So You Think You Can Dance was the best television series of the summer, but the most entertaining single event was Logo’s inaugural live broadcast, Visible Vote 08. The two-hour primetime telecast offered viewers a first-ever opportunity to watch Democratic presidential candidates pirouette and twist their way through responses to detailed questions about their stances on issues of gay equality. Whether or not you’re a political junkie, it was intellectually and emotionally stimulating to see some of the most eloquent of speakers occasionally squirm and stumble as a panel of surprisingly hard-hitting interviewers forced them to stick to the point.

No wonder Delaware’s Joe Biden skipped the forum, which was co-sponsored by the cable TV channel and the Human Rights Campaign. Biden probably didn’t want to be chastised for praising homosexual leaders as mainstream, articulate, bright and clean—just like regular folks.

While Biden stayed away to refresh himself after the previous weekend’s vigorous book signing in Rehoboth Beach, all of the other candidates (except Christopher Dodd) found time and energy to make their way to Los Angeles for Logo’s live grilling. And, though all six participating candidates had something nice to say about gay people and gay rights, the forum provided a lesson not only in how far we’ve come but how far we have

to go.

I had long thought of Bill Richardson as one of the brightest of the presidential aspirants, but I actually felt sorry for him when he came up at a loss for words after Melissa Etheridge (whose excellent questions were not only the most personal but the most unswerving) asked him whether being gay is a choice or based in biology. It was one of those er…well, yes, no, maybe answers that forces a candidate’s staff to issue a quick clarification. He’s no scientist, but it doesn’t matter why "it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under law." Okay, reasonable recovery.

Richardson may not be the quickest think-on-your feet politician, but his performance was specific in several important areas he is willing to show leadership on, including hate-crime legislation and the repeal of anti-gay provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Not so precise was Hillary Clinton. Rather than talking about the gay-related issues she intends to address if she wins, she spent much of her allotted time defending the previous Clinton administration. At times, it sounded as if she regards her spouse’s tenure as her own first presidency. Said Clinton, "I think that we certainly didn’t get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going."

Momentum? The major thrusts of the Bill Clinton-era were "don’t ask, don’t tell," which Hillary continued to defend as progressive for its time, and DOMA, which she described as providing "great protection" from the Republican-led charge for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment.

Asked by HRC President Joe Solmonese what is at the "heart" of her opposition to same-sex marriage, she said with a sly smile, "I’d prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions." When pressed on the matter, her response was hardly well reasoned. "It’s a personal position," she said, adding, "I am absolutely in favor of full equality."

After that bit of double-speak, Clinton was asked if her stance allowing the "states to maintain their jurisdiction over marriage" was a red herring, comparable to the states-rights argument that kept segregation alive so long. She tiptoed around the question, saying that she understands and appreciates the "intensity and persistence of the advocacy" of gay people for gay marriage. "But this has not been a long term struggle yet."

From her words, it sounds like Clinton wants GLBT people to suffer a while longer before she’ll really get to work in our defense—though she is proud to march in gay pride parades. Like the former president, the current candidate Clinton can be a master of the politically expedient platitude. But get down to specifics and one wonders about the depth of her commitment.

On the other hand, Barack Obama, who also does not (yet) support gay marriage, was honest enough to tackle the question head-on, with a reasoned explanation of the pragmatics of the American political system. He even recalled the gradual progress of the civil rights movement to make his point that one must be realistic about what can be achieved for gay people in the next several years. "If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that’s enormous progress." Obama noted that he does not want to promise more than he can believes can be delivered—and that alone is a refreshing departure for a presidential candidate.

John Edwards was personal and friendly enough—perhaps even more so in the wake of rightwing writer Ann Coulter’s hate-inspired attack on him. And he scored points when he said that unless you speak out against intolerance, it becomes "okay for the Republicans in their politics to divide America and use hate-mongering to separate us."

Like Clinton and Richard-son, Edwards is not a supporter of gay marriage even though his wife is. Still, based on his answers, it is easy to see Edwards as a man whose attitudes are evolving quickly for the positive.

Then there’s Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, two men who both support national recognition of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, both are more enlightened than their nation’s electoral populace. But we are indeed indebted to them for taking the level of discussion up an important notch; some day the view they’re currently espousing will be the law of the land. Kucinich also gets points for his outright political honesty.

Asked whether there is any gay-rights-related issue with which he disagrees, Kucinich responded, "All I can say is, keep those contributions coming…and you’ll have the president that you want."

Yes, gay people are often said to have more disposable income than straights, but—geez, Dennis—it’s not like most of us have the deep pockets of Republicans.

The GOP contenders were asked to participate in a separate symposium on Logo, but—quel surprise!—none of them accepted the invitation, not even Rudy Giuliani, the candidate gay Republicans often point to as their point man in our behalf.

Sorry, based on what I’ve heard from any of the Republicans to date, I’ll take any of the candidates who showed up for the Logo forum to be my next president. Let’s hope there is another such get-together as the campaign heats up.