Idol Hands... - I know that we are all eagerly anticipating tonight's two-hour American Idol extravaganza, when Kelly Clarkson will be crowned THE American Idol. By far, the most comprehensive and accurate review I've read of last night's final performance show was Lisa de Moraes's take in the Washington Post, so I won't bore you with other imitators. She not only reviews the show, but also addresses the neverending hype, including the September 11th performance that the winner will give at the Lincoln Memorial. Further, she makes a great call when saying that "what's-his-name, [the winner of the U.K. version of the show] ... is not a very good singer."

She doesn't mention that Will Young's flame burns exceptionally bright, even though Ryan Seacrest made a related statement about the audience at the Kodak Theater being filled with queens. It seems hypocritical for me to insult the demeanor of a gay man who has come out in public, but I think it's a realistic assessment to say that that poor Will Young is much too feminine-looking and -sounding to be a star in America. Seeing him perform reminds me of why so few gay male American actors and performers have come out in the media. We Americans tend to like our gay men wacky, a campy, funny supporting character like Jack McFarland on Will & Grace. Why is it that the most famous gay men in America...are British? Elton John, Rupert Everett and Ian McKellen come to mind, but I can't think of any American performer of their caliber (and the cast of Queer as Folk definitely doesn't count.) Even their lesser figures like Boy George, George Michael and my lovely new friend, Graham Norton are more famous than...um, Rufus Wainwright, Chad Allen or Bruce Villanch. So, Adam, why is it that our friends in the UK have made so much more progress in acceptance of famous gays than we have?

Bonus Idol post: David Bianculli of the NY Daily News reviews two new daytime talk shows AND insults Paula Abdul's appearance on both!