I hear that. I follow this sort of thing rather closely, but I do feel that a lot of times we fail to take a step back and see the forest through the trees.

My suspicions were confirmed: We did not learn anything new (well, that Mr. "Maricon" Comment thought, contrary to APA positions, that we choose to be GLBT). I did, however, feel very put off by Clinton's comments. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm sure that under the bus we go again when it comes to her. She did not compromise on anything besides DADT, and I abhorred the fact that she did not intend to fully repeal DOMA. Then again, I can't blame her. The presidential race is still very close, and with Giuliani's fairly good chance at beating her by alienating her from the retrograde majority in this country if she publicly sided with anything besides DADT with us, we might just get another term with a veto-happy republican president choking the efforts of our barely Democrat Congress.

On the other hand, I'm still voting for Clinton. Why? Because I feel she's the safest bet for national election. I'd rather have a democratic president partially neglecting us, yet still countering the Supreme Court with new liberal appointments to replace conservative/central posts and the same with all courts, than a republican president either giving the kiss of death to our current progress or shoving us into political oblivion through imposed invisibility.

All in all, the LOGO/HRC debate was successful in that it gained us visibility. Visibility is what we need. Visibility is key to breaking away with ignorance and apathy. So, while I'm clearly unimpressed with the candidates, I'm still glad that they served to bring our issues forth into the media.

Personally, I think this forum was a complete and accurate reflection of the Human Rights Campaign: Bland, studied, and breaking no new ground whatsoever.

Just one useless softball question after another, after another, after another...

I mean, I really wonder what was the whole point of this exercise was...to see if they could get all the Dems to say nice things about us for one night? Really nothing really new that I could detect was said during this presentation.

Once again, I have to say that HRC has lived up to my lowest expectations.

Ah, but we did learn something new. That Edwards supports including gay-friendly information in public schools. Maybe he's said that before but it was totally new to me—and revolutionary given that homophobes go nuts faster about their kids than anything else. Remember how they forced PBS to dump something with a CARTOON RABBIT talking to a real life lesbian couple???!!!! Not to mention the legal bans on mentioning gays in schools' HIV/AIDS education. Even in a school outside San Francisco some teachers last year refused to put up state-mandated posters that ONLY said their classrooms were to be harassment-free.

But I salute you Lucrece for understanding the fact that any Dem candidate at their worst is better than any Repug candidate at their best.

Lucrece, be careful with that "I'll vote for the electable candidate" mentality. That's how we ended up with John Kerry. *shudders* I still have nightmares...

Personally, I think this forum was a complete and accurate reflection of the Human Rights Campaign: Bland, studied, and breaking no new ground whatsoever.

Just one useless softball question after another, after another, after another...

I mean, I really wonder what was the whole point of this exercise was...to see if they could get all the Dems to say nice things about us for one night? Really nothing really new that I could detect was said during this presentation.

Once again, I have to say that HRC has lived up to my lowest expectations.

I try to be careful, but seeing even with the war in Iraq debacle that Republicans are still not over in terms of presidential elections gives me the chills. This time has shown Republicans at their worst, yet they still manage to stay close behind. And to think about it, it's really scary, as another presidential term being held by Republicans would most likely set back equality for GLBTs for a decade or two considering more Supreme Court justices are getting near the age of retirement.