I am sorry to hear that my column drives you up the walls. In spite of all appearances, my goal is to amuse, not irritate.

The impression that some of you seem to have of how articles get posted on 365Gay, though charming, is inaccurate. It is true that I pitch horrible and/or inappropriate ideas for columns and articles on a near-daily basis, but Ms. Vanasco always demurely bats them back.

In the case of RachelWatch, the powers that be at 365Gay called me and asked me if I’d be interested in doing it. I said something along the lines of “Yippee,” and submitted an audition column. I’m assuming The LogoLords asked me because we like working together but my style isn’t really suited to hard news. But I also recognize the possibility that I was the only one to answer the phone that day.

It’s true that an ongoing, intentionally silly column on TRMS is not hard news. That’s one of the reasons I post it overnight. By design, it’s only up top first thing in the morning and then gets knocked down to Entertainment by the next story that gets posted.

And while it isn’t necessarily hard news, I do think Rachel Maddow’s rise is news. She’s an out lesbian who has caught on across demographics – I first heard about her from my straight parents. And I think that the fact that she only sometimes reports on LGBTQ issues is important. If you’re familiar with Ms. Maddow’s guest spots on other news and commentary shows before she got one of her own, it’s infuriating to see how many only brought her on to talk about gay and lesbian issues. As though someone with an Oxford Ph. D in political science would be unable to speak to other topics.

The fact that she’s less a lesbian newscaster than a newscaster who just happens to be a lesbian is a big deal to me. It’s one of the big goals, right? To be acknowledged for hard work and talent, and to be on the same playing field as everyone else instead of shoved over to the side in a little box marked “special interests”.

She’s one our own who’s not only out and in the public spotlight, she’s doing her job very, very well. Whether or not you agree with her political views, you can’t fault her for her research or her work ethic. She’s rather famously friendly with Pat Buchanan because, though they disagree on everything, they respect each other’s smarts and debating skills. She’s done almost as much for the nerd community as she has for the lesbian community.

Rachel Maddow is a distinctive, whip-smart voice with a dedication to civility and a welcome good cheer. And as this weekend’s extremely weird “Butch Fatale” article in The New York Times proved, she’s getting straight people to think differently about lesbians, even if they aren’t sure what those strange new feelings are or what to do with them. For all those things, I am happy to throw a little publicity her way.

And – though I am biased here – I don’t think a little frivolity is out of place on a LGBTQ news page. The community had a rough year in 2008, and given the way the religious right is currently getting its DOMA ducks in a row, it doesn’t look like 2009 is exactly going to be a cakewalk. It is absolutely important to keep bigotry and the pain that it causes in the news, but I do think there is a benefit to keeping positive images and humor in the mix.

While we may have to agree to disagree on Ms. Maddow and her show, the good news on your end is that in the case of my column the “ignore her and she’ll go away” principle works like gangbusters. If enough people find RachelWatch annoying or just irrelevant, I won’t get page hits and the column will get dropped.

As for those who don’t like the liberal/populist slant of the show or the column, I agree that it’s important to recognize that the community is not monolithic in its political views, and I encourage you to balance me out.

I for one would like to know a great deal more about LGBTQ Republicans, Libertarians, or anyone else outside the political mainstream. Please find the writers in your ranks and start pitching stories.

My sincere best wishes to you all.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “very few”, but the Rachel Maddow show regularly beats CNN’s ratings.

I admit I am looking at this from an SEO point of view. When people search for Rachel Maddow what we don’t want to show up in the search results is negative gay bashing shit. (Or maybe y’all do, I can never tell.) And there are sites pumping out negative articles regularly.

The current search trend on Google for the key phrase “rachel maddow” is higher than “lgbt”, “glbt” and “gay news”.

Whenever AfterEllen or AfterElton does an article on Rachel Maddow, it shows up in the Rachel Maddow Google news feed. I’m assuming they get traffic from that.

Speaking of those two sites, I wonder why Rachel Maddow content is more well received there. We’re all gay right, and these are all gay sites…partnered even. So why is the community on those sites more interested in a broader range of topics than here?

365gay does not need to be rehashing over her show. Nothing is being added to Rachel’s commentary. If Ali Davis just want to write, why not do a weekend column to keep this site active dureing weekends.

Rachel is not a gay news pundit and never was, therefore there should not be a column soley dedicated to her on 365gay.com. Her focus is primarily on national politics, and shes doing a great job. And like I said, the news she presents and her excellent commentary can be retrieved in a variety of ways.

Please stop watering down 365gay.com. This site is so great because it provides gay news that cant be found anywhere else. Along with columns that give a gay perspective on gay news and issues. Keep the website active with news relevant to the glbtqa community. Rachel great, but this Ali Davis column has got to go!

But, you’re right Grrrl.

We actually should just change the name of the site to RachelWatch. Cause sure enough these large articles have little to nothing to do with the gay community directly.

I’m just curious as to how the decision was made to run these recaps of cable show that I would bet very few people (let alone gay people) watch.

I’m wondering if msnbc.com is running GayWatch every day?

I like Anderson and have been watching him since he was on World News Now on ABC. But he’s not openly gay.

If it’s because she’s gay… I’m waiting for the daily recap of AC360.

If you think LGBTs are conformists just by being left, then I think you need to get out more and maybe stop stereotyping members of your own community.

I don’t see how looking at the facts, forming an opinion and coming to a conclusion automatically makes the conclusion false. You make it sound as if there are no actual solutions to any problems.

Tax cuts probably won’t stimulate the economy. Government spending probably will. Historically, it does. People who say WWII and not the New Deal is what ended the depression are in disagreement with the historical timeline. 8 years of tax cuts have not only not improved the economy, but have made it worse.

On a personal opinion note:
I would be careful throwing around the word facts. Everything that can be said in a tv show is a vast simplification of the reality. Occlusion makes most of anything said on tv for the most part false. I cannot say that tax cuts will benefit businesses. I cannot say universal health care will save the dieing. There is so much that’s not being said that the conclusions very well may be false. So when someone jumps on any medium and blurbs a paragraph professing truths, take it with a grain of salt.