Hotline After Dark -- I-Ran So Far Away
"World News," "Evening News" and "Nightly News" each led with pirates hijacking a U.S. ship off the coast of Somalia. "Evening News" also featured the second part of a taped interview with AG Eric Holder.
The hijacking by pirates dominated the news cycle. However, there was some reaction to Pres. Obama's admin. saying it will participate directly in group talks with Iran.
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), asked if anything can change in dealing with Iran: "I think we've got a good probability that things may work out for our betterment. Here's why: I have seen no reason why we could not sit down with this nation, Iran, and discuss things. That doesn't mean having a cup of tea. It means sitting down, laying out what our goals, and having sanctions, carrots and sticks, as necessary. We've done it with the Soviet Union. How can we not do it with Iran. Second, there are common interests that we have."
More Sestak: "But then you come to the big issue. How can we work to make it a common interest that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? And that's where the conundrum begins. But not sitting down and discussing it means not trying to resolve it peacefully" ("Ed Show," MSNBC, 4/8).
Dick Morris: "When Obama is talking to Iran, it gives Iran a way to surrender diplomatically. On the other hand, Iran is going into these talks because they hope that by giving the illusion of progress, they'll get Obama to rein Israel in and stop Netanyahu from hitting them" ("O'Reilly Factor," FNC, 4/8).
CNN's Crowley: "They have looked at this in practical terms. They watched eight years of the Bush administration saying, hey, we will talk as soon as you do something about your nuclear capabilities. And the Obama administration looks at this and says, well, this hasn't worked. ... It should come as no surprise that they are making incremental steps to move toward Iran. And I think you will see those [poll] numbers move, depending on success or failure" ("Situation Room," 4/8).
After the jump, the gay marriage debate heats up.
(KATHERINE LEHR)
EVEN THOUGH WE AIN'T GOT MONEY, I'M SO IN LOVE WITH YOU HONEY
Meanwhile, gay marriage decisions in VT, IA and DC have people guessing if the topic will be an issue in the '10 election.
USA Today's Page: "I think if the economy is still in trouble, and it's hard to imagine we'll be out of this fix. ... I don't think the social issues like gay marriage are going to have very much salience for people who are worried about their jobs and their children's college education. ... Time is not on the side of people who oppose gay marriage, because we know that with voters under 30, they don't see this as a big issue. They tend to support the idea of same sex marriage. I don't think it becomes a top tier issue as long as we are so concerned about our economic situation."
Washington Post's Bacon, in response: "I don't think ... either side talked about it much in 2006 or 2008 either. I don't see it as being a big issue. ... If you notice in the last few days, you haven't heard a lot of statements from Democratic leaders applauding this. Nor have you heard a lot of statements from Republicans denouncing it either" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 4/8).
Human Rights Campaign's Lara Schwartz, on whether the state of the economy is having an impact on the gay marriage debate: "I think what we're learning from this economy is that we're all facing this. And I think, to an extent, people know that other people trying to commit and raise their families isn't the biggest threat to them when there's foreclosure and job loss. But at the same time, it's really teaching us how much all of our families have in common, which ... far outweighs our differences" ("Situation Room," CNN, 4/8).
CNN's Toobin, on DC's decision to allow gay couples married in other states to be recognized in the district: "I don't think other states are going to say, well, DC did it, we need to do it, too. But in each state, there is a movement in favor of gay marriage. In some states, it's pretty clear. Like New Jersey, gay marriage is clearly going to arrive. In some states -- through much of the South -- gay marriage is not going to arrive. And I think we're approaching a real federalist solution here. Gay marriage is going to exist in some states and not in others. And that's probably an acceptable compromise, for at least most people" ("Situation Room," 4/8).
Nat'l Org for Marriage pres. Maggie Gallagher and Human Rights Campaign pres. Joe Solmonese appeared together on "Hardball."
Gallagher: "Marriage isn't a private act. It's a public status. And, when your government tells you that same-sex unions are marriages, it's going to affect a lot of people besides the couple who wants to do it. ... The heart of the gay marriage idea is that there is no difference between a same-sex union and a union of husband and wife, and that you're a bigot engaging in discrimination if you think otherwise. "
Solmonese: "What we saw happen in the last week was really we crossed a very important line in marriage equality. In a heartland state like Iowa, they issued a powerful and sweeping statement that our families and the circumstances of our lives are just like everyone else's. ... And in the state of Vermont, the legislature not only voted for marriage, but voted to overturn the governor's veto. What Maggie and her organization understand is that it's no longer palatable in this country or OK to an outright bigot, that if you want to deny us these rights, you need to do it by lying and misrepresenting the facts."
Solmonese, on the Nat'l Org for Marriage's ad: "The people in those ads are not even who they portray them to be."
Gallagher: "That's why in the bottom we say, these are based on real incidents and you can go to our website to learn."
Solmonese: "It would be laughable if what they were saying was not based in such lies and misinformation. ... Not one thing that they say in this ad is true" (MSNBC, 4/8).