0 history. it's happened with hillary and bill clinton. it's happened when roger clinton, billy carter's brother -- >> bill clinton's brother? >> right. >> billy carter was jimmy carter's brother. >> we love it. newt had a gay daughter. rob porter had a gay son and came out and changed his position. >> let's be clear. the democrats have a platform that's pro-gay marriage. there's a democrat governor candidate in south carolina who is not for that. we don't even know his name. people don't report on him. >> he's a candidate for governor. he's not -- the vice president of the united states -- the cheney family is a bit like the kennedys to the sense to the republicans, i think, they're a hugely important family. to families in the republican p party gay marriage -- issue in america. when it's affecting the republican party personally that's an interesting story. >> what about the point mary cheney made an issue, therefore journalists don't have much of a choice but to acknowledge it in a senate race in which her sister is running in. just the other day mary cheney told politico in an e-mail i'm not supporting liz's candidacy. >> right. i think it's a story. as i said at the beginning, it is a legitimate story. once the family puts it out there. it's not as if we're outing someone who's gay. >> you also said that the media find these personal family spats delicious. that's why it's getting more play than perhaps you think it should. >> i think that's true. i think that it's overexposed. and that we are right now -- the fact we're talking about it, leading off the show, is always a dilemma. because it was overcovered. here we are again covering it. >> let me take a couple minutes to turn to news that broke -- i guess it's 3:00 in the morning in geneva and is breaking -- continuing to dominate the news right now. that is united states, the obama administration, reaching a deal with iran on nuclear development. that deal just oversimplifying, for a moment, freezes but does not reverse most of iran's nuclear efforts. at the same time eases about $7 billion in western sanctions against the government of iran which is not all the sanctions but is a piece of it. let me put up on the screen a couple of news analyses -- not the news stories but news analyses in major newspapers. "new york times," the interim accord struck interrupts the country's nuclear process for the first time in a decade but requires iran to make only a modest down payment on the central problem. "washington post," plan accepted by iran on sunday would accomplish something u.s. governments have sagt in vain for more than a decade. a pause, at least, in iran's inexorable march to nuclear capability. would you agree, rick, or not there's at least a dose of skepticism in the way this breaking news has been reported? >> i'm not sure. i think there's been a rush ever since rouhani started tweeting, there's been a rush by a lot of the media to immediately brand this as a new day and new change. they haven't changed their behavior. iran has not changed its behavior one bit. yet we have the u.s. government now going to give in cash and sanctions really $7 billion to the largest state sponsor of terrorism. iran hasn't changed one iota. >> okay. but it is -- to come back to the media coverage, it is portrayed as an interim deal toward perhaps a larger deal. iran is supposed to exhibit good faith by doing the things in the agreement. the united states eases a little bit of the sanctions. republicans have been attacking this. so it was announced. that's their privilege. that's been reported as well. do you think -- do you see any tilt toward declaring this a great diplomatic victory for the obama administration? >> we've only been about 12 hours into this. i think the media coverage has certainly been excited which is reflecting what the public at large has been feeling i think word wide. >> it's also been partisan. slate, a liberal website, calls it a good deal. national review a bad and morally indefensible deal. >> the partisans are always going to -- democrats are going to say it's great. republicans are going to say it's bad. we know that. the media's initial impression has been while this is really interesting and let's take a deeper look which i think is a healthy dose of this looks like it might be a positive step. but all of us need to look at the details before we know. that's what it's all about. >> i don't think the political press understands it. keeping this away from the political press is the best thing. give it to international reporters who understand the issue. >> there are a handful of journalists who have covered these issues for years. they understand nuances. most people who talk about it on television, probably not. when we come back, the media keep comparing obama care to hurricane katrina. is that offensive? =