Clinton is solid, Edwards is slick, and Obama is nervous at Presidential Forum

My take on last night's history making Presidential Forum on GLBT issues? Maybe I'm setting the bar too low, but I continue to be astounded by how pro-gay the whole lot of them are, and what a sharp contrast the Democratic slate is with the Republican one, none of whom are apparently even willing to share a stage with us GLBT folks.

For some historical perspective, the term "domestic partner" didn't exist until 1981. It was Michael Dukakis, back in 1988, who was the first presidential candidate to actually say the word "gay." In 1992, Bill Clinton actively campaigned on some of our issues, promising to repeal the ban on gays in the military (and trying to do just that, until the Republican Party, and Colin Powell, went nuclear on him in his third day of office). In 2000, civil unions were barely even on the radar. And in 2004, John Kerry was the first presidential nominee to refer to gay people in his convention speech.

And here it is, only 2007, and all the leading Democratic candidates are debating our issues with us personally (even actually sucking up to us!). And the number one issue they're debating is same-sex marriage!

Incredible. It's just incredible to me how much and how quickly things are changing on GLBT issues.

I also thought it was great that most of the candidates at least paid lip service to transgender issues. Talk about an issue not even being on the horizon just a few years ago!

I was disappointed in Barack Obama's performance. He's my candidate, but I thought he seemed nervous, and his answers were vague and meandering. It made me wonder if he's truly tested enough for the presidential campaign. That said, I thought it was very unfair that all four questioners asked him basically the same question, about same-sex marriage, even after he had already answered it. Maybe the reason he seemed nervous was because the questions directed at him were so adversarial.

Edwards? He's slick, I'll give him that. I loved the whole "I'm gonna level with you — we've had enough doublespeak from politicians" answer, even as I felt manipulated by it. But I just can't shake the sense that this just isn't the year of a straight white man. Basically, I think Elizabeth Edwards is right: for me, the symbolism of the first black of female president is just too cool to pass up.

I continue to be impressed by Hillary. Maybe it's because I'm a political wonk, and she clearly is too. But the contrast between her, who clearly has complete command of what seems like every issue, and our current President Bobblehead, is jarring. I remember when Bill became president after twelve years of Republican platitudes and banalities, how refreshing it was to have a president who didn't talk like the whole country was a bunch of simple-minded idiots. (I know Reagan worked for some people, but he always struck me as a completely empty suit.)

The point is, as much as I still like Obama, he seems a bit superficial: yeah, yeah, he's gonna bring the country together. I've, um, heard that before (even if I think Obama actually means it). Anyway, I like that Hillary immediately goes wonky. A president who micromanages and understands detail — what a concept!

Bill Richardson? What can one say? I haven't seen a candidate crash and burn quite like that since the Quayle/Bensen debate in 1988, or since...well, George W. Bush practically any time he opens his mouth.

The other candidates? Well, it's a little bit like when they refer to the Professor and Mary Anne in the first theme song to Gilligan's Island: they're simply "and the rest!" It seems a shame to take up so much time with what are obviously — yes, I'll say it — fringe candidates. Yeah, they're totally pro-gay-marriage. But then they don't have to worry in the slightest about actually getting elected, so why not be?

More on that thought. Does anyone doubt for a second that all these folks are personally pro-same-sex marriage? I mean, come on. Every single one of them, I'm certain. But since the issue is still polling at about 32%, they can't come out and say that. If they do, that's literally all the next election will be about, at least if the Republicans get their way. So why give em that cudgel? I don't quite get the strategy there.

Just like Christian fundamentalists would be insane to get the Republican candidate to explicitly promise to do everything he can to overturn Roe V. Wade (making it far less likely that their candidate would actually be elected and, as a result, Roe V. Wade would ever actually be overturned), I don't understand the strategy behind the desire by some GLBT folks to have these candidates explicit promise to work for same-sex marriage.

By electing any of these Democrats over any of the current appalling slate of Republicans, we'll have same-sex marriage that much faster, and we'll have all the rights faster too. So why the insistence on total purity? There will eventually be a time to hold Democrats' feet to the fire on this issue. But I actually agree with Hillary, Obama, and John: now, when the issue is polling at 32%, ain't it. (That said, I'm a wonk. And on some level, I guess I appreciate the passion of people who think I'm a Total Sell-Out for being willing to accept anything less than Total Equality Right This Instant.)

All in all, I loved it. And I just can't get over how much and how quickly the world has changed on GLBT issues.