The New York Times editorial says it all about the Sarah Palin interview with Charles Gibson, bringing it right back to John McCain. Gibson did a better job than I thought he would, though he blew the gay question entirely, simply asking her without follow up (it seemed, for him, just a perfunctory question)) if she believes homosexuality is a "choice" or genetic, and then accepting her answer that she doesn't "judge" people.
Well, most Bible-thumpers will say they don't "judge" people as they actively condemn the homosexual "act" and supposedly not the individual (love the sinner, hate the sin). And who cares anyway about her beliefs on that? What he should have asked her about were the issues -- discrimination laws, hate crimes laws, partnership rights -- and about if she agrees with her church on "curing" people of homosexuality, as it promotes an "ex-gay" conference in Anchorage today. And he could have asked her about the one book that it seems clear she tried to ban, Pastor, I Am Gay.
But back to the Times editorial, one of many bad reviews in newspapers Sarah Palin got and which pins all of this right back on John McCain:
As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
Indeed, let's hope the frothing TV pundits --and the American people -- catch up.