As for the fear of Evangelicals, is the issue that she also fears those Christ-Firsters (i.e., that they will be more likely to come out and vote if she's painted as "too pro-gay")? And gays should therefore just accept that and settle for wink-wink support behind closed doors?

Strategic voting gives me a headache.

This is a group that claims to represent the entire gay movement — a "nonpartisan lobbying group" — whose board members aren't elected by all paying members, whose leadership is appointed, whose positions on issues are never put up to a popular vote of the membership, and who apparently deigns politicians "too important" for the little people in the GLBT community and gay press to actually interact with (and ask some of the tough questions you've brought up).

Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy is well known, but here, it's only part of the problem. The real problem today, in my view, is that HRC willingly plays interference for homophobic politicians like Mrs. Clinton — she gets "cred" for "talking to the gays," but the restricted access and carefully orchestrated "nonpartisan" endorsements of "independent HRC" ensures she never has to actually deal with any substantive confrontations over her pathetic record.

The only way to ensure that Republicans and Democrats get confronted on their lousy record on gay rights is to ensure that Libertarians get on the ballot and in the debates. Lib candidates — even if they "never win" (as the old meme goes) — are very likely, in most elections, to point out these inconvenient facts. When it's done in the context of a debate for office, the unpleasant truth cannot be easily expunged from the public record through such duplicitousness as HRC is demonstrating.