Comments on Useless

"Useless" is right. I haven't given a crap about what the HRC has to say in a long, long, long time. They're nothing but a money sink. They should be studiously ignored at all times.

HRC = Log Cabin Democrats?

ugh.

I stopped donating to them when I found out that their main supporters are rich gay men who throw money at a lobbying group rather than coming out of the closet and fighting for equal rights themselves.

The DNC is not the same as the DSCC, and it was the DSCC that freaked. Dean and Schumer are often at odds, actually. I would be surprised if Dean had a problem with Jim Neal running. You'd expect Schumer to, though.

@1: Agreed.

This sort of candidate should be EXACTLY who HRC and others such as the Victory Fund should be supporting, particularly if his Dem opponent has not taken a stand.

Dan, I get your point about HRC not stepping in and helping him as political strategy. However, NC is a lot like Virginia- parts of it are real backwaters, and parts of it (like the research triangle) are more progressive. That tactic in Alabama- sure. In NC? A lot less sure.

Quit bitching: start a revolution and help Jim out.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped giving to the HRC!

That's not the full story, Dan. Kay Hagan is a good candidate too, not "Republican-lite" and Neal has no chance of winning the Dem nomination in North Carolina. I can see why HRC would be uninterested in throwing their money and endorsement down the drain on a candidate who thinks he deserves their endorsement because he is gay.

And it's grossly misleading and factually incorrect to say that Jim Neal is the "leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for US Senate in North Carolina" when Kay Hagan leads all the polls.

Considering that HRC has almost exactly the inverse of the ratio of overhead to programming charities are supposed to have, they fail in every respect and deserve not a penny.

Neal is a disorganized amateur with not a chance in the world of being a Senator. HRC and others are wise to use their donor's money -- and their reputations -- responsibly by supporting candidates with an actual chance of winning. There are plenty of good, organized gay candidates out there without adequate funds and support. They should be the focus.

The "movement" needs to grow up to the realities of actually winning campaigns.

Is HRC here to support gays or Democrats? I could even understand their reluctance to support a Log Cabin type over a gay-friendly Democrat, but supporting a non-gay friendly Democrat over a gay one, and one with a potential to win, makes you wonder whom they serve.

HRC has outlived its usefulness. They are enjoying being Washington insiders too much to care about the lives of ordinary gay Americans.

Don't confuse DNC with DSCC. What Spencer said.

Dan, I'm no fan of HRC, but as a gay North Carolinian, I have to point out that you are incorrect on several points. Jim Neal is not leading in any credible poll. He cannot and will not win for a variety of factors having nothing to do with his sexual orientation. He's a good man and a smart guy, but he's an amateur who has been back in NC a few years after 20 or more years away. Kay Hagan, during her 10 or so years in the NC Senate, has been very good on LGBT issues, doing a lot of work to keep a gay marriage amendment from ever going to a statewide referendum. She was also very vocal in support of controversial safe schools legislation that provided for protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Your sources are misleading you. Kay has the support of a lot of gay North Carolinians for a reason. Kay may not be as far to the left as Jim, but the Republican-lite thing is just wrong.

I stopped being a member HRC because of their constant Self Applauding themselves, asking for money every day in an email etc. I give to gay groups, I fight for gay causes, I just am fed up with the HRC.

Umm, the only gay candidate that ran for 43rd district for the Washington state house of representatives was Jamie Pedersen -- and Dan Savage and The Stranger endorsed the teenage Republican opponent!

I might add Jamie Pedersen got a domestic partner bill passed after taking office.

It's the concentric gay firing squad where we shoot ourselves instead of defeating the radical right.

HRC is a sound political operation. I don't always agree with them but I'm tired of them being criticized every time they make a difficult decision.

It's also a little annoying that every time an LGBT organization doesn't back an openly gay candidate they get blasted. Viability is an important standard in deciding whom to support.

I donate to HRC because I think they get the job done and I donate to more idealistic LGBT organizations because I think we need groups pushing the envelope to make HRC's job easier to raise awareness of issues not yet ripe for action. But, I'm increasingly unwilling to give my dollars to organizations that blast HRC when they should be blasting the radical right.

I think the point about Jamie Pedersen is spot on. Jamie has become on of the legislature’s shining stars during his freshman term. He has propelled the issue of marriage equality forward in Olympia, successfully worked for the passage of two domestic partnership bills and a host of other legislation important to his district and the state. How can those who did not back the lead attorney in Washington's marriage equality case now complain that HRC is not backing an openly gay candidate?

I don't see why someone called "new" is a problem. Jim Neal didn't get to where he is at by blowing the log cabins he got there on merit. I personally vote for whoever is/has been a supported for gay rights I don't care if they're a purple alien from pluto as long as they are willing to put themselves out there to fight for what is right.

The HRC does get alot of crap from us and some of it is rightly deserved but don't underscore they good they've done.

We've posted more background on HRC's process for endorsing elected officials and candidates on HRC's Back Story blog: The Human Rights Campaign's 'Year to Win': Policy behind the Politics