies among the civilian antiwar movement and US military personnel opposed to the war.

Alex,

SLDN did file an amicus brief in support of the FAIR Coalition when they appealed the Solomon Amendment to the Supreme Court. Certainly, the military should't get a 'pass' on complying with non-discrimination policies at schools. No other employer that discriminates against LGBT people would be allowed to recruit, and universities should be allowed to enforce their policy.

Solomon, however, would be even more difficult to get rid of than "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The high court has ruled, in a 9-0 decision, that the law is constitutional. And whenever Congress has taken a vote on Solomon (and they do so quite often, for some reason), the House can barely muster 60 votes against it. For all intents and purposes, Solomon is settled law, and is here to stay. Which is why focusing on repeal of the military's ban (with 140 co-sponsors and counting in favor) makes more sense.

To answer your questions:

1. If a Democratic president doesn't have the votes in Congress to repeal DA, DT, they'll surely not have the votes to get rid of Solomon. The commander-in-chief cannot simply 'ignore' Congressional law (present administration exempted, perhaps), and they would likely cause a political firestorm if they refused to implement Solomon. The next president's energies would be far better spent building consensus in Congress around getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," than in trying to defeat Solomon.

2. As mentioned above, it's unlikely that a new administration - Democratic or Republican - would try to circumvent Solomon. There's no doubt that DA, DT is the current underlying reason for the Solomon discussion. But given the solid block of support in Congress, again, its not likely to go anywhere anytime soon.

3. Under current law, schools have to make their own decisions about whether to risk losing funding. Vermont Law School, for example, voluntarily gives up its federal funding rather than allow recruiters on campus. They, however, receive a relatively small amount of funding compared, to, say, Harvard, which receives extraordinary federal funding for their medical school, among others. (A university that doesn't allow recruiters loses funding for ALL of its schools, not just the particular campus where recruiters are not allowed.) No school should be faced with the decision to abandon their non-discrimination policy or allow recruiters, but present law doesn't give them much of a choice.

I'm certainly not arguing that Solomon is a GOOD law, but it's pretty iron-clad in terms of support. That's why I continually "beat the drum" about focusing on DA, DT instead. That's where we'll be far more successful, and that's where we'll put the underlying controversy about Solomon to rest at last. :-)

Eric, please explain to us how honor is accrued by the wholesale, wanton murder of 650,000 Iraqis’ in a war whose only purpose is to steal their oil. Explain the honor of serving with Blackwaters’ * mercenary gangsters, of ‘shock and awe’ air and missile attacks against civilians, or the honor of being in a military that trains and arms the religious jihadists who campaign to kill Iraqi gays and lesbians.

Explain the honor of killing over a million Vietnamese in an unprovoked war of aggression and the honor of numberless My Lai’s.

It was an honor to fight in the Continental Army for Independence and in the Union Army to save the Republic and crush slavery. Iraq is different. It’s a shameful and unprovoked war of aggression to steal oil. It should be settled by International War Crimes Tribunal.

In Iraq GI’s are getting more than angry about the mauling they’re taking and the deaths and causalities they suffer to make the world safe for Texaco. Instead of the Army’s dishonorable ‘search and destroy’ operations they pursue an honorable ‘search and avoid’ tactic. They’re awareness is like that of GI’s in the Vietnam war when they’d lost all faith in the ‘mission’ and began avoiding combat. It’s a widespread, silent mood of insubordination and defiance that the brass prefers to ignore.

I’m afraid. Eric, that the ‘honor’ you speak of is not so different from the ‘honor’ or the WWII Wehrmacht. This is to say Eric, that there’s no honor at all. Just murder.

* In January 2008 Marshall Adame, a Democrat running for Congress in North Carolina's 3rd District, took part in a live question-and-answer forum where he was asked a question about Blackwater. Adame who had served as a State Department official in Iraq recounted; "I saw them shoot people, I saw them crash into cars while I was their passenger. There was absolutely no reason, no provocation whatsoever." He then stated "There is no place in the American force structure, or in American culture for mercenaries, they are guns for hire; No more, no less." (Wikipedia)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/02/mil_protest/\

http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/69915/

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39788