As I noted earlier, the first couple hosted a celebration honoring LGBT Pride Month in the East Room this afternoon. The event comes amid rising tensions between the Obama administration and the gay community, who are disappointed at the lack of attention given to their issues so far this year. For the most part, Obama didn't mince words. He described the gay rights "struggle" as "difficult," "painful," and "heartbreaking." He likened the movement to prior civil-rights battles, drawing parallels with "all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them." He told the by-invitation-only group that he understood their frustrations, and it wasn't for him to advise patience, "any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."

After listing the steps his administration has taken to further gay rights—signing the memo about extending partner benefits to federal employees, calling on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, meeting with Matthew Shephard's mother as part of a strategy to address hate crimes, and repealing the HIV travelers ban—Obama turned to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And this is where his words went from unambiguous to murky. Although he acknowledged that "preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security," his plan for ending DADT was unclear. He's apparently working with the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to develop some sort of strategy, but he didn't give a deadline or outline a process. The upshot? This doesn't really advance the repeal much beyond a campaign promise. There is a bright side for gay-rights activists, though. If you read between the lines, DADT will likely be repealed before the next election (or 2016, depending how bullish you are on Obama's chances). Here's Obama:

I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps...We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.

I'm thinking those words will be ringing in the gay community for weeks.

Over the past couple of weeks, we at the Gaggle have been discussing Obama's fraught relationship with the gay community, a group that provided his campaign with both staunch support and cash. (Read Holly's summary post here.) Today there are two symbolically important developments in this relationship. First, the president is hosting a reception in the East Room this afternoon to honor LGBT Pride Month and commemorate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Second, Politico's J-Mart (filling in for Ben Smith) reports that the administration is planning to repeal a ban that restricts HIV-positive travelers from entering the country. It has filed notice with the Federal Register, so there will be a 45-day window for public discussion before the Department of Health and Human Services enacts the change. While the HIV-travelers ban is not strictly a gay issue, it's certainly one that advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign feel strongly about.

Will these two moves be enough to sate gay activists? Probably not, but it's unclear whether gay leaders are prepared to escalate the fight at this time. As political guru Adam Nagourney writes, despite growing public support for gay rights, some Democrats are wary about pushing for them (and providing ammo for conservatives) at a time when tricky issues like heath reform and energy are on the table. Democrats don't need the distraction of a fight for gay marriage, for example, right now. Gay leaders have no doubt heard this message, and might be momentarily satisfied with these overtures if they view them as an indication that the administration will back its promises on "don't ask, don't tell" and gay marriage when it has some breathing room. The problem is that the "right" time to tackle gay-rights issues may never materialize. Your Gaggler's suspicion is that today's moves will defuse criticism for the time being, but if gay-rights groups don't see some movement by early next year (i.e., when health and energy are taken care of), they'll turn the heat up again. They'll want something more concrete for their troubles before the 2012 cycle, and they're smart enough to want it done well before the GOP starts gearing up.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on CNN's American Morning today and admitted, in a roundabout fashion, that he's considering running for governor of New York in 2010. Giuliani said, "I don’t know if I am or if I’m not" entering the gubernatorial race, but disclosed that he's been thinking about it. Incumbent Gov. David Paterson has been polling poorly for some time and would likely lose to Giuliani in a general election. But if Paterson doesn't run, other Democratic contenders, such as Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, whose political heritage would serve him well, would be tougher competitors.

Your Gaggler would be interested to see what impact Rudy's spectacularly bad campaign for president would have in a New York state race, if any. I happen to think his aborted stab at the GOP nomination is one of the most underreported stories of the 2008 campaign, overshadowed by all things Obama. Back in 2006, Giuliani was widely considered a shoo-in for the nomination. He had national positive name recognition, a seemingly efficient fundraising machine, and an easily spun record of reform and achievement. His questionable personal choices seemed the only flaw in the plan (not that they'd ever seriously harmed his chances in New York City contests). But it never even got to that. His disastrous Florida strategy caused his campaign to flame out before his divorces, affair, and blasé approach to cross-dressing had a chance to be nationally litigated. In a matter of weeks, Giuliani went from being one of the most popular and recognizable figures in American politics to being in the company of the least successful presidential contenders in history. Will this embarrassment, and the poor political judgment it illustrates, matter to New Yorkers? Probably not. New Yorkers have never cared much for how the rest of the country judged their politicians. Maybe Rudy's lack of regard for the retail, handshake politics of small states like New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Iowa will even win him a few fans in the Empire State.