L’aver tirato in ballo Mary Cheney durante l’ultimo dibattito. è stato molto contestato a John Kerry. In effetti lui l’ha fatto da paraculo, sapendo che entrava a far male. Ma il problema è il dente che duole, non la lingua che batte, come spiega Andrew Sullivan:
A TYPICAL POINT: Here’s an email that makes a point many others have. I cite it because it’s representative:
You won’t read this or reply, but that’s fine. Your support of Kerry’s bringing up Mary Cheney in the debate just lost my respect completely. The best analogy I can think of would have been Carter mentioning Betty Ford’s addiction or someone mentioning Martha Mitchell’s instability and alcoholism in a presidential debate. Just beyond the pale. The young woman, and the family, are entitled to their privacy on private matters.

Notice two things. First, the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That’s why Rove’s base is so outraged. But if you don’t believe this, it’s no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate’s son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry’s immigrant wife. You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That’s why it’s a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn’t private. She ran gay outreach for Coors, for pete’s sake. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She’s running her dad’s campaign! Whatever else this has to do with – and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not – privacy is irrelevant.

Andrewsullivan