HRC has never been bold or displayed any true backbone in their endorsements. They will always go for the incumbent or likely winner with the exception of the most homophobic incumbents. They frequently do so even when the entire local LGBT Community get's behinmd the opponent. In NYC their endorsement of Al D'Amato over Schumer is a perfect example. HRC DID consider backing Social Security privatization to kiss up to the Republican administration until they were crucified by many LGBT activist organizations including National Stonewall Democrats and it's local chapters like ours and the Task Force. That NSD and the Task Force refused to compromise or sit by and watch another LGBT organization sell out Seinors to get a few crumbs for themselves, demonstrates that not all LGBT organizations are special interest groups with myopic tunnelvision.

HRC also sold out the trans and leather communities at their last March on Washinton in 2000 when they told them not to come lest they embarrass us all on TV. HRC excels at one thing, FUNDRAISING.

Then perhaps we should clean our own house before we start asking politicians to fight our battles?

JW exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of PACs like HRC whose primary mission is to lobby elected officials. Yes, they kiss up to incumbents, even incumbents who look threatened or are not particularly popular with the self-proclaimed "grass roots" (read: the less moderate wing of whatever political party is under discussion). That's because they can point out their track record of demonstrable loyalty to incumbents to *other* incumbents: "if you vote with us, we'll stick with you, even if our base is screaming bloody murder." That's why AIPAC will endorse a sitting Senator who happens to be a gentile against a promising Jewish challenger; that's why HRC went with d'Amato, who came out and denounced "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" immediately in '93, give long years before his failed re-election bid. What would HRC say to any Republican incumbent who is moderate-to-progressive on GLBT issues if it had thrown d'Amato overboard? "Vote with us, because we're with you just so long as no gay Democrats complain or you don't have a serious challenge?" Just how effective would that be?

I spent a quarter century living in Connecticut. That's why I can recall that this very same Senate seat was lost to a Republican for 18 years because "progressive" anti-war Democrats threw out a popular incumbent Democrat in a primary so that they could revel in their ideological purity, and promptly lost the general election. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. Lieberman, in fact, has an excellent record on GLBT issues, by the way. You don't like his war vote, fine, but don't knock HRC for standing by an incumbent who remains overwhelmingly popular in his home state -- he's still beating Lamont by something on the order of thirty percentage points among CT Dems, by the way -- just so you can work your anger issues out. GOOD GOD PEOPLE -- Connecticut, the bluest of blue states, has three Republican House members in its five-member delegation. One of them, Chris Shays, won by less than three percentage points last time. His district lies twenty miles from the New York City line: can't we put our energies into something useful rather than spend all this blather on cannibalizing one of our own, who will surely win anyway?