The interview upon which the following blog entry is based is over a month old. In that time, I've been in communication with the Krikorian campaign because of the central ethical dilemma I faced: though I like David Krikorian, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, I still harbor some of the same negative feelings that many people who liked and believed in Vic Wulsin in 2008. I kinda felt that his 18% or so of the vote that he garnered in the blue Ohio wave of 2008 was the downfall of Wulsin's political aspirations.

And, though Wulsin was never the best candidate, she is and continues to be one of the most ardent supporters of LGBTQ rights in this corner of the world. Word, however, is that Wulsin will be endorsing Krikorian in the upcoming election, so perhaps that dark tinge on his name may pass.

More importantly, Mr. Krikorian is seeking the Democratic nomination after making a name for himself as the anti-two party system candidate, as a strong independent candidate. He is quick to respond to the criticism as "a little bit of a sell out." And, so, I was met with another ethical difficulty: a man willing to become a hypocrite for expediency and the likelihood of success. I voted for Nader in 2000 -- when I was a South Carolina voter, a state in which Gore had no chance -- on the belief that here was a man who stood by his convictions. More importantly, he is the kind of independent candidate that could win.

When Krikorian announced, then, that he was seeking the 2010 Democratic nomination, I almost felt the bristling of Wulsin supporters, Democratic party voters, and LGBTQ individuals in the city. The man who took down our friend, queer Cincinnati's fiercest supporter in the eastern district, now wanted our votes?

So, of course, I had to meet him.

It's hard to imagine a better word, then, to describe David Krikorian as daring. It takes a bit of gumption to admit his own faults, go against even his own reputation and plow on, perhaps better and stronger than before.

Krikorian dares to tell me, on one had, that he is the best hope for an LGBT friendly, electable candidate in the Second District, while, in the next breath, saying that he will not march in a parade and wave a flag. That kind of candidate -- he insists -- could never win the district, and hasn't yet. He speaks passionately that, no, he will never sign a Defense of Marriage Act; and then, when informed that no DOMA needs left to be signed on either the federal or state level, is willing to fess up to his own ignorance of all the issues and asks for more information.

As he gesticulated wildly with a soon-emptied coffee cup throughout our time together, I knew that I liked him and that he may be ballsy enough to win... and mayhap even do right by his queer constituents in the process.

We met on a Monday morning at the Coffee Emporium downtown. I have met politicians before; I have met first-time polticians before. The best I can say of the former is that they know their stuff and how to turn any conversation to a point in their favor; the best I can say of the latter is that they constantly seek the opportunity in the conversation to a point that they know how to talk about. David Krikorian is neither of these.

"I'm not some local poltician trying to climb the ladder," he emphasizes not far into the conversation. By this point, he's on a roll. When I review my two-hour tape of our conversation, there is a grand stretch where you can tell that Krikorian hits his zone. He is off and running by this point -- probably a good 30 minutes in, and probably for a strong 20 or 30 minutes. I am not asking many questions, but he has many points to make. The conversation varies wildly -- wages, term limits, civil liberties, the problems with the two party system, and the Republicans, specifically. "I'll take the Democratic party over the current incarnation of the Republican Party... [lost in] the wilderness."

Krikorian is clearly a smart guy, and I have no plans to fault him on that. I get it; I get him; for 90% of the time, I'm with him. I even take the extra few seconds in my fierce note-taking (12 pages worth!) to emphasize some of the most poignant and amazing one-liners that I have heard out of a candidate -- "the government has to move to being more victorious in its awesome responsibilities" (YES!), or "there is an absence of statesmen in our political system" (ABSOLUTELY!),

But this blog is about other issues, and I came to talk about LGBTQ issues, a topic he, admittedly, needs more information about.

"I hesitate to pontificate about shit I don't know about," Krikorian quips when I ask him about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- the policy banning LGBTQ military personnel from serving opening, "I've never been in the military, and I've never been gay."

When our interview opened, he was the one asking the questions. He wanted to know more; he wanted to learn more. Krikorian also provided me with a moment where I was, genuinely, surprised. I asked him what he had done for the LGBTQ community lately ... and he whips out a deck of cards, produced by his company at his prodding, that features marriage equality advocates and enemies shown in fierce caricature. On the tape, I hesitate, and there is a moment of silence. Then, you hear me say: "You have actually surprised me, Mr. Krikorian."

And he did, in a lot of ways. I had expected not to like David Krikorian; in fact, I had a whole game plan set up, truly expecting to dislike this man we so easily dismiss as a hypocrite. Clearly, that was not the final result.

Someone asked me a few days later: "What do you think?" "Not good, yet, but educatable," was my response. I think that is my take away from my two-hour interview with David Krikorian: educatable. Sure, I think he has a bit to learn -- "I'm not sure if our little slice of Heaven will be the epicenter [of the gay rights movement]," he said early in the interview. Translated: it's not an issue that will win him elections, and, except for the occasional DOMA (which he describes as a "non-issue...created to divide people"), not on the forefront of his district's mind.

Krikorian is not great on gender -- I get the impression he doesn't get it yet -- so-so on military, but pretty decent to good on employment non-discrimination -- "it's just bad business... why would I take out 10 or 12% of my rental base?" -- and on marriage. After a little pressing, he said that, in a stand alone bill with nothing else attached, he would even vote to overturn the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act. On HIV/AIDS, I would even rate him as excellent. It is rare that a politician, especially one who can draw conservative voters, will identify eliminating homophobia as a possible prevention strategy. Again, surprised.

I hesitate, though, to fully say, "This is the man who will be LGBTQ people's friend in Washington," because, honestly, I'm not sure he always will be. First, I never trust, after John Kerry's 2004 campaign, a politician who uses an incarnation of "at least I'm better than the other guy" argument to win votes. We made that mistake. Second, I get that his priorities are different. He is sure to tell you that he is big on civil liberties ... but I wonder if, faced with a spending or military or healthcare bill that he doesn't like, if he wouldn't let his LGBTQ constituents go for another fight, another day.

But I think he would understand that he made that decision, which is more than many in his situation.

"Do you want someone who is sympathetic and understanding, or do you want Jean Schmidt?" The interview is coming to a close, and I'm chasing final quotes when he says this. I hate the argument, and I shudder a little bit thinking that this may, in fact, be the argument that gets him elected. So I ask him further, why should we vote for him, us queers? Honestly, he puts his head down, and, for a good long half minute, there is silence. He's -- gasp -- thinking about his answer. It is a suprise, from a man who, for two hours, was funny and engaged and quick to answer, and quick to retract mistakes. Silence. Then:

"I would be somebody who will listen to the concerns without religious preconceptions with a focus on civil liberties... and I would ask that they take a practical approach. Give me a chance to represent, and I think they'll find I'm a reasonable person... It's not just about this single issue -- it's an important issue, but we have to look at larger context."

And perhaps he's right. Our little "slice of Heaven" will probably never lead the parade itself, and, perhaps, it is too much to ask our politicians to do so. But it's not too much for them to be reasonable, open-minded, educatable, and daring individuals willing to step up to the plate...

... or maybe it's not enough, to just hope that they will when it comes to.

In the interim, it looks like Krikorian is ahead of Schmidt in the polls. He was quick to point out that "the majority of Ohio's Second voted against Schmidt in 2008" -- clearly indicated a dissatification with the current representation. More importantly, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted OH-2 as a race to win 2010.

Barry is the main contributor to QueerCincinnati.com and tweets more regularly.