By now you’ve heard about the NY Times‘ piece on John McCain’s troublesome relationship with a female lobbyist
While we love to revel in hypocrisy exposed, it seems to us – and our Jossip colleagues – that the Times story isn’t so much a smear campaign as it is a political sketch gone horribly awry.
The piece – part of a larger series looking at the candidates and their occupational evolution – tried to paint McCain as a man who’s struggled to reconcile his political and personal interests. That said, the article had true human potential, but ended up getting sullied by sensationalism, reducing the subject (McCain) to an object. Obviously the New York Times‘ editorial team caught on to this skewing of the story.
How can we be so sure? Well, the story has been floating around since December and this comment from CNN’s Dana Bash:
I will just tell you what the McCain campaign says. What his advisers tell me is that they got a call from a reporter who worked for The New Republic magazine doing a story last week — we’re told — last week about internal turmoil inside The New York Times newsroom.
And, according — according to the McCain campaign, they were told by this New Republic reporter that there was squabbling inside The New York Times about whether or not to go with this story. In fact, one of the advisers I told you I spoke with, Charlie Black, he even said that he was told that The New York Times made an editorial decision twice not to run the story.
So, the real question in our mind isn’t whether McCain got down with a female lobbyist, but why the NY Times ran the story.
Executive editorial director Bill Keller claims there’s no back room machinations:
On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.
You sure, did, Keller, and now McCain’s got you in his sights.
Oh, and in case you couldn’t guess, McCain’s denied having inappropriate contact with the lobbyist and denies the Times‘ claim adviser John Weaver discussed the matter with him during the 2000 campaign.
We can’t help but wonder whether this will dig into McCain’s already wobbly conservative base.
Vicki Iseman! Vicki Iseman! Vicki Iseman! McCain is Toast!!!
Obama, Clinton, McCain = He-Man, She-Ra, Skeletor
Sad, really. To quote to contemporary philosopher P. W. Hilton, “Hottie becomes nottie” (or just ‘naughty,’ if you think WALNUTS! really got any action out of the deal).
McCain is probably spreading the story himself so he appears more virile and youthful. Whatever, yawn…
Not even I would spit fuck John McCain with two sacks.
The media is playing this story way down, which gives you a sign of things to come. CNN and MSNBC are claiming it is a smear campaign by the NY Times.
If it were Obama or Clinton, it would be a 24/7 news.
I think you’re right, Jack Jett–had Obama or Clinton been caught being similarly snuggly with a lobbyist (regardless of possible “romantic” aspects, the use of which word in the media strikes me as profoundly Victorian, particularly given the full-frontal treatment Bill Clinton received in the press: no one ever, to my recollection, referred to the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship as “romantic”), they’d be pilloried, hanged, drawn and quartered by now. But because it’s avuncular old straight-talking maverick McCain, the media’s eyebrow is raised at the Times and its motives instead of McCain’s obviously unethical (and, if the “romantic” aspect is true, physically nauseating) shenanigans.
on another note, the woman in question looks like actress faith ford on a bender.
That is funny!
Cindy McCain always looks like someone just cut the rankest fart ..right in front of her. I bet she has never touched her own pussy.
C’mon, Jack Jett, you’d look that way too if you had to see McCain naked on a regular basis!
Cindy McCain needs low lights bad.
Right. Cindy looks reptillian up close. It’s the eyes. I will say one thing for Hillary, she has good makeup.
Cindy McCain is a beer bottling heiress zillionaire. And, if she weren’t dressed, made-up and coiffed so harshly, she’d be beautiful. So she ought to be royally pissed, to be treated so casually.
Comments are closed.