His first step was getting rid of the HIV travel ban, already signed by Bush, but not yet implemented. Again, the process dragged on for months—but the White House insisted it was better to have everything in perfect legal order so the change could not be challenged. It came through.

Then he endured a hazing by gay activists and writers (including me) on his slow pace on gays in the military. But we were wrong. He made the brilliant calculation that he would not push it right away, as Clinton did, and he would not be the front person to advocate the change. Adm. Michael Mullen would do it, backed by Republican Defense Secretary Bob Gates. By bringing the military top brass and Gates slowly on board, he outmaneuvered the Republicans. Even then, he almost ran out of time, but clinched it after the 2010 midterms. He worked our last gay nerves. But when an openly gay solider asked a question at a Republican debate, a photo of a lesbian couple kissing during a Navy homecoming was reprinted around the country, and a Navy veteran asked his Marine boyfriend to marry him in what was the first proposal involving two gay men on a U.S. military base, the sheer scope of the cultural change was astonishing.

On marriage too, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had already made the critical decision that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on its face, that discrimination against homosexuals warranted heightened legal scrutiny, and that therefore the administration would no longer defend DOMA in court, as it had in its first two years. In other words, by February 2011, Obama and Holder put the significant weight of the Justice Department behind the constitutional logic of marriage equality. Immediately, the lawyers in the Proposition 8 case in California claimed this as a “material” or legally significant development. It was. And, of course, if discriminating against gays in marriage violates the equal-protection clause, as the Justice Department claims, then DOMA is doomed. And in making that decision, Obama did far more to advance marriage equality substantively than he did in his recent interview. To add icing to the cake, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech for the first time asserting that, for the United States, gay rights were integral to human rights across the globe, and the U.S. would conduct diplomacy accordingly.

This, by any measure, is an astonishing pace of change in one presidential term.

Whether you think Obama's done too much or not enough on this issue, I can't see how these don't count as real and substantive gains. Which is why I don't understand when people claim that Obama hasn't achieved anything in his term or that — in grim echoes of the end of the Clinton years — that it doesn't matter which party is in the White House. This is just one issue, but it's an example of the way elections have a real impact on a nation. I'm the first to tell you the power of the presidency is often overstated, and that even seasoned oberservers too often overlook the significance of Congress and the states, but let there be no mistake about it: the president is the most powerful single political actor in the United States, and who that person is matters.

• America's first gay president? Try James Buchanan.
• The White House has been inserting its accomplishments into biographies of past presidents.
• Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
• What's behind Ron Paul's decision to scale back his campaign?
• Cord Jefferson finds a realistic portrayal of African Americans on TV — from 1992.
• We like American music: Galactic ft. Mystikal & Mannie Fresh, "Move Fast" (2012)

There's a whole lot of city off there in the distance

Alyssa Rosenberg wants to see the purview of TV shows set in DC extend beyond the immediate vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave:

Veep, HBO’s half-hour comedy about a flailing Vice President starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus, has been on the air for three weeks, but it’s only the beginning of what promises to be a glut of Washington-based and politically-themed television shows. Shonda Rhimes’ Scandal, about a DC PR fixer based on Judy Smith, seems likely to be back for a second season. USA has a stacked cast behind its show Political Animals, in which Sigourney Weaver will play a former First Lady who’s now Secretary of State. And NBC just picked up 1600 Penn, a family comedy in which father had better know best because the fate of the free world depends on it. Despite being set in Washington, it’s not clear how much these shows actually have to say about contemporary American politics—I tend to agree with critics who say that Veep is more an office comedy where the employees happen to work for the Vice President than an examination of the specific and hilarious cravenness of our current political system. If you want to get at that, though, you might have to move beyond the White House and the Old Executive Office Building.

She suggests congressional offices, administrative agencies, the political press, advocacy groups, and think tanks. Which is fine as far as it goes, and, sure, Rosenberg is thinking within the tight confines of politically-themed television. But how about we get some TV that focuses on the Washington that doesn't constantly have its mind in beltway business, even if its hip pocket relies upon it? Washington is a company town where the company is the government, but a sizable — and mostly invisble — population lives far from the city's monuments and political buildings. It would be nice if a medium other than rap music engaged with the Green Line side of the city.

As Adam Serwer puts it:

Washington, D.C., has always been two cities. Washington spills out of downtown Metro stations at 8 A.M.; D.C. huddles on crowded buses at 6 A.M. On Sundays, when Washington goes to brunch, D.C. is in church. Washington clinks glasses in bars like Local 16 in its leisure time, while D.C. sweats out its perm at dance clubs like Love or DC Star. Washington has health-insurance benefits, but D.C. is paying out of pocket. Washington just closed on a condo; D.C. is in foreclosure. Washington is making money. D.C. never recovered from the 2001 recession.

Hi guys! The blog is back after a couple days break^[1] — I haven't been slacking, I've been out of the office. In Melbourne, to be precise, illustrated above in all its drizzly glory. A couple of minor notes from my trip:

1. Although Australians are known to talk about Melbourne as being more European than other cities in the country, I noticed a certain Americanness to the city. The wide streets, the flat landscape, the grid layout — even the valuable downtown real estate occupied by massive parking lots — reminded me much more of certain American cities than Sydney does. Although Melbourne is much smaller, I was reminded at times of Chicago.
2. For one reason or another, most of the domestic air travel I've experienced has been within the United States. Catching a flight in Australia made me realise how preposterously overblown the US's Transport Security Administration regulations are. Flying in America has made me associate aiports with long lines, intrusive pat downs, extensive undressing to pass through security, and grimly vigilant staff at every turn. It was a pleasant surprise to discover air travel could take place without any of these intrusions. I understand that the US has had experience with air-based terror in a way that Australia has not, but I don't see any reason to suppose Australia is being lax in its security. Flying doesn't need to involve what my colleague James Fallows calls "security theatre."

1. Tell me you missed me.

Download Part 1

Download Part 2

Veep recognises how representatives in DC really look. These are fusty old politicians, the sort who win office because they can bring dollars back to their districts, not because they have a charming smile. 

Less realistic, perhaps, is the clothing. That's what Kelsey Wallace says, anyway:

Now, this is probably due to the fact that the show is deliberately vague when it comes to political parties and rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't get through an episode without exclaiming aloud that a woman in the oval office would never be allowed to wear something form-fitting, low-cut, and sleeveless without the media having a total field day. Look at the whole "Does Michelle Obama have the right to bare arms?" frenzy that occurred when the First Lady ventured out sans cardigan!

Then again, this might be because the show's costume designer specifically avoided looking to Washington for inspiration:

"When Ernesto Martinez, the lead costume designer for the new HBO series “Veep,” started to think about how to dress the show’s star, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, for her role as the country’s first female vice president, he quickly decided that inspiration would have to come from somewhere other than the current office holders in the nation’s capital.

Most politicians, their stab at looking good is really not so great,” Mr. Martinez said in a recent phone interview from Los Angeles. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s much-chronicled pantsuits were never an option. “The idea was to be powerful, but attractive,” he said.

Even Nancy Pelosi, the California congresswoman known for her stylish power suits, was dismissed as a possible role model. Too old, Mr. Martinez thought, for Ms. Louis-Dreyfus’s character, Selina Meyer.

I'm sure the costumes help Louis-Dreyfus look better, but they are one of the elements of the show I find least realistic.