Candidates take questions from gay people

I found myself watching Logo the other day. For those who have never seen it, Logo is a channel devoted to gay programming. On this particular day, I happened upon the channel’s interviews with the leading democratic presidential candidates. The moderator announced that the republican candidates were also invited, but none of them returned the phone calls. The candidates I saw were Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson, and Hilary Clinton. There were questioned by panel that consisted of a writer for the Washington Post, a director of GLAAD, and Melissa Etheridge. What most interested me about this was not what the candidates said, but how they answered the questions they were dealt.

Kucinich was overwhelmingly fawned over by the panel. Most of the questions given to him seemed to be opportunities for him to make speeches about how wonderful a person he is. Out of all the candidates on the show, he seemed to have the gay-friendliest politics, and we learned that for Kucinich, it’s all about bringing more love into the world. This whole interview was slightly bizarre to watch, as it seemed like Kucinich was just trying to make a campaign speech for the camera, and these adoring fans were interrupting him with questions that he sometimes felt like answering. The man clearly has a lot of passion, but seeing him disregard the people on the show in favor of the camera was uncomfortable.

Both Gravel and Richardson had a similar agenda: I’ve always been on your side; now give me some credit for it. Whereas Gravel gave a grandfatherly chuckle while talking about how long ago it was when he was passing equal rights bills in Alaska, there was a little animosity in Richardson’s voice when he talked about the initiatives he had passed, as though he was reprimanding the audience for not congratulating him on his efforts. Both men suffered from a mild case of Kucinich’s speech-making syndrome. Of the three men, Gravel seemed to be more comfortable saying the words “gay marriage.” Kucinich was too busy making speeches and Richardson seemed to think those words contained poison. His focus, as he said repeatedly, was on what is achievable, and apparently that is not gay marriage.

This was probably the only forum in which these candidates were interviewed by two openly gay men and a lesbian. One could sense the varying levels of comfort. Kucinich looked mostly at the camera – to make speeches and perhaps also to avoid looking the panel in the eye. Richardson mainly looked at the panel but seemed edgy and defensive throughout the entire interview. Gravel, perhaps too old to be insecure about what people would think about him conversing with gay people like they were normal people, or maybe just a little more used to conversing with gay people, was the most conversational and congenial of the men.

Finally, a few words about Hilary Clinton. Hers was the only interview that actually felt like an interview. She directly engaged the panel and answered the questions she was given. She didn’t make promises of gay marriage, but she was upfront about why she supported the federal DOMA. She seemed by far to be the most comfortable in that setting. This is possibly because, as she mentioned, she has lots of gay friends.

To see that almost all of the democratic presidential candidates (I missed Obama and Edwards’s interviews) wanted to participate in a gay-focused interview was encouraging. Four years ago, appearing at such a function would have probably been seen as campaign suicide, as gay issues were so divisive then. Fortunately, they are not as blown out of proportion anymore. It seems like at this point, the progress left to make is learning how to treat gay people like everyone else. This can only come with more exposure. Clearly, those presidential candidates need to make some gay friends, fast. It could be why Hilary is ahead.