Hi, Tom!

Not once in the article is this "whisper campaign" tied back to the Democratic Party, though it probably can be tied to specific Democrats -- gay Democrats. Maybe gay Republicans, too.

It's well known here that militant parts of the gay and lesbian community will attempt to identify practicing homosexuals of both sexes to make the point that they aren't the freaks and pariahs some religious and political groups would make them out to be. They also do it to lampoon the hypocrisy of some who are closetted but practicing, yet who advocate draconian measures against people who are already public. This practice is known as "outing". It's an invasion of the victim's privacy, and it is politically motivated, but not in the major-party kind of way. It's a pressure group thing.

I notice that, waaaay down in the body of the article, the actual issues that the professional campaign is focusing on are at least reported. Oh, good for the reporter!

What this tells me is two things:

1. People's sexual behavior is either private or it isn't, and we need to decide which when it comes to campaigning, holding office, and everything else having to do with public life. (Always excepting non-consensual acts.) Think about it this way: do we really need to know if George and Laura use whipped cream? Married straight people can be arrested for certain "normal" practices in some states.

2. Republicans are more likely to hold someone's sex life against him -- or her. Otherwise, who would care? Can you imagine a whisper campaign like this against a female Democratic candidate? It would be ignored, because it wouldn't undermine her bedrock support.

A cheap homophobic attack would be more along the lines of "Look at that dyke, that freak of nature, that man-hating, child-abusing, Hell-bound bitch who's running for office!", not, "The candidate had a girlfriend, and I know 'cause it was me." The latter is merely adolescent, and a grown-up would let it go.

There is plenty for you to complain about that has some substance down in the body of the article, things I could agree with you about and other things worth arguing over, but like the article, you chose to magnify an attempted and maybe false outing by leading with it. Leave it to the Republican press to put the "tit" into "tittle-tattle".

Republican candidates are only going to be able to get past a "threat"* like this when people can look the outers in the eye and say, "So?" Of course, the day that happens, homosexuality will not be considered normal by everyone, but at least not a mark of moral turpitude.

Regards--
Mary Anne

*I recognize it's a real threat to Republicans. It's in quotes because it shouldn't be, except for the attitudes of stalwarts of the Republican Party toward gays and lesbians.