Ktwdawg's obsessing about inclusion - and his apparent bewilderment regarding the vehemence that the Obama campaign's cluelessness has aroused among gays - reflects a blindness, however unintentional, to the experience of being a sexual minority.

Queer National is absolutely right on this score. Regardless of the electoral realities that produced this unfortunate situation, to gays and lesbians Obama might as well be reaching out to the KKK to sensitively consider their positions on the issues and their pull among voters. It's the same principle.

I suppose it's just a weary, brute fact of human existence that people have trouble imagining themselves in certain pairs of shoes. For many, though not all, straight people (and I would say more straight men than straight women), they almost literally cannot comprehend the difficulties of growing up the way many gay people are forced to: being told either by your parents, your church, or your community that you're defective and sick because of what, for all practical purposes, is an innate characteristic.

Then, if you manage to reach adulthood and are psychologically sound enough to discard all that crap, you still have to deal with everyone in the world feeling entitled to pass shallow judgment (thumbs up or thumbs down) on the most private aspect of your life, and listen to complete morons who know nothing about you drone on and on in the media about how terrible you are. Even more fun is that, from a legal perspective, you get the privilege of being a second-class citizen paying first-class taxes.

At long last, a few people like Obama come along and appear to really get it. It's exciting! Then something like the McClurkin incident occurs and you realize that they're just as clueless or calculating as most other people, and all you can think is... that really sucks.

Yes, GLBT people are big boys and girls, and we can accept the realities of our socio-political condition. Still, we really long for someone - anyone - who won't equivocate or throw us under the bus at the first whiff of controversy - especially for some jackass, self-hating "ex-gay".

Ktwdawg: I don't know anything about the McClurkin's fan base, but, based on Pam's description of this demographic the other day, I'd venture a guess that most of them take the standard "compassionate" Christian view of homosexuality: they claim to hate the sin but love the sinner.

Whether they realize it or not, that attitude is fundamentally NOT compassionate. It assumes that people are gay because it's some sort of "weakness" to be overcome - like alcoholism or a gambling addiction. It's a completely insulting comparison that these allegedly compassionate Christian types make over and over because they can't bring themselves to confront their own bigotry.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't like McClurkin's music, but to do so without acknowledging the problematic messenger behind it means either a) they're politically unconscious, or b) they agree with the message. Either way, GLBT people lose.

And yes, I ultimately hold the candidate responsible for what happens in a campaign. I'm not in a position to know the inner workings of Obama's machine, and I don't care about tedious parlor intrigue. He's the boss, and it's a reflection on him.

With all due and sincere respect to people who have lost their homes in the conflagration, isn't this the inevitable result of too-dense human populations in places with very low average rainfall? True, fires can happen anywhere given dry-enough conditions. Earlier this year, we were going through a drought here in the Midwest and had an enormous fire up in the forests along the border with Canada.

Still, that was the result of conditions that were unusually dry by Midwest standards, which I'd imagine means it was still relatively wet by So. California standards.

For at least 50 years, people have flocked to the Southwest to escape snow and rain, but it simply does not appear to be an ecosystem built to handle such a density of people.

I've never been able to understand what's sacrosanct about Iowa's and New Hampshire's claims that they have to be first.

My impression is that it's the same logic at work that dictates that states in the interior or "heartland" (to use a detested term) are somehow more "authentic" or "truly American" than larger, more diverse states.

Nor do I think it's any accident in this regard that Iowa and New Hampshire are disproportionately white and rural.

I'm no big fan of Florida - haven't set foot in the state in almost 20 years and can't fathom why anyone would move there - and I'm well aware of its political dysfunctions. After 2000, aren't we all?

Still, Florida voters are far more representative of the nation as a whole than those in Iowa or New Hampshire. I don't blame them for wanting to upset the applecart.