Yes, it's progress to see presidential candidates pandering to our votes for separate but equal rights...I'm thrilled.

Obama publicly sucked up to a homophobic "ex-gay" preacher early in the campaign and followed up that performance by telling HRC that he believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman", adding that he didn't want to use the "M" word because it has a spiritual or religious connotation. So much for LGBT couples who want to marry and have a religious ceremony. He's also made it clear that such decisions should be "left up to the states", which totally contradicts his promise to support federal civil union legislation.

So we have a Democratic candidate who would never have been able to run for POTUS or for the Senate for that matter, during the Jim Crow era but thinks that the twin pillars of Jim Crow laws and the White Citizens' Councils -- separate but equal and States Rights -- are plenty good enough for LGBT citizens.

But he's got a very high-profile level of support from LGBT citizens, including a plethora of puff pieces like the one above. I can't think of a single reason why this man would even remember that LGBT citizens exist so much as a nanosecond after the November returns are in.

In that context, I wouldn't put a lot of significance in conveniently vague references to "our gay brothers and sisters" but P.T. Barnum had it pegged.