San Francisco 1978 is described as ”what was then (believe it or not) a relatively conservative city dominated by white-ethnic clan politics and the Catholic church” which strikes me as odd, considering the history the city had already made as a counter-culure haven. But then later on the same city in the same year is described as “most liberal city in the most liberal region of the country.”

I'm not sure this is what Andrew meant, but I think at the time there was still a big disconnect between the community's politics and the established machine politics of the city. The election that put both White and Milk on the board was the first run on the district election system (instead of all supervisors having to compete on a city-wide level). This resulted in a much greater diversity on the board than ever before -- the first Chinese American supervisor and the first black woman were also elected that year -- as well as a much more liberal board than ever before. (Note that Oakland, birthplace of the Black Panthers, only elected its first black mayor in 1977.)

As for the emotional setting, I think it's really hard to explain what it was like in the Bay Area that November. Like Andrew, I was in high school in the east bay at the time, and it really did seem like the world was flying apart, with these murders coming on the heels of Jonestown. I can understand why the filmmakers might not want to dwell on that aspect of the story, since it's not directly connected to Milk's story, but for just about anybody living in the area at the time, the two events are inextricably linked.

ann0nymous, gay actors have been playing straight parts for centuries. You know, acting. If the same were true of racial blind casting -- if black actors routinely played white characters and had been doing so throughout the history of theater -- then my guess is that race wouldn't be an issue in casting, either.

Several things are getting conflated here:

1. Number of people in the Democratic caucus vs. number of votes on any given issue.

2. Lieberman being allowed to continue as chair of Homeland Security, vs. his continuing to caucus with the Democrats.

3. Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats vs. Lieberman's voting with the Democrats.

For my money, there is no advantage for the Democrats in keeping Lieberman in his position as chair of the Homeland Security committee, and several advantages to ousting him -- such as replacing him with a competent chair for this very powerful committee. This is why I have written my Senators and urged them to join in ousting him from his chairmanship. Whether he caucuses with the Democrats or votes with the Democrats on any given vote is up to him. But he must not be allowed to exercise so much power over the Democratic leadership.

I want to echo what novoteindc said above: there is no reason, NONE, to believe these anonymously-sourced stories about Palin. I realize that it's tempting to believe dirt about someone you loathe, but get real -- it's being dished by members of a campaign that has taken pathological lying to a new level.

I really don't care what anybody says about Palin. Let's hope she goes back to Alaska and never ventures forth again. But if you're going to analyze what people are saying about her, please consider the source.

...but it's a variation on a theme I see all the time online: when criticized, assert "I have a right to voice my opinion," or "you can't stop me from saying what I think!"

In other words, cry censorship. God, it's annoying. And it's what people do when they don't know how to respond to criticism.

"I'm not saying he's a child molester. I'm just saying the media should investigate to see if he is one."

The ads I've seen during the Daily Show make it look dreadful -- racist and unfunny. I'm not even tempted to watch it.

This is the kind of statement that just sticks in my craw. So one or more of these consultant/hacks likes her (or finds it necessary to say so), fine. But it's not a statement of fact. The polls show that the American people are finding her less and less likeable as they find out more about her.

George W. Bush was always described as "likeable," but as someone commented to me back in 2000, that isn't even a matter of opinion, it's a matter of taste. Aside from any judgements I might have about Palin's politics or her readiness to be president, she reminds me of the girls knew in junior high school who used all of their energy and intellect to figure out how to get to the top of the pecking order and stay there. Their main expertise was in being mean and being able to brazen out almost any situation by refusing to admit that they were ignorant or wrong -- or, if necessary, by asserting that their ignorance made them superior. (Sound familiar?) They were always described as "popular," but most people didn't like them -- we just knew that we had to acknowledge their popularity if we wanted our lives to be bearable. But I'm old enough now to be honest: I don't like Palin.