The Huldre

There's a folk tale of a sort, related by Jane Lindskold in her book Changer, if I recall correctly, about God visiting Adam and Eve (and it must have been under the Fall) and asking to see the children. Eve insisted that the two she produced for inspection were the only ones, because the others had not been bathed and made presentable. They were called the huldre, the invisible ones.

This post from Andrew Sullivan relates what is an unfortunate truth of the American government and the Obama administration:

Why has America become such a callous outlier on these matters? Why is the government forcing more and more able, qualified, productive and talented citizens into a diaspora to protect their families? And why, even after a big victory for Obama and a Democratic Congress, is there not the slightest chance of any progress for the foreseeable future?

Because it's about gays. And we are still, in the eyes of the federal government, sub-human.

If it were only gay issues, I'd be willing to cut Obama some slack, but gay issues are only a symptom of something much deeper: the "leader" does't know how to lead. (Although he seems very practiced at following.) I'm no longer willing to put up with fantasies of a "grand strategy," or the idea that anything, no matter how ineffective and how completely bastardized by the Repubicans, is better than nothing. And if you don't think that between them Senate Republicans and Max Baucus and the Blue Dogs can some up with something worse on health-care than we've got now, you're living in a fantasy land. Fortunately, they don't have the last word, although that will be more because of the progressive caucus than the White House. Obama will, from all indications, criticize the left and wait passively for some legislation, any legislation, to cross his desk.

Note that what is happening in regard to repeal of DOMA, repeal of DADT, passage of an inclusive ENDA, is happening in the House of Representatives, not the White House. On that score, even when the executive has a clear go-ahead, as in the HIV travel ban, it's dragging its heels.

I won't go so far as to say I can't vote for a Democrat in 2010 -- Jan Schakowsky, my Congresswoman, is right on target on just about everything. My senators, not so much, but Burris won't be an issue, and Durbin has other virtues (as well as being a strong supporter of civil rights). But Obama? If he has a challenger in the Democratic primaries in 2012, I'll vote for the challenger. If not, or if he winds up as the candidate (pretty much a foregone conclusion), I'll sit it out. I'm not really all that enthusiastic about being invisible to those I've supported.