The way that the sexual orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker — the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 last week — has been targeted and exploited by proponents of Prop 8 is not only an example of the ugly smear tactics of the theocratic thugs who call themselves Christians; it’s a testament to how easily the media is manipulated by the right into doing things about which editors and reporters claim to be staunchly opposed…

…Most [mainstream media] quoted the San Francisco Chronicle as the source, and often in the context of reporting on the attacks on Walker coming from the right-wing extremists who now claim his sexual orientation biased his decision.

So what exactly did the Chronicle say on the matter back in February? That it was an “open secret” that Walker was gay.

That’s it, folks. No sourcing of any kind — no witnesses, no former or current boyfriend, no person who Walker confided in, no comment from Walker. Just an “open secret.” Gee, there are many Hollywood celebrities and Washington politicians — Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator Mitch McConnell come to mind — about whom we’ve always heard about an “open secret,” but I don’t see the New York Times reporting on them ever.

It reaches further than the gay-cowboy romp “Brokeback Mountain,” whose characters maintained a sense of otherness while shielding the kids from their shenanigans. In this movie, exposing kids is the entire point.

One line really captures the essence of her piece:

And this is how Hollywood does an end run around morality.

Supporters of the ballot initiative argue that same-sex marriage erodes heterosexual marriage, but experience has proven them wrong: Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage five years ago, the state has seen its divorce rate, already the lowest in the nation, decline further. But that hasn’t stopped supporters of the initiative from making other wild claims. No, gay marriage is not being taught, alongside spelling and long division, as part of the public-school curriculum in Massachusetts. No, an equal right to civil marriage has not rendered Massachusetts genderless.

GIBSON: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

PALIN: “In what respect, Charlie?”

GIBSON: “The Bush … Well, what do you interpret it to be?”

PALIN: “His world view.”

GIBSON: “No. The Bush doctrine. Annunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war.”

PALIN: “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership — and that’s the beauty of American elections of course, and democracy — is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

GIBSON: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is we have the right of anticipatory self defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

PALIN: “Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”

I think Andrew Sullivan pretty dead-on.  I also think Charlie Gibson’s career could ride on if this interview is a joke or serious.  So far, not bad.  My biggest comment is that I find it obnoxious that ABC can’t just show the interview in its entirety.  The priority is that they get improved ratings on 3 shows (World News Tonight,Nightline/GMA, and 20/20

“If we supported her and she supports him — we support him,” said Kevin Hostetler, 23, of Arlington, Texas.

I may post my thoughts later (beyond that it was a great speech) since every journalist who spoke to me lost interest when they found out I wasn’t either a Clinton supporter or a female Obama supporter.

ALSO: Ben Smith pulls (link is working now) the quotes I referred to in the last post.

“For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me.

And:

If I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more.

And:

I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today, he made light of 9/11, and said that he’s not even sure it happened and that people actually died.”

Hillary and McCain are saying that clearly Obama is out of touch with the American people. My question is (especially since the focus of the debate is on the first part where he called people bitter), is it possible that people don’t see this as some terrible insult? Perhaps not recognizing that people are bitter is really the more out of touch position. It seems to me that the outrage in and offense taken has come from the elite, NOT the people who matter (voters). Fox–obviously sympathetic to Obama–post two interviews of people who admit they are bitter. Ben Smith also points out that people have already formed www.bittervoters.org who support Obama, and Senator Casey is vouching for him.

Sure, some people might be offended, but in 24/7 campaign it’s hard for someone to go a day without offending someone. Here are the question that I think we’ll see answered shortly.

• Will the voters of PA and beyond (and superdelegates) think this was true, poor word choice, or revealing of some deep hidden loathing of small town America?
• Will attempt to shift the focus from the bitter part to the guns and religion part of his statement be successful and carry the story into the next week?
• Will the 109-million-dollar woman who has lived in the public eye and away from the concerns of everyday Americans calling the candidate who was raised by a single mom and grandparents and just payed off his student loans an elitist backfire and draw attention to her own circumstances?
• Will Hillary be as convincing a hunter as this man when challenged by Obama and the press on her 2nd amendment credentials?