Hey, that is the same newspaper that endorsed Hillary and McCain. In fact, it is the newspaper that has reported so much on Obama and Hillary, going as far as it can to expose what little evidence of wrongdoing it could find to hurt Obama's reputation. I am talking about Obama here, because I have read on other newspapers attacking McCain on ethics and other issues (the Iseman affair is not verified, so don't believe it).
Now, let me say why I think people are supporting McCain:
1. He is a war hero and a warrior who, to the delight of war monging voters, once said he might have a hundred years war in Iraq.
2. He sponsored ethics legislation, but then hired lobbyists in his senate office and his campaign, contradicting his core principle.
3. He has bad tempers and have often confronted lawmakers and others with "f---k you" and other offensive language (though he often apologizes afterward).
5. He voted against a law banning torture even after he publicly stated he opposed torture, once again contradicting his beliefs and statements.
Along with other issues, the above list is what I think voters want in a president and vote for McCain if Obama loses. In short, they approve of McCain's self-contradicting values and they don't care about his record of ill conceived war votes and support.
For those who prefer Hillary:
1. Debates matter more than demonstrated leadership ability (how the campaign is managed, etc).
2. Voters don't care about past scandals to help them judge the effectiveness of a leader, yet they insist on the value of experience even though Obama leads Hillary  in terms of quantitative elective office held.
2. Obama has made fewer mistakes (I do not inlude the perceived plagiarism and Michelle's "proud" statement unless I am a prude and interpreted them out of context, because I know all politicians do use others' phrases and works, and that Michelle meant to be proud that America is overcoming its bigotry by rejecting a woman president or a black president).
3. I am not stupid to think that by "promise" and "hope" Obama is not promising anything but challenging Americans to have confidence in their abilities and believe in themselves and their abilities. Only the dumbest mind will interpret this as a promise to be made into law.
4. When Americans have low confidence, they need an inspiring, mobilizing president to motivate them to do what is right for their nation. "Ask not what your country can do for you" as JFK said. "Ask what you can do for your country."
6. Voters may be condoning dirty, deceptive political campaigning to secure the presidency than carefully evaluating each candidate's effectiveness and trustworthiness.

"My initial reaction to it was that it was ...."  

"exactly the sort of crap we like to get into the paper with operatives like Judith Miller about Kerry, Clinton - you know, the people we smear - so we know it's a bunch of scurrilous lies - like we tell. Constantly. Exactly the same. Obvious garbage."

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

- Alfred E. Neuman

The fact the NYT would publish that kind of article now is unbelievable. What were the editors thinking? Come to think of it, what's wrong with ME?  I forgot - anything to sell more papers...  Disgusting, to say the least!

I think releasing a story of this type, this early in the general election campaign, was a stroke of brilliance.

By putting a relatively tame “smear” story out now, and having the responses come back so negatively against the NY TIMES rather than either of the candidates, sets the tone for the rest of the campaign that “smear”-type stories against either of the candidates won’t be believed or tolerated.

Since “smearing” has proven to be a favored tactic of the right-wing press (willie horton, McCain’s “black baby”, etc.), having a story like this come out now (with such a strong reaction against it) basically thwarts any attempts by those “conservative media” outlets to advance any mud they might be cooking up against their democratic opponent.

“He’s gay!” “He’s Muslim!” “He cheated on his high school chemistry test!” None of that silly mudslinging stuff is gonna get anywhere now, since the public has been innoculated against any type of smear tactics.  When they try to throw it, the answer will be "yeah, right...and McCain was having affairs with lobbyists too, I suppose."

Thanks, NY Times, for taking the “hit” on this one.

Now maybe, just maybe this year’s campaigns will focus more on the actual issues instead of the mud…which in the end will be better for us all.

Dear Friends:
Nice trick Obama and or Hillary Clinton against Senator McCain.  Obama this shows what a sleeze you are.  Go where the sun doesn't shine.  You idiot!
Do you think American military will want to take order from you and or protect you?   He   ill they will want to turn you over to the enemy!  Have a hey day nanotechs with the liars.    

Mrs. John McCain I am so sorry someone is trying to disgrace you.   God have no mercy on them or their sole.   What ever the lobbyist wanted tell them to go elsewhere now!   There is an election to run and jobs in the Senate.    Trash take it out!  vote for John McCain.  What a set up!

And liberals complain about FOX. No one on FOX every lied or slimed a presidental candidate like the NYT's has done to McCain.

Political PR 101 - when an unflattering story appears blame the media. Deflect from the merits of the story by denouncing it as sloppy. Try to intimidate further discussion by dismissing it as ridiculous.

Later, when it turns out to be true, find another scandal, preferably about your opponent. And I'm enjoying the line: "McCain is so sure about his integrity that occasionally he gives a wrong appearance." Isn't that Larry Craig's defense?

Children everywhere now can say: My standards are so high about refusing dessert that it may appear I stole those cookies from the jar when nothing is further from the truth.

The New York Times has just single handed unity the entire republican party behind John McCain. I had my doubts but now I have none if the liberal press will take such an underhanded, unsourced, implication ridden shot at one republican they take it at all. What a shame our nation has lost the integrity of the press.

I dont understand why a newspaper would take a chance at a law suit for defimation of charecter, and other possiable action....Is there more to this than told...Something doesnt sound right.

So, if there is truth to the story, why was it not exposed during the 2000 election?  Really wonder what NYT's motive is for running the story now.  Something fishy here.  The Aid who told the Times about it is no longer with the campaign???  Maybe they have a vendetta???

The American people are so sick of all this crap.
Gutter politics should have no place in America
period.
False accusations, swift boating and all that other stuff should be banned.
I'm a Democrat and I like and respect John McCain.
But I don't think its fair to him, or to the other candidates or to us.
Its horrible and the editor of NYT should be ashamed
of himself.
This country is in already in a crisis.
We're trying to make up our minds on who's the best person who can pull this country together and pull us out of all this mess.
We don't need any extra drama other than what we already have.

2/19/2008
Hardball
Chris Matthews to Kirk Watson, Texas rep supporting Obama:

"Sir, can you name Senator Obama's legislative accomplishments"? "Can you name any of them? Name one."

Watson - NO, I CAN'T!

Could not name any Obama legislative accomplishments!

Matthews was attacked for asking a straight forward question. Still, don’t pound on Watson; he is a typical Obama supporter who doesn’t base his support on reason. On everything that matters, experience, leadership, health care plan, plan for the economy, etc. – Obama just comes up short.  So, is he qualified to be president - no.  However, he won’t be the first or the last person to run for office who wasn’t qualified.

Hillary Clinton is qualified but sexism trumps race in this election!

According to McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt: "the NYT story is about bad journalism and not about the senator."

Actually, Mr. Schmidt is beginning to sound like Ron Ziegler. The issue isn't about any personal attraction between Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman. Follow the money . . .

Is it "bad journalism" to raise character and conflict questions before an election? If there is nothing substantive behind it, what is McCain objecting to? Compared to the beating he got from GWB in 2000, this is minor stuff!

McCain left his first wife, who had been crippled in a horrible accident, after cheating on her with his current wife, Cindy. McCain has publicly admitted to cheating on his wives.

McCain was scolded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his prominent part in the Keating Five scandal that cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. McCain publicly admitted to his ethical failure during this significant Congressional scandal.

Should we be surprised that McCain now stands accused of cheating on Cindy with an attractive lobbyist? Should we be surprised he stands accused of helping this lobbyist and the companies she represented more than he should have, when he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee?

The New York Times and Washington Post have quoted ample sources regarding top McCain advisors scrambling to keep this woman away from McCain during his last run for the Presidency. McCain's letters on behalf of this woman's clients are equally factual.

Factual, and damning.

The "New Republic Link" is dead.

Don't expect to see anything more from them on this.

  THE ONLY THING THAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT SLEAZY STORY WASN'T RUN BY MSNBC.  THIS SORT OF STUFF IS RIGHT UP THEIR ALLEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  IS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE STORY AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN?

To Sharon Walker, Folsom, CA:

Don't feel sorry for Cindy McCain.  Feel sorry for John McCain's first wife who was sick while her husband, John, and then mistress, Cindy, were having an affair.

Once a cheater, always a cheater.

My guess is there's more to this story than we know (for now).

"And liberals complain about FOX. No one on FOX every lied or slimed a presidental candidate like the NYT's has done to McCain." - Andrew Webber, LA CA

I can't believe I just read that. Possibly the funniest post I've ever seen on this site.

Cindy deserves this. She is the reason John McCain cheated on his first, crippled wife, Carol (go ahead, Google it! people forget too quickly or were too young to know about it, but it happened).

Cindy is the reason McCain left his first wife, which he did a month after his divorce. Back then, Cindy was twenty years younger, beautiful, and rich. Cindy had so much money and access to more, as an heiress to a beer fortune, that she could help McCain politically -- which she and her money did. Thanks to Cindy and her family's money and connections, McCain went to the Senate for Arizona.

Let's see, this lobbyist is again as much younger, beautiful and gee, she looks a HECK of a lot like Cindy once did.

The lobbyist also comes offering McCain lots of money that can help him politically ... and McCain later enjoys huge donations (six figure sums) from this lobbyist's customers ...

Cindy, what goes around ...

... and for McCain, no mercy. What a creep!

Let's hope this re-opens the Republican nomination to someone we can trust.

Washington Post also did a follow-up story today...

Unlike MSNBC's Nora O'Donnel's producers who are evidently concentrating THIER coverage on the possible "sex scandal" angle, MSNBC should be looking at, (LIKE THE POST DID) about ANOTHER Mccain lobbyist scandal -

This guy McCain just can't say NO to a lobbyist(esp. w/ a blonde bimbo lobbyist who looks remarkably like his last 2 wives)!

Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama, 2008

I thought Americans where matured (based on how you have been ruling the world, may be the world is just too stupid to follow the Americans). In this age you are still voting on basis of races. I don't care who wins please vote on the ability of the candidate. Forget about race or gender for heaven’s sake. You shout every God bless American but your principals are not based on God but race or gender. I am disappointed. Grow up.

Ben Yumba

I will never even look at the NYT again. Shame on them.

I believe that the NYT has some explaining to do, but like it or not, this is how the free press works in a democracy.

Hey, that is the same newspaper that endorsed Hillary and McCain. In fact, it is the newspaper that has reported so much on Obama and Hillary, going as far as it can to expose what little evidence of wrongdoing it could find to hurt Obama's reputation. I am talking about Obama here, because I have read on other newspapers attacking McCain on ethics and other issues (the Iseman affair is not verified, so don't believe it).
Now, let me say why I think people are supporting McCain:
1. He is a war hero and a warrior who, to the delight of war monging voters, once said he might have a hundred years war in Iraq.
2. He sponsored ethics legislation, but then hired lobbyists in his senate office and his campaign, contradicting his core principle.
3. He has bad tempers and have often confronted lawmakers and others with "f---k you" and other offensive language (though he often apologizes afterward).
5. He voted against a law banning torture even after he publicly stated he opposed torture, once again contradicting his beliefs and statements.
Along with other issues, the above list is what I think voters want in a president and vote for McCain if Hillary loses. In short, they approve of McCain's self-contradicting values and they don't care about his record of ill conceived war votes and support.
For those who prefer Hillary:
1. Debates matter more than demonstrated leadership ability (how the campaign is managed, etc).
2. Voters don't care about past scandals to help them judge the effectiveness of a leader, yet they insist on the value of experience even though Obama leads Hillary  in terms of quantitative elective office held.
2. Obama has made fewer mistakes than the other candidates (I do not include the perceived plagiarism and Michelle's "proud" statement unless I am a prude and interpreted them out of context, because I know all politicians do use others' phrases and works, and that Michelle meant to be proud that America is overcoming its bigotry by rejecting a woman president or a black president).
3. I am not stupid to think that by "promise" and "hope" Obama is  promising anything but challenging Americans to have confidence in their abilities and believe in themselves and their abilities. Only the dumbest mind will interpret this as a promise to be made into law.
4. When Americans have low confidence, they need an inspiring, mobilizing president to motivate them to do what is right for their nation. "Ask not what your country can do for you" as JFK said. "Ask what you can do for your country."
6. Voters may be condoning dirty, deceptive political campaigning to secure the presidency than carefully evaluating each candidate's effectiveness and trustworthiness.

Clearly this didn't come from Obama or Hillary. Anyone who thinks so hasn't read the story. All the sources are Republicans. My guess would be some disgruntled staffer started the ball rolling. It's funny McCain's so pissed off about this. If anything, the Times has done him two huge favors. First, if the story had dropped before New Hampshire, we'd probably be looking at Romney as the nominee. And by sending up a mealy story the lawyers clearly watered down, the paper made it easier for the right wing to rally around him and save face at the same time. Not bad for a day's work.

Thank you NYT. The article is balanced and generally reports JMC as a good principled man. It also does its job as a newspaper to report on a very important person that we may have as a president. I do have concerns that John McCain clearly has a tendency to try to look correct. But, the list of times when he is just on the edge of improper dealings involving donors who have business with government is good to know. It's fair information and, seeing as the American tendency is to vote by popularity and likeability rather than objectivity and, that they forget most things within months, a reminder that John McCain has been on the edge of ethical impropriety more than once is appropriate to report.

Apparently, the NYT was sitting on this story when they endorsed McCain.
They did the same in 2004 - concealing Bush's rendition flights right through the 2004 election - finally reporting it a year later.

If my father is criminal, should I shout to the world that I am part of that family? Same if they country is invloved in torturing other people shoud sing to the world that I am part of that country. Please, grow up.
Ben Yumba

Andrew - you're wrong!
Fox News continually smeared and slimed John Edwards!

Swiftboating by the New York Slimes.

But I think the McCain spokesman did the National Enquirer a disservice.

Don't hold your breath for MSNBC or the NYT to report on Obama and Rezko!!

Initially, Obama claimed he barely knew the man.
Then we learned of their 15 year relationship and the thousands Rezko has donated to Obama's campaignS.
NOW - we learn Rezko toured Obama's house with him before he bought it.

Shhh.....

Obama is the media's darling!

Hmmm... if I'm forced to choose between believing in the journalistic integrity of a newspaper with the reputation of the NY Times, and believing in the integrity of a 70+ year old politician running for President, I think I'd be a dunderhead to believe in the politician without a lot more in the way of FACTS on my side.  I'm not suggesting a rush to judgment here, but that would certainly include NOT rushing to judgment about the story the Times printed, and their sources.  

Where is the Obama cult worshiping today?

Bush didn't use it against McCain in 2000 - but instead, a week before the SC primary, used robocalls accusing McCain of fathering a black baby.

I happen to know for a fact that Bud Paxson who was the CEO of Paxson Communications was cutting checks out of his personal account to pay the lobbyist in this story. I know because I worked at Paxson and saw the checks with my own eyes. McCain took this money from Bud so he could buy the station in Pittsburg, which was taking forever to be approved by the FCC. Then McCain wrote the letters on Bud’s behalf to see the deal approved. It’s that simple and I’m laughing because everyone is bashing the NY Times when they are 100% correct. If McCain is so honest ask him to supply the media with the checks that were issued to him and the lobbyist. The real story here is taking money for legislative favors not an affair. The media needs to follow the money and ignore the affair. The money is where this story is!!!!

"I dont (sic) understand why a newspaper would take a chance at a law suit for defimation (sic) of charecter (sic), and other possiable (sic) action....Is there more to this than told...Something doesnt (sic) sound right."

Uh... maybe, just maybe because the story is TRUE? Ever give that any consideration or are you one of those drones who automatically thinks 'NYT = Bad and always wrong'?

Sharon I think you need to take your meds dear you are foaming at the mouth. The source of the story was an ex aid to Senetor McCain that was mad at him. It had nothing to do with the other candidates on either side of the race. Please get your facts strait before you start tring to trash innocent parties or else you are no better then tne people that told this to the reporters. Oh and one more thing better check with God first he might not want to attack their shoes. I believe him to be more in the soul buisness then the sole thing.

If this story is not true, I suggest a $500 million lawsuit against any news media reporting it and make them prove the charges. Its Time we take back the Media and make them accountable to the truth, THEY WILL NOT ELECT OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!! They have smeared Obama, Hillary and Mccain. The NYT"S Stock is at it lowest level, Advertising is drying up and we can close this piece of crap of a newspapers down

"The New York Times has just single handed unity the entire republican party behind John McCain. "

THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE--PEOPLE!!!!

Why would a newspaper endorse someone and then write a untruthful, nasty story about them?  It's only to rally those who would not have on their own rallied for McCain.  It brought those conservatives back to the metality of "me vs. liberal media".

WAKE UP!!  Your being played.........

Sharon Warlker,
Are you insain?  Are there people this stupid really walking around?  Did you even read the article?  Have you been following the new?  This story came from people within McCain own circle.  Who can you conclude that Obama or Clinton have anything to do wtih this?

"Nice trick Obama and or Hillary Clinton against Senator McCain.  Obama this shows what a sleeze you are.  Go where the sun doesn't shine.  You idiot!
Do you think American military will want to take order from you and or protect you?   He   ill they will want to turn you over to the enemy!  Have a hey day nanotechs with the liars."    
-Sharon Walker

Why so much hate and Venom? Are you a racist? Come on, be honest.

A response to Richard Anderson's five points on McCain.

You do realize maybe if more politicians were willing to say that, we'd actually have something get done rather than watch a bunch of approval-rating-seekers dance around in front of the camera.

And the reason McCain voted against the ban, as you say, was because the democrats he was saying "f--k you" to were loading it up with a bunch of anti-funding and pork-barrel hippie crap. If there had been ONE item on the bill, he would've voted against it.

Also, saying "One Hundred Years in Iraq" was a hyperbole you putz. He meant as long as it takes to make sure there isn't a mass genocide or ethnic cleansing or civil war when we pull out. Because, believe it or not, Republicans care about whether hundreds of thousands of people die because Democrats want to pull out without considering the ramifications REGARDLESS of whether going in the first place was the right choice (you have to deal with what we HAVE not what we COULD have had). No one is arguing that GOING to war was ill-conceived. However it is EQUALLY ill-conceived that it is easy to turn around and jump out and pretend that we didn't screw up.

As for his dealings with lobbyists, not to mention his positions in the past on immigration (you should have included that, it's a big one), I cannot defend him. Those are short-comings, but there is no candidate who doesn't have some. Name your favorite candidate and why, and I'll be happy to show you some.

BTW, sorry I called you a putz, but it's irritating for you to use language such as "In short, they approve of McCain's self-contradicting values and they don't care about his record of ill conceived war votes and support. " in what would otherwise be a reasonable post.

NYT has a shameful history of inaccurate and biased reporting.  It's a liberal rag with a political agenda.  Time to put it out of business!  Is objective reporting that's neither liberal or conservative too much to ask for?  Shame on NYT!  Go McCain!

No one survives politics at the local, state, or national level without doing favors for vested interests, for both formally registered lobbyists as well as those who contribute to their campaigns. What matters is not whether McCain has ever  delivered on behalf of a lobbyist but in Washington but whether there is a pattern of doing so in his career. Of the major Presidential candidates we have seen in both parties this year, Hillary Clinton stands out as the most glaring example of blatant money-grubbing with lobbyists. Of the two remaining viable contenders, Obama and McCain, there is no pattern of such behavior. On the contrary, we face an election between two champions in the battle against monied interests in Washington. The story in the New York Times is, in fact, news, but trivial and insignificant given the major issues of the day, such as the war in Iraq and our economic stagnation.

I think this is called shooting the messenger.

To Sharon -- Lol? How can you possibly link Clinton or Obama to this? Why don't go blame Matt Drudge and the Drudge report first -- that's where this story first surfaced, back in December.

Really you should just settle for bashing the Times. Either they had more dirt on this that they couldn't print it all, or they had nothing else so just ran the thin crap they did have.

Either way it was a bad editorial call. It just makes the paper look stupid and, even worse, acting in the interest of "selling more papers."

http://www.nationalscold.com

This just in... Alan Keyes has volunteered to step in for McCain to take a second shot at Obama.  Sounds like he'll have a better chance, so it might be worth considering.

Barack has to start wondering why his major competition has a nasty habit of imploding in each race he's in.

Lee in Baltimore;

Please note that to date, the vast majority of mudslinging has been between the two democratic candidates. I don't think the conservatives are going to be at the center of it this time around.

Do you want to know more about John McCain? Read THE NIGHTINGALE'S SONG.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):