The Gist

So what did you all think of the gay presidential forum?

First, the panelists: I love Melissa Etheridge, but as predicted she was inappropriate for this. Though she had a couple of good questions, she spent a lot a time trying to "connect" in that touchy-feely way and wasting precious time.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, who I've known for many years, did a good job, I thought. He asked some of the tougher questions. And though I believe the panelists should have been GLBT political reporters, I was mostly impressed with the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese, who pressed the candidates several times.

Margaret Carlson just did not make sense as the moderator and was, for the most part, totally off.

Now the candidates: Congressman Dennis Kucinich of course spoke truth to power, but has no chance of winning. Mike Gravel was actually very sensible and it was so important that he was there, contrary to the original format that tried to exclude him, as he he really told it like it is. Though, of course, he has no chance either.

Bill Richardson made a big mistake when he said homosexuality is a "choice," and it could be a Disaster with a capital "D" for his candidacy. They gave him several chances to correct himself, but he didn't. This is too bad because, as he articulated, he's been among the most progressive governors on GLBT issues.

Barack Obama was very uncomfortable in the beginning, but warmed up. John Edwards started out being sincere and implying he was making some big reversal on marriage --but then just stuck to the same line he's always had, which just doesn't make sense. (They support full civil rights, but not marriage, because it's a religious issue, even though they're not going to let religious issues rule their presidency. What?)

Hillary Clinton, as usual, was very skillful and smartly connected with the community by mentioning Eric Alva, the gay Marine (first wounded military person wounded in the Iraq war), who was in the audience.

None of the three frontrunners -- Obama, Clinton, and Edwards -- came across authentically on the marriage issue, and thus on GLBT issues in general. They were all stumped and I think it works to their detriment. They all clearly support marriage but are afraid to say so. The Republicans will claim the Democratic nominee is for marriage anyway -- in innuendo and in ads -- once the general election campaign begins, as they did to John Kerry. So why bother with this charade? Who does it benefit? George W. Bush, while running for president twice, had several positions that were out of the mainstream -- banning abortion among them -- and yet people who disagreed with him on those issues voted for him. Why? Because he had "convictions," as they said in polls. That is something that doesn't come through here. These Democrats could take the marriage issue and turn it into a positive if they wanted to.

I should point out that I watched the forum at a small house party, mostly Manhattan professionals, and mostly gay men. My opinion was the minority; most thought Hillary Clinton did great and that we have to accept that she and the others can't go all the way on marriage. Overall, I'm glad this forum happened, though I've been critical of how it was planned and was rolled out and hope we can perfect it for next time. We'll be talking a lot about it the show on Friday, with a lot of audio, guests, checking in with Sirius OutQ news director Tim Curran (who was there) and callers from across the country who watched the forum.

So, what did you all think?