dems talk to gays

Last night was the historic presidentjial candidates forum on MTV-owned LOGO, a cable station which aims for a gay audience. (I like LOGO's programming but it has too many commercials and too much editing and censorship). The event was co-sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which gets props for organizing this event though I find them an insufferable bunch of elitist closet-cases: the joke name for them is the Human Rights Champaign Foundation. Anyway, 6 of the 8 democrats appeared. No republicans accepted.

I enjoyed the event. Many of the discussions were a little more in-depth than other events I've seen, and I felt the questioners were intelligent and managed to get all the candidates to reveal something about who they actually were. The main, though not exclusive, focus was on same-same marriage.

Obama. I generally liked him. His answer on gay marriage, while not perfect, does manage to make a compromise that seems to me a principled one. Make all the civil rights of marriage common to all people, make marriage itself the purveyance of the religions that care about it. I wish he had acknowledged the fact that there was a compromise here, but I really liked most of what he said. I liked how intelligent he is.

Edwards. He said some really nice things. But he really came across like a politician. And he opposes gay marriage though like Obama he seems to be in favor of civil unions with some actual merit. I didn't like how much a politician he sounded. But I liked his populism.

Kucinich. He was really excellent. He supports gay marriage. He mentioned his opposition to war and how connected to everything that is. Offered a profoundly humanist point of view. I had zero points of disagreement. I wish he could win.

Gravel. Well, he's a character. I love his position on drugs. He's 100% right on legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing all others. Prohibition didn't work and the war on drugs isn't working either. But he seems a little kooky...like he might any minute say something really weird.

Richardson. I'm not sure what people see in him. He opposes gay marriage and said homosexuality is a choice. He's always seemed uninspired and uninspiring. Sorry, but he should go away.

Clinton. Well I'm hating her less. But it's fascinating to me that she can say the most hateful things and people can excuse them and somehow believe that deep down she actually believes what they do when all along she has she has been sayings omething completely different. She's excellent with connecting with people: she remembers names and faces and tried to make a connection with people that makes them feel they're all on the same side. But listen to what she says: is she really on our side? She said she could sympathize with gay peoples' pain on gay marriage. But, "oh well, those are my personal beliefs" she says about why she opposes gay marriage and then goes on to say she would only delete one clause from the In Defense of Marriage Act. I think she's using us and I don't like it. Listen to what she SAYS.

So Kucinich and Obama give me the most hope still, though I am concerned about some of Obama's tough-talking about fighting so called terrorism. (Not as concerned as I about the republican candidate--Tancredo?--who proposed bombing Mecca, mind you). I think Obama still has my vote, though I voted Kucinich before and I can easily see Obama making an nuforgivable mistake. Will I vote for Hillary in the general election? Hmmm. I don't think so.