gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv

gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv

gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv

you say, "McCain, too, has railed against special interests throughout his political life." not exactly. he has done so only since being caught in the keating 5 scandal. just as jerry lewis, after having made a living making fun of spastics and retarded persons, went on to do jerry's kids in an inspired fit of reputation rehabilitation, so mccain reinvented himself as st john the maverick after carrying water for thieves during the S&L scandal. so that's a "partial throughout" you have there in real life.

Surprise, Rush Limbaugh stood up for McCain. Why not? McCain has been bending over for Rush and the rabid right wing of the Republican Party.

NY Times Exec Ed Bill Keller should have written about his own improper relationship while married to his first wife rather than defend scurrilous slander by NYT reporters about Sen McCain.
Keller's escapade in 2006 and second marriage makes for much more interesting reading. And it is a lot more current considering what the NYT thinks is timely and of interest to sell papers.
The NYT endorsed Sen McCain 2 months ago - and yet has been waiting to use this sly innuendo and implication for years - since 2000. The only conclusion I can draw is that the NYT wished to play uberliberal politics and to attempt to damage Sen McCain's campaign beyond repair with a hatchet job.

Cilizza, you are a scumbag to first post this story, and to announce that you will continue to follow it's muddy trail.

Check my postings as far back as you can. I've been as anti-bush and anti-nutwing conservatives as a person can be, but I don't toss out reason to show my dislike of these entities. The Times article was w/o a shred of truth to back up its innuendo.

The real story should be the sexism of the Times. No one, no one at all even suggested in their story that there was a romance, except for the Times by asking these people if they were romantically involved. If the woman looked like Rosie O'donnell would they have asked?!? No, a non-issue.

As to the implied wrongdoings, nothing was shown to be wrong. McCain did nothing that falls under the title of lobbying ("Help this person/company to get this contract, etc."). This is the worse example of yellow journalism that I have ever seen. It is w/o a trace of news value, but it is with a major trace of smell from a journalistic point of view.

I wish all the incoherent little yappers about the NY Times would face reality for once in their stunted lives. The NY Times tells the truth -- a senior McCain staffer warned the lobbyist to stay away from McCain because their relationship -- whatever it was -- could hurt him politically. Now, hearing the truth may distress Rush Limbaugh and other knuckle-draggers, but it is still the truth. Attacking the Times for reporting something that happened is simply trying to change the subject. I am distressed that the country harbors people such as those posting inaccurate and hysterical attacks on the Times simply because we have all now learned something we didn't know before.
By the way, McCain has made reference to his "friends" who are lobbyists, and says he takes their "counsel." McCain is doing nothing more than just about any senator does, but given today's political climate, it sure was a damaging thing to say.

Sounds like this lobbyist was a power sniffer and went after she wanted. After all, she did go from secretary to partner in record time.

McCain's aides probably recognized she had her claws out for the Senator and told her to back off, much to her chagrin.

As someone with a basic knowledge of grammar I can say your story of being a journalist does not hold up.

As a journalist i can say i think this story did not measure up. The fact john mccain is not holier than thou is not exactly news. does the times have more because this is a fairly lackluster piece.

SVREADER, your post of 4:38 pm is so smart and funny, I'm even more baffled at your dismissal of Obama. Have you read, "Dreams of My Father" which he wrote before entering politics and without a ghost writer?

2 points

1. McCain cheated on his first wife multiple times before settling on his trophy wife. Is it unconceivable that she was going to be trophy wife number 3?

2. The more troubling part for me is that it highlights the cozy relationship that McCain has with lobbyists all the while he denounces their influence on others.

It is all part and parcel of the "its OK if you are a Republican" rules. I hope it takes some of hte shine off of St. McCain.

"The fact that Obama is running on the same platform Bush did, and using it to win so many primaries, proves it."

This is such incredible crap I'm surprised you have the guts to post it.

Now, get off Mommy's computer and go get a job.

Good. Some bimbo eruptions for the hypocritical Republican party, that fun-loving bunch with all kinds of characters, like homophobic homosexuals pretending they're not gay.

Clinton was impeached, tho not convicted, by the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" no one laughs about anymore, for lying about legal oral sex with a consenting adult - yet here we sit with President War Criminal and Vice President Goebbels, their multitude of crimes and failure to protect and defend the Consitution, the economy a shambles, our reputation as the democratic ideal on earth shattered.

McCain never had a chance anyway, but this will be fun. And did his lover favors, are the rumors. Whoa.

I don't think Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton any favors besides orgasms.

McCain in bed with the lobbyist...literally boning her as he makes $$$...sweet.

FYI to anyone who reads this:

I don't care about the extracurricular activities of our nations leaders. Real or imagined. This is not news. Stop wasting print space.

I care that my 21 year old chronically ill son is no longer eligible for my healthcare insurance at work. I care that I can't sell my home in Indiana when I was transferred to Ohio. I care that my neighbors are looking for work. I care that my bosses son is in Iraq. In short, tell me what the politicians are going to do when they are paying attention to business. Nothing else matters to me.

Debra

Hey, Mr. Limbaugh (and Gov. Huckabee, for that matter).. Where were you and your pompous blathering when a member of the media (Tucker Calson) was not only reporting on a ridiculous smear story about Ron Paul ("Brothel Owner Supports Paul"), but he (Carlson) had concocted and choreographed the entire story himself?
I guess that as Leona Helmsley said, "only the 'little people' pay taxes," it's apparent that only the 'statistically significant' members of the broadcast industry (Limbaugh - oxycontin incident) and politics (McCain - lobbyist incident) are entitled to fair treatment from the media and law enforcement.

How could anyone NOT believe McCain was doing that lobbyist? She's smokin! If they were really traveling together and hanging out all the time, and if his top aid is on the record saying he felt he needed to break it up for the sake of McCain's career, it seems like a no-brainer that they were romantically involved. All politicians fool around if given half a chance, the only difference is who gets caught.

What male politician wouldn't have let slip an earmark or two, as quid pro quo for access into her pants...

The Facts:
1. John McCain admitted to cheating on his 1st wife (the one who waited for him while he was a POW). That affair was with Cindy (his current wife).
2. Cindy McCain stole narcotic pain pills from the charity she founded.
3. Cindy McCain avoided criminal prosecution.

Given that McCain is already an admitted adulterer, this story is with merit and not out of left field. Given the fact the affair was with a lobbyist; John McCain may have not only cheated on another wife (again), but most importantly he may have cheated on the American People! Talk about being in bed with the special interests! He then supported that lobbyists' interests in the Senate. Regardless of the alleged affairs authenticity; Yeah, I know the visualization is disturbing. Cindy McCain should stay in the background and don't talk, unless you want we want the media to reminded us of the baggage she carries; her theft and fraudulent obtainment of narcotic pain medication from her own charity and her own participation in adultery.

"I've got to ask, after reading many of the posts: Did anyone actually read the NYT piece? It is by no means even agressively suggestive...."

---------------------------
Nah. It was just salaciously suggestive. MUCH different! Uh-huh.
Class act.
Journalistic gold.
Fit to Print.

OK. I must be an idiot. I've been reading about this story all day now and I still have no idea what McCain is supposed to have done wrong.

Nine years ago, someone on McCain's staff chased off a pushy lobbyist. And this is, somehow, a bad thing? Apparently, it's pretty much conceded that there was no "improper" relationship. Anyway, can anyone honestly imagine her being chased away if there was? I can see it now. "I've been banging your boss but, gosh, you're a staffer and if you tell me to go away, I guess I'd better not call him anymore!" Please.

So, to sum up this story, McCain, without receiving any special favors, took some action that could have benefitted someone represented by a pushy lobbyist nine years ago.

Come on, guys. This is driving me nuts. What am I missing? Why is this such a big story?

All of the "personal relationship" stuff aside, McCain has a documented past of allowing lobbyists to influence him. This woman wrote the letter McCain submitted to support her telecom employer on official business. Regardless of whether the NYT's is liberal, the facts they brought out are damaging in and of themselves. McCain has a serious credibility problem and it is the press' responsibility to bring these things to the public.

Now, why would I take offense?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 06:05 PM

LOL

Thanks NY Times and WaPo. You've only benefited the McCain campaign and bolstered the conservative base.

The next time you base a smear article on innuendo, make sure you can at least name sources.

That's what I'm saying dburck. This is a none story to me. And I want to bash them, believe me. Saying clinton's impeach was a show trial previous, would it make me a hypocrite to go after maccain now? YEs.

Just like all the republcains are hypocrites now, when they are all of a sudden offened by gossip news? Since when did the gop shun gossip news? Well good. Looks like fox rush and hannity will all be off the air tomorrow. I'll keep holding my breath. :)

I've got to ask, after reading many of the posts: Did anyone actually read the NYT piece? It is by no means even agressively suggestive, at least in the slanderous FoxNews fashion. It lays out coincidences of time, circumstance and people that, given McCain's propensity to seek lobbyist counsel, even while proclaiming his virgin morality, give one pause.
Is there anything here? Perhaps not, but count on the senator to milk his righteous ire for all it's worth. Ugh.

"No offense, but you're either insane, incredibly naive, or 14 yrs old on mommy's computer in the basement."
--------------------

Now, why would I take offense?

I wouldn't shed any tears for John McCain or the GOP. If there's provable fire under the smoke, it will put an end to him while the party can still find an alternate. If there's not proof, then it will rally the base for him. In any case, the lingering sting will have 9 months to dissipate. If this had to come out, it couldn't have been better timed from McCain's perspective.

On the other hand, there IS a really obvious loser in all of this. It's Hillary Clinton.

This story is going to suck all the oxygen out of the political universe for at least the next couple of weeks...The very two weeks that were the make or break period for the Clinton camp. Are people going to watch the Clinton-Obama debates with the same interest? Doubtful. What will it do to the emerging frame of Obama recriminations that had set in since the beginning of the week? It probably derails them.

This is really too bad. In the lead up to Texas and Ohio, an Obama candidacy was finally getting a much needed vetting by the media and a pounding from both the Clinton and McCain campaigns. There was the plagiarism flap over his stump speech. He was being challenged on campaign finance. Michelle Obama caused a stir with her comment about being proud of America only recently. These challenges were matched by a series of less flattering op-eds asking questions about his positions, whether he was really an agent of change, and about his close to 'cult-of-personality' following. They were all tiny cuts, but they bleed all the same.

Whatever you think of Obama, this is a necessary step before anointing him as the democratic nominee. We need to see if he can take a tough news cycle and come out on top. If he can, then he may really be the democrat's guy. If not, then Clinton may deserve a second look. Thanks to the NY Times, this tough news cycle has been defused before it really set in. Clinton is losing her best, last chance to turn things around. It's probably fatal to her campaign.

"Well Barack has his Larry Sinclair"

LOL. Please.
More fairytales from Hillaryland.

It was only a matter of time. Well Barack has his Larry Sinclair and John has his female lobbyist. Yikes, what next? What about the issues? Does the NYTs have nothing better to do than spend months on a story and then print to show up another publication. Didn't the NYTs start laying off employees just the other day? At this rate, there will be more when nobody buys the paper. For the people that like dirt with their politics, this story feels like one of those movies that seemed to have a storyline and then opps - the movie ends abruptly leaving the viewer pretty darn disgusted.

"Drindl, please do not repeat the notion that hiring the best election lawyer in DC implies guilt. It only implies that the client has good money and good advice. "

Enough said. He has neither. His resurance is his ANTI-rush fox persona. The republcains have turned on their propogandists, as evidence by only huck and maccain left. He has little money. He has horrible advice.

HE is taking the roger clemens defense. :)

Why not? the gop is the no credibility or accountability party anyway. When do they ever hold their own to account, provided their not gay or cheated on their wife?

Again, it's not about McCain losing votes to Obama. It's about Republican voters staying home instead of going to the polls. And while this might motivate the radical right, it won't motivate moderate Republicans to vote for him. It will just make them more skeptical, which will either drive them to the strong, passionate optimism of Obama or won't drive them anywhere but to the couch to watch the election results come in during commercial breaks in Law & Order.

McCain has so far gotten fewer than half the votes of Obama in this primary season. Now that's dismal.

Drindl, please do not repeat the notion that hiring the best election lawyer in DC implies guilt. It only implies that the client has good money and good advice.

It would be one more perversion of justice to decide that hiring a bad lawyer is evidence of actual innocence and hiring a good one is evidence of foul play. PLEASE don't write that again. Please?

Don't shoot nobody jd. We all are americans after all.

the gop doesn't like gossip as news? Can I expect rush and fox to go off teh air tonight then? Hannity savage?

You are making a strong stand agaisnt gossip as news are you not? Make the stand? Or does the street run one way?

Mighty angry tody gop. Because of a gossip news stroy? I thought that was the gop's mo. gossip and heresay as news. Please xplain your doublethink and enlighten me?

Show your fascist face if you pleaase by detailing your's and the gop's postion on how only they can have gossip as news. this is one story, irrelevant imo. Your people do this ALL DAY EVERYDAY. And your mad? WOW

Frickin hypocrite gop these days. If you want any credibility from me or independant thinkers, please explain your doublethink. Or cowar and blame the messanger. That is what you people do right? Point the finger. NEver take accountability or care about you rcredibility

The NYT is neither liberal nor conservative, it's a business that wants to make money.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 05:24 PM

No offense, but you're either insane, incredibly naive, or 14 yrs old on mommy's computer in the basement.

Nobody who has not lived in a cave over the last few decades would ever claim that the NYTimes has not practively positioned the paper as house organ for liberal causes in general, and the Democratic party in particular. From Howell Raines (Mr Flood-the-zone) to their uber-lefty editorial positions, to claim the NY Times is anything but a propoganda machine is to deny reality.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. They can take their own editorial slant and enact their agenda; that's up to Pinch Sulzberger, it's his dime. And so can the WaTimes and Fox News, outlets that slant right.

JD

PS I'll agree with M in A from an earlier post, how sad that the old grey lady has become a virtual tabloid supermarket trash rag in such a short time, historically speaking.

Either the NYT has hired Drudge and the TMZ as journalism ethics coaches, or it has gotten hold of something damning that needs to be corroborated and this story was rushed out to preserve firsties. I would say it's 80-20 in favor of the former.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/21/fear_fear_fear/

Forgot the link for proud. Hope you have a lock in your storm celler proud. "the russians are coming. The russinas are coming".

the only question is, is the gop really scared of everything, or do they just play the victim/scared role to enforce their fascist agenda. That's the question I want and answer to. Do they believe their own propoganda? If so they are either the most cowardly people on the planet, or the dumbests. How many centuries will you allow these gop terrorists to control you proud.

Hostility toward the NYT drew conservatives swiftly to McCain's side, but if the story pans out, the NYT will likely become the tip of an iceberg. It's unlikely then that all conservatives will stay aboard the Titanic of HIS candidacy should, say, the WSJ and Washington Times, corroborate the essential facts. McCain in November: glub, glub.

protecting the telecom corporations from lawsuits for illegally shaing our private information is simply protecting the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Has nothing to do with protecting ourselves from terrorists.

There are legal ways to accomplish the same thing.

no matter what fear-based propaganda is thrown at us.

you feel off proud. Get help.

Your living a gop fantasy. The gop has you in their palm.

Read this for me and calm down. Take some of those happy pills you perscribe. you cannot live your life in fear. The gop are terrorists threatning america, that much is true.

Welcome to the world us liberals have been living in for the last 30 years. Fearing gop terrorists. Your one of us now. But how will you vote? For the terrorists?

Is this the gop party platform proud?

""Terrorism" is a word for which there is no universally-accepted definition (see "Definition of 'terrorism'").

Many putative definitions of terrorism define as "terrorism" only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal and by a member or members of a group (as opposed to being carried out in a lone attack), and which deliberately target, or else disregard the safety of, non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence as opposed to "lawful acts of war".
"

If the democrats are "in with the terrorists", it's only because they have failed to put the terrorists behind bars. You know bush cheaney ashcroft rumy

If there is ANY corroborating evidence, McCain is toast....and what? Miracle Mike.

LOL.

Imagine:

Miracle Mike vs hossanaBama

the Preacher vs the Messiah

St John vs Jesus

Evolution vs Harvard Law Review

Bible vs Constitution

Save me a seat!

The NYT is neither liberal nor conservative, it's a business that wants to make money. It supported lots of Bush's Iraq war.

NYT really failed professional journalists everywhere.

Sad day for free speech and democracy.

drindl, As usual the dem Congress is proving it's ineptitude at matters of national security. Remember, it was Harry Reid who declared our defeat in Iraq a year ago, and now his counterparts in the House expect some watered-down version of the bipartisan-supported senate surveillance bill to pass muster? Ha!

There's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection. How about we ask Hillary and Barack to comment on that tonight, and see if they can form a coherent argument in favor of protecting Al-Qaeda's freedom of speech.

"Limbaugh: Liberals -- can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em
As expected, with the publication of the New York Times' story on John McCain and his possible relationship with and special treatment for lobbyist Vicki Iseman, radio star Rush Limbaugh has found someone he likes attacking more than McCain. That's right, evil, evil liberals. Also reporters. (Although Limbaugh would probably say we just repeated ourselves.)

Whatever else you want to say about him, Limbaugh is at the very least smart enough to know there'd be quite a bit of attention paid to what he had to say about McCain and the Times today. So when it came to his opening monologue, Limbaugh was ready to put on a show.

The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes...

Now, here's an interesting aspect here. You talk about the details of the story and how thinly sourced and all that. Yeah, right, yada yada. It's the Drive-By Media, for crying out loud. It's the New York Times reporting about a Republican. You know damn well a story like this wouldn't run about Hillary or Obama, even Bill Clinton, a story like this wouldn't run. If it did, it would be fawning. "Oh, there's old randy Bill out there, still showing us he got some lead in the pencil here after the heart surgery. Oh, yeah!"

I don't understand why it's so hard for the people on the Republican Party side to understand who the enemy is and who they're dealing with.

Not that Limbaugh would actually care, but it's worth noting that, in fact, the Times ran an article on the Clintons' marriage that was in some ways similar to this latest story on McCain.

― Alex Koppelman"

The gop does not want gossip hersay as news. Quick somebody tell rush fox hanntiy o'liely savage coulter lingram malkin boortz and on and on, that nobody wants gossip as news anymore. The right-wing smear machine is going out of business today.

They're sick of gossip in the media and false stories. WHoa.

Reminds me of teh movemen (betreus) and the rush "phoney soldiers" comment. The gop is the party of no accountability and credibility. Point the finger and blame the messanger.

I have an idea if you have an issue with gossip as news. Go for the big fish. Start at teh top. When rush hannity savage o'liely ingram beck and all those thousands of propogandists are off teh air, THEN and only then can the gop complain.

The street must run both ways. This story is gossip and a non stroy. But that never stops the gop doing this all day every day, does it?

FRickin hypocrite gop

The Times didn't say he had an affair ... which means they know they'd get sued ... which means they know he didn't have an affair.

When a public figure is involved, libel laws require a plaintiff to prove not just that a story was false, but also that publishing it was *malicious* (i.e., knowingly false). That is, if you're a politician or a celebrity, the newspaper is allowed to get a story wrong if accidental and in good faith. But the paper knows the story is a lie ... toast.

So they know it's a lie.

Yet they ran it, a *non-story*, full of innuendo and essentially not disprovable because the story doesn't allege McCain actually had an affair. Notably, they'd rather focus on this non-story than on Obama's finally admitting how chummy he was with his pal Rezko.

And the NYT ran this story, with the sleaziest sourcing possible (i.e., anonymous), to avoid being scooped ... by Drudge. That's not journalism, it's pathetic.

And, as a liberal (yep, really, a registered Democrat), I'm comfortable saying the NYT really is liberal. Sure, it did a terrible job vetting the evidence on Iraq. No question. But you'd have to be some sort of socialist or Bolshevik to think otherwise.

"Voters are unbelievably shallow."

Then they'll love your posts!

I love it! The conservatives deserted McCain until he's suspected of being in bed (so to speak) with lobbyists!

It means all you pundits and bloggers can make more easy bucks instead of getting out of your chairs and actually tracking down real stories with real sources about real issues.

plus at least several month's worth supply of Oxycotin for Rush.

'What this incident may do -- again assuming that nothing more damaging emerges over the coming days -- is to energize conservatives behind McCain in a way that they might not have been otherwise. '

already has.

'So a conservative cyber-rag starts a story against a candidate deemed too liberal, it get's picked up by the 'Liberal Press' and is then used to prove the candidates conservative credentials because he's being attacked by the "liberal press"?? What a world'

It's the republican alternate universe bizarro world.

And again I ask, if there's no 'there' there, why would he hired the biggest lawyer in DC?

Blarg:

Don't believe a word svreader writes. There isn't an ounce of sincerity in anything she writes. When she criticizes Senator Obama on a whole range of issues, it's just a mirror of how she feels about herself. She is completely transparent and obviously upset that her candidate, Senator Clinton is on the verge of being out of the race which she will be after she loses Ohio and Texas on March 4th.

Hasta la vista senora svreader.

This story may well unite conservatives behind McCain, if no hard facts are found that this relationship exists and this turns into a New York Times vs. the Conservative GOP Presidential nominee. A battle against the New York Times may just be what the doctor ordered to line up rank and file conservatives behind McCain's candidacy. However, if facts of infidelity are found then Huckabee could use that as a rallying factor, assuming McCain doesn't snap the 1,192 delegates before the facts are released.

I must now pose another question. Let's assume McCain wins the Republican nomination, which are very likely.
How will this battle affect independents for a general election?

Independents generally have a favorable impression of McCain. Obviously, if it's McCain vs. Clinton then McCain wins the general easily. If it's a McCain vs. Obama race, the independent vote is up in the air. If McCain beats these charges and no proof is found against him, will this excite independents back to his candidacy even more than they are now? I would guess so. Interesting question to ponder.

it's amazing how many people claim to have read the NYT story but actually either operated from hearsay or just did not grasp the meaning of the words they eyeballed.

The Times never alleged that the Senator had a romantic relationship with the lobbyist. The Times DID say that McCain's senior advisors worried that it had become one and repeatedly warned him that it would destroy his candidacy if it got out. In other words, they strongly believed that was happening or that there were sufficient appearances of it being true that they sternly told him to knock it off (if true).

Now you don't go to the boss, especially one who has cultivated a reputation for rectitude, to say that it looks like he's messin' around, cheatin' on his wife, without there being more than a little smoke.

Do I accept the story as being truthful reporting of what those insiders told the Times? Yes, I do because I do not believe the senior staff at the Times nor their attorneys have a suicidal bent, a need to self-destruct. That may have been CBS' culture and Dan Rather's but not the Times, notwithstanding Judith.

Did the sources say they had proof that McCain was philandering? You could not conclude that by what was published; you only have read that they worried about appearances and the need to explain this blonde's presence with the candidate so much, that the fact she was a lobbyist as well as more than a bit attractive, might suggest to minds willing to suspend disbelieve that McCain had fallen off his high horse and had gotten in bed with the lobbyist, the kind of people and situations he had thundered against.

Clearly this is a story in progress and there will be more published, both by the Times and WAPO and perhaps others.

Am I saying he had an affair and this is a bimbo eruption? Read the above again if you think that, and try to grasp the meaning of these plain and simple, straight-talkin' words.

svreader reminds me of the reported Japanese soldiers that holed up on Pacific islands during WWII and refused to recognize that the war was over.

First Clinton loses. Then svreader vows to work for McCain. Now he gets hit with controversy. Maybe the best thing svreader could do for Hillary is endorse Obama.

Blarg writes
"svreader: Please list the policies shared by Obama and Bush. They're "running on the same platform", so that should be easy."

I think he's talking about the nepotsim/dynasty thing. Bush's dad was a former president, just like Obama's dad.

Or am I thinking of someone else?

Chris writes
"McCain Story: What It Means"

Apparently, it don't mean jack szhit. The conspiracy theories predicting that its a McCain move to rally the conservative troops is, thus far, more plausible than the allegations of hanky-panky or inappropriate favors.

svreader: Please list the policies shared by Obama and Bush. They're "running on the same platform", so that should be easy. And note that platforms are not the same as rhetoric; something like "changing the tone in Washington" does not count as a platform.

Funny how the McCain campaign had no problem with the NYT endorsing the old boy.

I'd take issue with the line "McCain has railed against special interests throughout his political life." The Times story highlights his much earlier relationship with the real estate mogul Keating that almost brought his career to an early end. That chastized him to become a reformer.

Maybe its all a clever ruse to make McCain look virle? I doubt it, but it certainly makes him look younger and more vibrant.

Given the way most men think, he might even get a "high-five" or two, for doing it at his age.

Voters are unbelievably shallow.

Nobody's even gone broke, or lost an election, underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The fact that Obama is running on the same platform Bush did, and using it to win so many primaries, proves it.

"Already! McCain Raising Money Off Times Story On Lobbyist Connection"

Reminds me of the Clinton reaction to the Cleavage article.

On February 14th, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he would remain in Washington to work on FISA issues after Republicans voted unanimously against an extension of the Protect America Act. President Bush then left on a trip to Africa after stating that he might cancel it, and House Republicans returned to their districts after pledging to stay through the recess to work on legislation. Today, Republicans prevented their staff from attending a bipartisan working meeting on FISA.
From Majority Leader Hoyer:
Hoyer Statement on Important FISA Meeting
for you proud, why are republicans stalling/blocking the new surveillance bill?

WASHINGTON, DC - House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today after Republicans did not join a bicameral meeting on modernizing the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act:

"I am disappointed that House and Senate Republicans apparently instructed their staffs not to participate in today's bicameral meeting on modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The decision to not participate, coupled with their vote against an extension of their bill - the Protect America Act - only serves to reinforce the perception that Republicans prefer to have a political issue rather than a strong new FISA bill in place as quickly as possible. Certainly Republicans do not really believe that the role of the House is to simply rubberstamp whatever bills the Senate passes.

"I am hopeful that Republicans will reconsider and join us in crafting a bipartisan FISA bill that protects our nation and our civil liberties. It is time to come together and work in the best interests of our nation's security."

This must be a smoke-screen of some sort to benefit somebody- maybe McCain himself? Otherwise, I do not see the story, no smoking gun.

What about the economy (weak USD, housing bubble bursting, high-oil), NAFTA, the wars and the general state of our nation- what is he going to do on these topics and more and why/how?

Barack vs John- maybe a smokescreen is needed:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

First of all the idea that the NYT is liberal is laughable.
Secondly, didn't this story originate with the Drudge Report? The same right-wing bottom feeder who instigated numerous unfounded attacks against the Clintons years ago? The same unfounded attacks that were picked up the "liberal press" and played over and over on "liberal press" TV shows until the Republican-led Congress stopped all governing in order to Impeach a President.
So a conservative cyber-rag starts a story against a candidate deemed too liberal, it get's picked up by the 'Liberal Press' and is then used to prove the candidates conservative credentials because he's being attacked by the "liberal press"?? What a world

End the Drama, Vote for Obama!

oops shoulda made it clear this wasn't part of the email plea

'To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above.

Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain.'

this is the fundraiser:

'Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.'

Already! McCain Raising Money Off Times Story On Lobbyist Connection
By Greg Sargent - February 21, 2008, 2:29PM
Well, that was pretty predictable. The McCain campaign is already raising money off the uproar over the Times piece, depicting it as nothing more than the work of a left wing cabal -- including the paper, the Democratic Party and of course MoveOn -- that is bent on destroying the GOP nominee.

From a new McCain fundraising email:

Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.

To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above.

Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain.

More on this story right here at The Horse's Mouth.

Late Update: Now the Republican National Committee has a fundraising email out, too, saying: "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House."

She's too good looking for McCain's own good.

Did we really need a third post on this topic?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.