Interesting. I think one aspect (at least with TV ads) worth mentioning is timing...not that it can be controlled.
I recall seeing some of those WWF "...before it's too late for the Polar Bear" ads during hurricane coverage this past fall and thought it was unfortunate timing. "Here comes the hurricane, people will die...and did I mention to save the polar bear" doesn't exactly play well. Of course, no company wants to be associated with negative coverage of events...I have no idea what can be done, but seeing that commercial at that time really made it seem trivial (in comparison) and almost like misplaced priorities.
I suppose that's the risk of advertising on news networks, though I would also imagine that people watching the news are more likely to be cause oriented and to get involved in some way.
I hesitate (or, more aptly, recoil) from labeling people against gay marriage as bigots. Some, clearly, are bigots of the highest order. Others are simply ignorant for any of a number of reasons, be it a lack of good information, a willingness to be lead around on issues like this, or whatever.
Sadly, it's very common for people to fear something they don't know much about and don't understand, and it doesn't help that some who are clearly bigoted try to take advantage of that fact. For many who oppose gay marriage, I'm willing to wager that they've never knowingly spoken with a homosexual, and it's the unknown that they do not understand.
It seems likely that we'll see full legal equality well before our society is fully comfortable with homosexuality, as it has been with pretty much every other form of bigotry (or, again, ignorance).
That said, I don't really LIKE Warren doing the prayer, but I think of it this way...he and his ilk already have the ear of many of the ignorant of which I wrote. It can't hurt to get their attention.
I'm sure she's a great person and all, but I really dislike continuing our downward spiral into oligarchy.
Appoint the best Democrat in NY's House delegation or in state government, maybe someone serving in government in an unelected capacity, but I don't think passing on a seat in the United States Senate to someone with a famous name who seems to have suddenly thought "hey, that might be fun" is a good idea.
If New Yorkers want to elect a Kennedy, then that's their business. Let her run and win. But considering incumbent advantage and name recognition, this is essentially a life appointment based in very little merit.
I do agree that it would be good to consider candidates who fall outside of the white-male group, though it shouldn't be a "litmus test", in the parlance of our times (and to quote The Big Lebowski!).
Random thought, but if this problem were common in the US, do you think the NAA (National Acid Association) would be saying "acid doesn't kill people...people kill people" or that we need to help these women defend themselves, by increasing their own access to acid (i.e. "when acid is outlawed, only outlaws will have acid")?
All my fights are ahead of me...not behind. I don't care who supported whom; if they want to do good work for our country, then I've got no beef. This shouldn't be a fight about who was right or wrong, but what's best from here on out. That fight is far too important to worry about the primary.