Moving to prohibit the military from spending money to enforce DADT is a good idea.
Among other things, it is a non-filibusterable measure, and when the usual crowd of Republicans start screaming, it’s an opportunity to show them up as hypocrites, since they are now ignoring the military leadership and the budget and HR needs of the military.
It also raises a question about Senator Gillibrand (D-BY).
She was, when she was the Congresswoman from New York’s 20th district a very conservative lawmaker, but now, that she’s in the Senate, far more liberal in her record.
The 20th is a conservative district, R+2 according to the Wiki, and it is understandable how a politician might find it in their best interest to represent the needs and wants of their district.
On the other hand, since being appointed by Governor Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton, she has also faced the prospect of viable primary challengers from the liberal wing of the party,* and her positioning may simply be an attempt to forestall any challengers, much in the same way that Arlen Spector is doing in Pennsylvania.
There is nothing wrong with her attempting to represent the views of her constituency, and her constituency has changed, and become significantly more liberal with the change in office.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know if this is driven by a constituent considerations, or if it is driven by primary election considerations.
If it’s the former, she should be a decent Senator. If it’s the latter, then come November, we’ll have another wanker in the Senate, at least for the next year or so, until she positions herself for the regularly scheduled election for that Senate seat.
*We’ll ignore the Harold Ford, corporatist DLC puke “candidacy” right now, because I’m not sure if it’s a serious candidacy, an attempt at extortion, or an exercise in masturbatory ego stroking.