Just looking at the whole thing... Wow.

Somehow "Pot calling the kettle black" doesn't seem to begin to cut it...

Here I was, all excited that for once a LGBT person could rise to prominence and not be subjected to an endless fascination with their personal life and relationships.

This is the continual whine that somehow sexual orientation is off the table.
It's not.

The reason why being a lesbian in that position is an important piece of information for the public is that as a lesbian, she will have out-of-the-mainstream and radical views not only about "gay rights", but also will most likely have other radical views on other political issues.

This is important info to know who's telling you the news.

This is important info to know who's telling you the news.

You are such an idiot, it is almost impressive.

Ugh. I don't often get overwhelmed with a visceral desire to punch someone in the face, but that was so repulsive. UGH.

Substitute "black" for "lesbian," and "race issues" for "gay rights," in El-V's (and Tim Graham's) screed. Now how does it read?

Viajero demands more bigot anchors! Only bigots like him can provide a fair take on the day's news!

Really, El Viajero?

Is your life so miserably pathetic, your desire for Internet attention so desperate, that you'd actually go on record making the pro-bigotry argument?

Seriously, that's just beyond sad.

Substitute "black" for "lesbian," and "race issues" for "gay rights," in El-V's (and Tim Graham's) screed.

With an admitted 95% plus of blacks already committed to Obama and the Democrats in general, it would be a reasonable characteristic to know when receiving news.....and we do know because we can see it. With a homosexual, you may not know.
I understand this flies in the face of all that is 'holy' to the far left, but wouldn't you want to know if the news anchor was an evangelical so when he reports on certain things, you would understand his perspective?

Don't you treat news from newscasters from CBN differently than with other networks?

What you wish to do is promote these homosexuals quietly and if anyone points it out, you're outraged.
Sorry, but this has been a relevant and devisive political issue and for you to say it's off limits is just ludicrous.
If it matters to voters, then it's relevant, regardless of whether you think it should be or not.

Well, after trying to hide it for so long, it's nice to see El V embrace the fact that he's a bigoted piece of shit.

Instead of discuusing issues, it's so much easier and fun to simply call your perceived enemies names.

Instead, why don't you try discussing the issues and lay out your case as I have done above (pussy)?

El Viajero: No one's hiding Rachel Maddow's sexual orientation. You seem to think that there is some kind of lifestyle mainstream that Maddow fails to live up to (shall we start questioning all public figures' sexual peccadillos and see if you and you alone approve of them? There are many millions of straight and ostensibly "normal" (by your definition) people who have much weirder shit in the closet than Maddow.

You seem to think her homosexuality keeps her from being rational. It's pretty easy to understand her perspective: she's liberal. She does not hide this fact either. Moreover, she's a commentator, like a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity (though much smarter, affable, and generally a better human being), commentators have biases, but some are more honest about them than others. Maddow is far more honest about hers than anyone you'll find on Fox. If you want to start talking about extremism, let's start with them.

Otherwise, naked homophobia is no way to start a conversation.

Otherwise, naked homophobia is no way to start a conversation.

Exactly how is disclosure 'naked homophobia'?

"Instead of discuusing issues, it's so much easier and fun to simply call your perceived enemies names."

Dude, you're a bigot. You've always been a bigot. You will always be a bigot. Deal with it. The evidence, over far too many threads, is incontrovertible.

"Instead, why don't you try discussing the issues and lay out your case as I have done above (pussy)?"

Mostly because you have not, in fact, "laid out a case," which means that there is nothing to refute, or even discuss. You simply made several assertions, all of them ridiculous and all of them wholly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or data. That you think you actually made a case is quite revealing.

"The reason why being a lesbian in that position is an important piece of information for the public is that as a lesbian, she will have out-of-the-mainstream and radical views not only about 'gay rights', but also will most likely have other radical views on other political issues."

This, by the way, is the very essence of your bigotry, since there is zero evidence that gay men and women have "radical views on other political issues." You are simply making shit up because of your prejudices, caused by your fear and your hatred.

Your own views, in contrast, clearly are "radical," out of step with the views of the majority of U.S. voters. Should we ask you for your political, religious, business, sexual, and other affiliations so that we can guard against such views "polluting" the air waves and internet?

Instead, why don't you try discussing the issues and lay out your case as I have done above (pussy)?

I guess I'm still waiting for you to make a better case than "all lesbians have radical views on all topics, not just gay rights". I could easily say "all conservative are bigoted assholes." So there, I've made my case. You can dress it up all you want, but that's pretty much the extent of your argument.

Neatly distilled, El V believes that people of differing sexual orientations, especially those on TV, ought to be subject to different rules. If he believes that's something other than bigotry, he's dumber than I though, which is impressively dumb.

Neatly distilled, El V believes that people of differing sexual orientations, especially those on TV, ought to be subject to different rules.

Or wear pink triangles.

Viajero is so committed to transparency that he's hidden behind five or six different nyms over several years to spew venom against gays, blacks, feminists and Amanda Marcotte.

In further interests of transparency, Tim Graham gets just shy of $100k/year from the Media Research Center to wrinkle his nose and say 'lesbian'.

Your own views, in contrast, clearly are "radical," out of step with the views of the majority of U.S. voters.

How entertaining. No one has anything to say other than 'Ooooo bigot, bigot, bigot....'. Guess what? Few care. The reason is my views are very popular. If, instead, yours were, we would have universal accpetance of sexual deviancy as 'normal'.

We don't.

If you can't discuss this or other devisive issues in good faith, then please don't bother.

Viajero adopts the 'bigots rule!' fallacy, even as most conservatives back away from his stench.

How entertaining. No one has anything to say other than 'Ooooo bigot, bigot, bigot....'.

Does seem to be the case. But, assume for a moment that you are a bigot--unaware of it, perhaps, but you're actually a bigot in some objective sense (in this mental exercise).

Anybody trying to talk you out of it? Anybody trying to enlighten you, seriously? Or are they busy pointing their fingers and clapping themselves on the back (excellent non-bigots that they are). Would you perhaps conclude, as a theoretical bigot, that they like you being a bigot? That rather than talk you out of your theoretically bigotted views, they want to obligate you to defend them, to harden them, but certainly not to question them?

Or, put another way, if they actually liked you being a bigot (as a pleasing contrast to themselves, by which they deem themselves more attractive) and wanted to keep you as bigotted as possible, how would their behavior be any different?

On to the actual issue being discussed: there are plenty of right-leaning and libertarian lesbians. I'm not sure knowing that a woman is a lesbian really says anything useful about them as a commentator. What Rachel Madow says will reveal her biases plentifully, I would expect. I don't really want to have to hear if a new commentator pees sitting down or standing up before they get on to reading their interpretation of the news.

However, on the other hand, it is important to know if a woman is a lesbian and open-minded, because that always opens up the possibility of a threesome. So, I can definitely see an argument for full disclosure there.

"How entertaining. No one has anything to say other than 'Ooooo bigot, bigot, bigot....'."

ROFL.... Dear heart, there's a reason for that. You are, in fact, demonstably a bigot. Deal with it. I see no need to pretend otherwise, and even less need to pretend that you are saying anything substantive when you quite clearly are not.

"The reason is my views are very popular."

No, dear, they're not, as any quick look at the polls would quickly demonstrate. You have one or two views, e.g., on same-sex marriage, that are shared by others. Most of your views, whether about homosexuality or any other topic, are quite clearly out of the mainstream.

"If, instead, yours were, we would have universal accpetance of sexual deviancy as 'normal'."

Guess what, dear, it is. You lost that battle thirty-five years.

"We don't."

Yes, dear, we do.

"If you can't discuss this or other devisive issues in good faith, then please don't bother."

ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Discuss these issues with a bigot "in good faith?!" The mind boggles.... For the record, dear, when have you *ever* discussed an issue on this forum "in good faith?"

"Anybody trying to talk you out of it?"

Um, our dear little chum has been here for quite a long time and has been spewing crap on this and other blogs for that entire time. No, we're not going to try to talk him out of it because he has demonstrated quite clearly that such an effort is a complete waste of time. It's like wrestling with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

"Anybody trying to enlighten you, seriously?"

I have, on other threads. El Viajero reacted quite predictably, ignoring the data and clinging firmly to his bigotry.

This post of yours was foolish; you should know better.

"What Rachel Madow says will reveal her biases plentifully, I would expect."

Bingo. This point is so self-evident and obvious that nobody really needed to make it. It's only fearful bigots like El Viajero that pretend otherwise.

I'm sure there are plenty of environments in which it's common for men to call any women who are stronger and smarter than they are 'lesbians'-- perhaps El V and Graham are simply offering their personal cultural analysis of the much smarter and tougher Maddow?

And btw, I'm an almost ridiculously hetero female, and given a choice between sleeping with Maddow and a doughy, ignorant, and malevolent idiot like Graham (to say nothing of the cartoonishly ghoulish John Gibson, who was sniping about Maddow's sexuality some months ago), I'd pick Rachel in a heartbeat. I'd bet that plenty of straight women-- hell, probably a fair number of gay men-- would say the same. Plumbing's important, but the right-wing brand of ugly goes all the way through.

Typo.

You meant to say, "The award goes to closeted homosexual Tim Graham..."

You know how they "cured" Ted Haggard? Well, do you remember when your dad caught you smoking, and to teach you a lesson, he made you smoke a whole carton?

(Stole that from Jon Stewart.)

Here I was, all excited that for once a LGBT person could rise to prominence and not be subjected to an endless fascination with their personal life and relationships.

I think Anderson Cooper already is that person.

Shorter El V:

"They're all alike."

Obama's balls taste like a chai latte. Yum

can you explain your double standard for gay republican congressman, or in the case of your party gay republcians in general?

Re, the 3:27 p.m. comment above:

Wow. Just wow.

Aw, c'mon you guys! All that El V Creepy Stalker Creep is asking for is that every time Rachael Maddow is talking on TV, he wants giant bold type letters flashing "LESBIAN...LESBIAN..." over and over again until she stops talking. And when Bill O'Liarly is on tv talking, he wants the stars and stripes song played over and over again underneath his beautiful truthiness. That's all he wants. Gosh!
And NATE, if Maddow was a congressperson who yapped on and on about that "family values" crap you might have something to cry about. But she isn't. Try to understand

The reason why being a lesbian in that position is an important piece of information for the public is that as a lesbian, she will have out-of-the-mainstream and radical views not only about "gay rights", but also will most likely have other radical views on other political issues.

Yes, because lesbians are all brush-cut, thick-wallet, fisting-party, crazay-man-killing, compulsory-abortion lunatics. Like Representative Tammy Baldwin. Oh. Wait. Nevermind.

PaulB, wherefore the change of salutation? "Dude"? The readership much prefers "Dear Heart."

Obama's balls taste like a chai latte.

Just one of many uncomfortable facts you won't be getting from radical lesbian Rachel Maddow.

I just gotta say..Rachel Maddow is a breath of fresh air. She's intelligent, calm, and not prone to spouting talking points. I for one, could not care less what she does in her personal life. I am very pleased she's on the air, regardless her orientation, and intend to watch regularly.

An Ode to Timmy and Assie

Here’s to you Mr. Tim Graham!
There’s nobody prissier than.
He hates him some homo,
But George Bush he does blow,
And of gay porn he is a big fan.

If there's nothing wrong with it, then she shouldn't mind people knowing she's a homosexual.

Anything...ANYTHING that might make a difference to a voter's decision is important for them to know.

Nothing is ever off the table.

Doesn't look like Maddow minds anybody knowing, El Viabigot. It's pretty well known.
While we're on that subject, you know, ANYTHING that that might make a difference for the voter and all that, why the hell doesn't Caribou Barbie talk about her fundy church background? You know, the really fundy stuff she is into, like creationism and rapist's rights and all. She didn't mention the fundy church stuff at all in her famous speech the other night. And her little stump speeches on the tour circuit are just little greatest hits edits from the one speech she gave, so she still isn't mentioning it out on the road either. Don't you think it is important for the VP pick to let the voters know important stuff like that?

If there's nothing wrong with it, then she shouldn't mind people knowing she's a homosexual.
She doesn't mind at all. She has a partner named Susan Mikula. Ergo, your whole argument is based on a falsehood.

Whether she's a lesbian or not, somebody better put some more lipstick on that pig.

Oh my. As an out lesbian myself, I must say that I'm feeling torn - should I laugh or cry? The fact that there are still soooo many people who still feel threatened by someone "different" than they are is just appalling to me. Wake up, it's 2008. Oh, and I really have to work harder if I'm to espouse all those "out-of-the-mainstream" and "radical" views, like supporting our troops by not getting involved in places we don't belong, calling corrupt politicians (of ALL stripes) on the carpet for their stupidity, and making sure future generations have something clean to drink, breathe and eat. Also, I must get busy on debunking the lunatics who want to teach creationism in the schools. THAT is what truly scares me. Now let's all ignore El Viajerk, the daft twit....

I hate fags and black people, but especially women.

Anyone who understands English competently knows that media "expert" Tim Graham meant to slime MSNBC by pointing out Maddow's sexual orientation. When someone suggests that Maddow's lesbianism ought to be embarassing to MSNBC, he simultaneously suggests that lesbianism itself is per se objectionable and shameful. No, this is not a tight logical deduction. It's an inference drawn from living on planet Earth and listening to people speak English. Graham is not making a good faith effort to provide useful facts to blank minds any more than wry speakers of Barack Obama's middle name are simply informing people of about political trivia.

The agenda on display is obvious. Graham is proferring a bigoted worldview for our consumption, and is hoping that we will then mobilize that bigotry in furtherance of conservative ends. Most of us here reject that worldview. Some accept it. Go ahead and argue the merits of that agenda if you want. But don't pretend like you don't get it.

What's the matter, El Viajaro? Thou doeth protest too much. You been secret IMing with Larry Craig this week?

All I have asked for is disclosure.

What the liberals want is secrecy.

"What's so bad about a pink triangle?" -- Texan Slumlord Bigot

It seems perfectly acceptable for the news media to announce that an "all white" jury has been seated for the O.J. Simpson trial, but not to mention that someone is a homosexual.

Entertaining to watch the coming nuance as to why they're somehow different.

El Douche's comments may be in step with a majority of America's most base and paranoid opinions (arguable), but is that something to crow about? How about wishing you were in the majority of the smart and informed. How pathetic that El Douche lives in a cave in the 1950's with his head up his ass and wants to advertise the fact that he still labors under the quaint anachronism that actual gay or lesbian people have uniformly radical predispositions to anything. Poor El Douche -- gays and lesbians love those capital-gains tax reductions just as much as you do!