McCain Slams NY Times Article Linking Him to Female Lobbyist

Bump and Update: McCain releases a statement condemning the New York Times article. Olbermann read it really fast but I didn't hear any denial of the allegations pertaining to the female lobbyist.

Update: Salon has more. Scroll down to the bottom of this post for the key Times quotes, and again, this isn't about sex.


MSNBC broke into Hardball to announce this news that just appeared on the New York Times website: John McCain is tied to a 40 year old female lobbyist 8 years ago. Both deny an improper relationship. That's not what others suggest.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mike Huckabee anyone? If McCain's ethics and ties to corporate lobbyists are in doubt, when he has made this a hallmark of his campaign, can he still get the nomination? [More...]

From the Times, and as I've said repeatedly in the comments, this story isn't about sex or family values, it's about John McCain's possible ethical lapses while portraying himself as Mr. Reformer:
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.

The Times was going to run the story in December. McCain hired Washington powerhouse Robert Bennett to negotiate with them. They didn't run it. So, why are they running it now? According to Howard Fineman on Dan Abrams show tonight, it's because The New Republic was going to write a story about the Times sitting on the story. I don't buy that. I think there's more to it.

And again, I think the nature of the personal relationship between McCain and the lobbyist is the least important aspect. It's whether he had a personal relationship with a lobbyist, friend or otherwise, and acted favorably on behalf of or accepted benefits from that lobbyist's clients.

< My View: The NYTimes Becomes The National Enquirer | Court Shuts Down Website >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Quick Ron Paul, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    Here's your chance!

    Well, this (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    out to bring out the Repubs vote for Huck in the Texas primary, No "Dem for a day" in Texas.

    out = ought (none / 0) (#9)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:04:19 PM EST

    Or it might get Republicans to vote for (none / 0) (#30)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    another Republican rather then try and influence the Democratic primary.

    As far as a sex angle, as BTD thinks we are looking at, I actually and honestly thought immediately about the Abramoff effect. Doesn't matter if it is sex, money, or freebies, someone was influenced to act on their behalf. Think of Wolfie.


    Sorry, reread your suggestion (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:15:06 PM EST
    and they are the same. Ooops.

    hahaha! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    Best comment of the night.

    This post (none / 0) (#15)
    by sumac on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    gave me a jolt of joy...If I can manage to stay away from all things MSM, that joy might linger.

    Here in Austin, Ron Paul has a big following. I know. Weird. But he may take some of the Independent vote.


    Why weird? (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:09:17 AM EST
    Austin is a peace loving town, is it not?  Ron Paul is the only Dor R candidate left offering policies that promise peace.  And freedom, for that matter.

    Exactly. NYT sitting on this story (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    'til now may have made a difference in the Wisconsin primary -- it could have considerably reduced the massive GOP crossover vote by getting Republicans to get back on their own side and vote for Huckabee.

    And that would have helped Clinton considerably.


    This was the story that McCain spiked (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:14 PM EST
    in December 2007.

    What was the other story they sat on (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    for so long because the Bush admin. asked NYT to do so?  It will come to me.

    should be as much an issue (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    as Obama writing letters on behalf of Rezko.

    And we all agree that's not an issue.

    As for sex--I don't care.  Clinton screwed one woman and we had the best economic boom in my time.  Bush screwed us all and look where we are now.

    are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    I mean, LITERALLY in bed with lobbyists?
    Its golden.

    If you cant grasp that, just imagine that it were discovered about Obama, and what you would do with it.


    I think Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by badger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    would never stand for Obama capitalizing on this, since they're all about hope and change and abandoning the 'old politics' and uniting people and all that stuff.

    That's what blogs and 527's are for (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    Could bite Dems in the backside (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:23:01 PM EST
    McCain could get all self-righteous and deny, deny, deny....and blame the Dems for false attacks.

    And, I really do not like unleashing this.....


    Not only cpuld bite Dems but will if he (none / 0) (#117)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    can turn it in that direction.  Wonder what happens if Axelrod had a hand in this story?

    Have McCain's divorce records been unsealed yet? (none / 0) (#121)
    by badger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    Ooooh, I know where you're going (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    with that.  Inquiring minds want to know. :-)

    We, kemosabe? (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    Stellaaa and I will not give up on Rezko/Obama relationship.  Have you lost the faith?

    McCain, Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    Wondered how long it would take for folks here to take a story about McCain and use it to slam Obama; not long, as it turns out

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    The NYT panty brigade strikes again!  Does leave a bad taste in my mouth but I don't care.  At least is reporting on the sex lives of the republicans for once.  

    It's not like the Democrats will copy the Republican filth machine and start impeachment proceedings or give a rogue prosecutor a limitless budget to investigate and prosecute.  If voters want to judge him they are welcome to do that.

    "for once" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    Holy crap, meth-smoking preachers, toilet-sex seeking senators, prostitute-glomming Vetter and page-stalking Floridians don't count?  There have been enough republican sex scandals in the last year or so to fill a cookie jar.

    Still don't think the sex angle should be covered.  Washington, by some accounts, died of syphilis he got from his mistress.  We all know about Jefferson and his slaves.  FDR, JFK...I mean, can someone name effective, well-loved president who hasn't messed around?  It's the ones who don't cheat who end up screwing up the country.


    truer words hath never been spoken (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    Squeeky clean in appearance (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:36:14 PM EST
    can win a lot of votes in the 'burbs....in places like Colorado, for example....

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:37:40 PM EST
    The republican party's panties have been pulled down and they have been revealed as hypocrites--meth smoking, adulterous, homosexuals that have hankerings for underage pages and male escorts.  

    The Republican party vice squad has been the main goons used on Democrats for over a decade.  I don't know why you would all of a sudden shed any tears that the goon squad's own tactics are now being used on them.

    So I don't think it's so odd that the Republican nominee in 08 has a sex scandal problem.  Actually, I would have thought the odds of such a thing being high.  I'd be surprised if the sex scandal doesn't involve some strange embarrassing detail (e.g. foot tapping or page *&*&&ing).


    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    You dont get hold the moral high ground and say that Democrats are different from Repubs if the Dems do exactly what they accuse the Repubs of.

    They are different (none / 0) (#92)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    What do you think I'm proposing?  I explicitly said that the Democrats should NOT do what the republicans did.  They should not pursue impeachment or special prosecutors for political gain (if regular prosecutors want to sniff around any possible crimes--fine).

    I just don't understand some Democrats that run to make sure the republicans get treated fairly by the media.

    The republicans have unfairly used the media to hunt liberals who they accused of letting America's morality decline.  They were hypocrites and they should be rightly punished for that.  It's a shame that John McCain has to pay for the sins of others in his party--the Mark Foleys, the Newt Gingrich's, the Rudys.  But sorry for not feeling as sorry for him as I am mad at what they did to Clinton and McCain and Gore.  That's is the main issue the media has to account for.  The way they treat democrats.


    Excuse me. The Dems do not legislate morality. (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    We still can have personal opinions about it.

    Point taken (none / 0) (#155)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    If 'feelings' are all that there are, then I guess its fair. Why not rejoice? I was just saying that if Dems do what the Repubs do we pretty much negate the arguments that Dems have made against the Repubs all this while.

    We aren't impeaching anyone (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    I don't really see the hypocrisy in noticing that   "what goes around, comes around". Even in chuckling a bit over it.

    Panties ... leave a bad taste? (none / 0) (#183)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    Methinks you protest too much.  Or something like that.

    Once Again (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    The NYT did the same thing to Hillary 2 years ago (right?) when they had a slew of reporters "investigate" how many times the Clintons shared a bed.  I was outraged and sent Bill Keller a nasty e-mail at the time.

    Maybe some of us got through to him that he treated the Clintons one way and the republicans another.

    Still not the journalism I want to see--but at least the NYTimes is being fair.

    And we denounced it (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    This is not acceptable because he is a Republican.

    I said it's not good journalism (none / 0) (#31)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:14:31 PM EST
    And it's not good for America.  But I'm not shedding any tears because the monster the republicans created has finally come back to bite them.

    Republicans created slime politics.  The Democrats would never impeach over sex like the republicans did.  They would never sic a rogue prosecutor on McCain like they did to Clinton.  The Democrats and me are indeed better than the republicans--just don't expect me to shed any tears or spend any politcal capital defending McCain.  I'll let Lieberman do that.


    This is the NYTimes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    No, not acceptable.

    Indeed, despicable.

    Bill Keller should be fired immediately.


    you don't know what else (4.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    they have. It's highly unlikely the Times would just publish an 8 year old story now unless they had more. I suggest waiting.

    They didn't have much (none / 0) (#63)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    except innuendo about Hillary and Bill a couple of years ago but they ran it on page A1.  

    If they can't publish (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    "what else they have" then they can not publish this.

    I completely disagree with you.


    The NY Times (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    was all-set to publish a "lobbyist" story on McCain last December....McCain went in and reportedly convinced them not to run it....

    McCain is probably ready for this and it could boomerang big time....

    One would assume that responsible journalists would have gone back and checked the story.....


    his lawyer bob bennett (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    negotiated with the Times.

    Read the four pages in the Times, there are very damning ethics issues in there, having nothing to do with sex.


    Agree (none / 0) (#134)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
    They said anonymous sources (plural) and felt confident enough to out the alleged paramour/lobbyist.  They have to be on pretty solid footing to print this, and you know its already been run by NYT in house legal team.

    He should have been (none / 0) (#41)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
    fired for what he did to Hillary.  Why didn't you call for his firing then but now do when McCain is the target?

    I did (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM EST
    I have called for Bill Keller to be fired consistently for 5 years.

    NYT also (none / 0) (#39)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    have a picture of McCain with the below caption....

    Senator John McCain conferred with his lawyers before testifying in January 1991 before the Senate Ethics Committee regarding his involvement with Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan.

    I think no Dem should touch this one. The NYT should be held accountable. If they do this to a Repub... they can do this to a Dem.


    Well... this is ridiculous. "Advisers thought (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:14:40 PM EST
    McCain might be having an affair 8 years ago" There is no way that is good journalism.

    But it will sink him. Hello President Obama.

    Conspiracy Theories (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    Is this designed to make McCain look virile?

    Does it preface some smear job on Obama and this is to look fair and balanced?

    Or does the NYT simply like sniffing panties?

    It does appear that McCain and Obama share a weakness - a belief that they can do things others can't and won't have their integrity questioned.  So in that way, this seems almost exactly the equivalent of Rezko.  Unless there's some actual corruption here that I'm missing?

    Remember that all the other (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:16:54 PM EST
    republicans just suspended their campaign so it wouldnt take much to revise them now....In view of this, but I cant help feeling bad for McCain...I wonder since the extreme right wing don't like him if they in fact released this themselves to get rid of him...

    Repub (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    conservative base is just looking for a reason to bolt form McCain. It will have animpact.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:27:09 PM EST
    What an artful takedown piece that is. I am in awe. Is there anything in McCain's past they missed? Even the "good" aspects of his record are shown to be tainted. Is this a sign of whose side the media is going to be on this cycle? I hope so.

    Too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    bad the laws in this country can't be changed so that personal lives of political people can't feature in election campaigns. I have never really understood why public figures can't sue for liable and slander. So what if they're public figures? It's till slander.

    Maybe the "powers that be" (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    feel that they can work with Obama more on conservative issues and so will sink McCain cause they don't trust him lol.....that would make me laugh if true....

    I think you are all misreading this (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:50:27 PM EST
    no one is talking about a romance -- it's that she was a lobbyist whose company had business before his committee.  This is about his ethics and his casting himself as a reformer. Yet he makes questionable decisions. There are other instances in the article, like him refusing to fly a plane route he voted for but yet accepting corporate flights from those with business before his committee:

    Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman's client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

    Jerilynn (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    Agree  with you.    

    Doesn't  seem  to  be   sexual....it's  his  ethics  as  a  Committee  Chairman   supposedly  against   lobbyists.    


    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:58:08 PM EST
    The whole article seems to me designed to reveal his hypocrisy and derail the Straight Talk Express. The romance angle is just the draw.

    Keating Five (none / 0) (#100)
    by mouth of the south on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:07:48 PM EST
    He is a repeat offender it seems.  This will dredge up his involvement with the Keating scandal, the Keating Five hearings, and his being proved  to be in the pocket of Keating.

    That simply is not true Jeralyn (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    "no one is talking about a romance"

    That is the ONLY thing ANYONE is talking about.


    no you are (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:30:09 PM EST
    it's a side issue that puts the story in context. Read the full four pages. I'll quote the paragraphs if you want. This is about him exercising poor judgment on ethics issues while hailing his superiority on it.

    I am talking about the followup coverage (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:39:01 PM EST
    Tonight, tomorrow and next week, the "lobbyist" issue will be long forgotten and this story becomes ALL about sex.

    What is the KEY question here? Did McCain do favors? NO.

    the key question is did McCain have sex with her?

    Consider these two possibilities. Assume only ONE is true.

    McCain did favors for her.

    McCain had sex with her.

    Which statement would be damaging?

    You know and I know "McCain had sex with her" is the statement that would hurt.

    Now this, this story, no sex, big story? NO. No way period.

    Let's stop pretending.


    I'll Bet you $5.00 (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:46 PM EST
    no one reputable follows up on the sex angle or whether they had sex. No one cares.

    This isn't about family values, it's about ethics and possible hypocrisy -- casting oneself as the ethics reformer while displaying ethical lapses.

    We'll see, $5.00


    Done (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    I think you win. See Huff Post (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EST
    Which one damaging? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    I gotta disagree.

    I agree with you on the fact that there might be louder coverage of the sex angle, but which one more damaging?

    Obviously, favor for lobbyists. His stands on money in politics, and ethics is central to his political identity. Undermine that and its lethal. The Dem candidate could easily pound away day in and day out on that - in fact it fits perfectly with esp. Barack's central message.

    An adultery charge may hurt a bit, but hardly fatal - not unless it were with a dead woman, or live boy, or someone under his supervision, like an intern.


    Me thinks he doth protest too much. (none / 0) (#158)
    by demschmem on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST
    What the story becomes isn't relevant to whether it's a valid story to begin with.  That's a weak argument.

    Another weak argument is the comparison to Clinton/Lewinsky.  You should be better at identifying the elements in the two situations and recognizing their significant differences.  You seem blinded by the single common element.

    You also seem to enjoy this too much.  If you believe it deserves no attention, consider your opinion noted and write about something else with the same righteous fervor.


    She's telecom too (none / 0) (#136)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:05:56 PM EST
    if she's still a telecom lobbyist, tie it to FISA.

    Perhaps there is a pattern (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    Of course, when you are courting hard right fundamentalists who distrust you, this kind of report is not helpful.  It is especially troublesome given the circumstances by which McCain left his first wife.  To which I say, boo-hoo.  If McCain showed any signs of being a vertebrate I might have more sympathy, but he will say anything to anybody to be elected -- because of his supreme self-confidence that he and he alone should be President.  That drive, however, does not seem to require any core principles that cannot be compromised.  As a result, the core principles that drive him cannot be even identified.

    In this way he is markedly different from either of the Clintons, Obama, or Huckabee.  

    It's not about sex at all (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by pedagog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    What about this theory regarding the McCain story: It's being floated now [or pushed] by the Obama side for several reasons. One, to take attention away from Michelle's stupid remarks and any flubs Barak may make tomorrow in the TX debate.

    But second, after reading a story on MyDD about McCain and Hillary and their teams being pretty friendly and that they respect one another, the story goes on to say that McCain could actually help Hillary out in TX by taking a lot of the Independent voters [and probably a lot of moderate Republicans] away from Obama. Thus, the Obama team needs to tarnish him before TX to deter Indies from voting Republican.

    The other possibility is that the RW nuts want to get Romney back in the game, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the NY Times wouldn't go along with that. I think the timing here is everything.

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    drop the sex angle and tell me if this story is big news.

    I HATE this stuff.

    Always have. Always will.

    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:02:02 PM EST

    I hate  this  stuff, too.   But  for his  base,  this   is  big.    May  have  to withdraw.    



    He's not going to withdraw! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:04 PM EST
    ...dare to dream, but this story, I think, goes away in a week.

    There's just not too much here, and this is an old story.


    Sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    I  agree  that  it's  nothing....but  his  BASE  may  not.  They  live  in  an alternative  universe.  

    AM  radio  tomorrow   will  be  the  real  tell.


    And from the ashes (none / 0) (#137)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    a golden phoenix named Mitt shall arise.

    If (none / 0) (#67)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    it's just speculation, which this appears to be, it shouldn't be printed. Same thing as small town gossip.

    sigh (none / 0) (#98)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    you're right of course. But I cannot help the particular improper feeling I have right now.

    If this thing (none / 0) (#110)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    ended eight years ago then I don't care about the sex. That's ancient history. Who was she a lobbyist for? Who got what? Now that's news.

    Look (none / 0) (#122)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    here for a bit on that from 92-96:

    She has extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees. Her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills helped secure cable access for broadcast television stations. Her experience in the communications field includes digital television conversion, satellite regulations and telecommunications ownership provisions.

    She is 40 now.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ineedalife on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:52:35 PM EST
    so in 1992 she was 24. How influential could she have been? Pretty good at what she, uh.., does.

    It's not the sex angle (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM EST
    It's the ethics angle. Corporate, lobbying aspect. From Mr. Squeaky clean on government ethics, campaign finance, etc.

    Really? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    So why am I reading about the romantic rumors?

    interest (none / 0) (#6)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    It makes it interesting enough for people to listen about it.  If it was just an ethics scandal, everyone would fall asleep and it'd just go away.  Except on blogs.  Look at how much Bush has gotten away with just because he hasn't doinked the wrong person.  That we know of.

    Then the story itself is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    not strong enough.

    This is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

    When the Media and the GOP decided to investigate Clinton's sex life I abhorred it.

    I am no hypocrite.

    I can not read the story without disgust. I strongly protest it and I will write my view separately on this.


    I agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:07:10 PM EST
    this is bad. And KO is salavating.

    Yep (none / 0) (#19)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:03 PM EST
    Agreed on all points.

    Because sex sells (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    I will not play along (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    I'll be writing separately denouncing this story.

    I think Pat Robertson's advice (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    is sage, no one should do anything until the Times reveals what else it has or whether this is all there is.

    I understand (none / 0) (#57)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    why some feel dirty discussing such a topic.  It's dirty.  But the NYTimes ran the story.  It's a story.  And the republicans only have themselves to blame for making sex like this part of american politics.  I'm sorry but I see no need to rush to John McCain's defense as BTD evidently feels the need to do.

    Democrats should just sit back. Just point out that they have no interest in pursuing this strategy.  The republicans didn't give Bill Clinton the same respect.  They will give him the respect the republicans should have given Clinton and give him the benefit of the doubt.  But no need to rush to McCain's defense.


    I am defending journalism (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    not John McCain.

    I (none / 0) (#176)
    by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:01:13 AM EST
    Think journalism will be okay without you defending it.  The fact that Americans like a salacious story shouldn't discourage the press from covering real issues.  Jeralyn is absolutely right; this isn't about sex, it's about ethics.  The fact that it has a sexual angle is too bad for McCain but is in no way the fault of the press.

    But (none / 0) (#71)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    I think McCain voted against impeachment. I'm not sure, but I expect that is what happened.

    McCain (none / 0) (#102)
    by mouth of the south on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    This story is not about sex per se.  I don't believe the Times would have run such a story.  This is about his ethics, his involvement with a lobbiest to the extent that he intervened for her bosses.  I believe the Times has something or they wouldn't have printed an 8 year old sex story.  They are not the National Inquirer.

    The Republicans RE-introduced this (none / 0) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    Jefferson and Sally
    Ma Ma where's my Pa?... Gone to the White House Ha Ha HA!

    What about (none / 0) (#54)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:07 PM EST
    the stories tying Obama to other women? I imagine we'll be reading about that if he is the nominee.

    And don't forget his ties (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    to aliens.  That is bound to come up soon as well.

    Kucinich turned him on (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    Kucinich turned him on to aliens (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:37 AM EST
    was what I meant to say---- not that either comment was worth the effort....Still the hanging chad above was not what I intended.

    Or alien women (none / 0) (#79)
    by ineedalife on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST
    Oh snap!

    Here's the statement released (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM EST
    by McCain campaign:

    "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

    "Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

    I'm wondering if he has demanded a retraction if the NYT will retract any portion of the article.


    NYT article was just updated to include (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    McCain's statement at the end of the article.

    There are about 500 comments (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:23:24 PM EST
    on line at NYT at present, including people saying:  cancel my subscription and one plea to the public editor.  

    WaPo version (none / 0) (#166)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    is less innuendo-ridden and takes a more straightforward ethics angle on the story:

    Three telecom lobbyists and a former McCain aide, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Iseman spoke up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington, extolling her connections to McCain and his office. She would regularly volunteer at those meetings to be the point person for the telecom industry in dealing with McCain's office....

    In the years that McCain chaired the commerce committee, Iseman lobbied for Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, the head of what used to be Paxson Communications, now Ion Media Networks, and was involved in a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson.

    Hard to see how he can shake this off.


    the msnbc guys (none / 0) (#8)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    are almost breathless in their excitement.

    oh fer gawd's sakes!

    they interupted (none / 0) (#11)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    regular program to cover this story

    Ties to a 40 year old lobbyist 8 years ago (none / 0) (#22)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    I'm ashamed to be reading this smear on TL.  This is not about sex, like Bill Clinton's impeachment was not about sex.

    Oh I disagree with that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    It is being covered.

    It can not be ignored.

    Jeralyn may not share my view on this.

    I will separately on it. But the story itself is out there and this blog should cover it.


    How did you feel about Abramoff? (none / 0) (#44)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    Can you look at this story as that without the romance and see the lobbyist influence?

    Unless they've got something other than a (none / 0) (#123)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    stinking rumor about improper lobbyist influence, they'd better darn well print it.  Chapter and verse, quid pro quo, both sides inside and out.

    Else this is just stinking yellow journalism of the first order.  


    facts (none / 0) (#143)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    I want facts.  Who got money and who got favors.  All else is irrelevant.

    I have a weird feeling about this (none / 0) (#24)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    If there is no way to prove these allegations John McCain is gonna say that this is left wing swift-boating. He will say that this is the change the candidates are promising. This will give him and the Repubs a cover for all their non-sense.

    I know this is a wild theory but I just feel like the Repubs are good at keeping a secret and if they have let this one out there must be some plan. Or maybe its the ulta-conservatives going really crazy, although I doubt it.

    somehow, in the long run, (none / 0) (#37)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    it will all be "Clinton's fault"...

    bet on it....


    Hah! (none / 0) (#65)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    While I totally get your sentiment, I think this will be hard to paint it on her. She is not the likely nominee. But then again, the media can be very creative.

    Personally,I think this is a part of bigger strategy somewhere or this stinks of David Axelrod.


    The fundies hate the NYT. Maybe (none / 0) (#95)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    this will cause them to flock to McCain's side and support him in the GE.

    Jonathan Alter (none / 0) (#26)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    is suggesting Obama can use this to paint McCain as hypocritical.  If Obama so much as touches this, I -will- vote third party in the GE.  No worries, everyone else in WA loves Obama (well, half).

    He won't (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    I hope not... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    But even using his menstrual-esque code language with a wink and a smile will cost him my vote.

    I have heard similar charges (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:23:45 PM EST
    lobbed at Obama re: affairs, but none have been substantiated and no one has come forward, and if they did, I would have the same reaction I did during the Clinton years: why is this any of my business and how does it take food off my table?  ANswer: it's not and it doesn't, so take it off the front page and tell me how we are going to end this war and turn around the economy.  

    Anytime men get into powerful positions, they are accused of this type of thing; sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.  Power is awfully attractive to some women, else Donald Trump would still be living with his mother.  Both participants in the McCain case deny it, no one is going to pay Ken Starr a quadrillion dollars to find the smoking dress, so it is a non-issue.

    I think the letters are interesting, but not without the sex.  McCain probably wrote lots of letters for lobbyists, just like Obama did, just like all politicians do.

    And in a country that has a divorce rate higher than fifty percent (higher among repubs), I think it's a little petty of some folks to be making noises about marital superiority,  For the love of peeps, they ran Romney out of town on a rail and he was the only (considered) frontrunner who didn't have a divorce or two (or three) in his pocket.


    It will matter to Evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:44:31 PM EST
    It was the walking-Ms. Judy's-dog stories that finally undid Rudy.  Being pro-choice didn't seem to make a dint, but having their noses rubbed in the affair with Judy, that was just too much....

    But no Obama or Hillary supporter should come anywhere near this story.....Stay away, very far, far away.  


    I should say (none / 0) (#28)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:12:55 PM EST
    If Hillary or Obama use this, I'll vote third party in the GE.

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    I would especially expect Hillary not to jump on this. I mean besides all the Monica flashbacks, she and McCain are good friends.

    At the very least (none / 0) (#43)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    this story knocks out the "Obama is a plagarist and Michelle hates America" story.

    Here is the headline in the NYT: (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

    It seems to me at some point the mainstream press would run an investigative journalism story about how McCain came to enter politics, who his backers were and are, his part in Keating 5, which committees he chairs, what legislation he has authored or supported, and any seeming skirting of McCain-Feingold.  So, with the exception of the insinuation McCain and the female lobbyist had a sexual relationship, this NYT article appears to hit the points I specified.    


    Headline (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    I'm  beginning  to think  MSNBC  ran too soon with it.....8 years  old, both deny any  sexual   activity.  

    But,  indeed, the  article  says  McCain  wrote  letters  on  this  lobbyist's  behalf  to gain  contracts  and connections.    And  he   repeatedly  used  corporate  planes  as  free  transportation.  

    It  may  be  that  this  is  really  about  the  anti-earmarks,  lobbyists  are  evil   meme,   and  the  damage  will  be  to  that part of McCain.  

    We'll  see.


    BTW, CNN's Dobbs show broke in, too (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    Cream (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    Thanks.   I  wasn't  watching  at  the  time.    

    Appreciate  that info.    


    I bet Obama and Hillary will NOT touch (none / 0) (#48)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    this story.  Obama has the Rezko trial coming up and Hillary isn't the bastion of ethics herself.  Best to just stay away.

    It is better to let this be played out in the media.

    McCain will take a hit from this story at the very least.

    I admire your consistency, (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    people, but let's have some perspective here.  The problem with the Lewinsky scandal was that the Republicans brought impeachment proceedings. Are you suggesting that politicians' extra-marital affairs are un-newsworthy?

    Yes, that's exactly what I believe. (none / 0) (#127)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:56:04 PM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#144)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    While I think (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:29 PM EST
    this is no big deal as a story and probably won't amount to much, I think it puts to bed the notion that the media loves John McCain.

    The "media" varies (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:28:58 PM EST
    This is  from the  NYTimes,   and   rightwingers  will    call it   left-wing  SwiftBoating.  

    AM  radio  tomorrow  will be interesting.  


    Not in those terms (none / 0) (#77)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:36:44 PM EST
    not unless the right suddenly wants to admit the SBVT was bull.

    Molly (none / 0) (#93)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    We'll  see  what  Rush Limbaugh  and  Laura  Ingraham  say  tomorrow,  eh?

    I guarantee you the will not use the term (none / 0) (#101)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    swift-boat in their condemnation.

    If they do, the question ought to be asked, do they admit the SBVT was bull?


    Have to wait for the reaction of Rush et al. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    He and his cohorts hate McCain Feingold and trumpet it as against the First Amendment.  Maybe they'll give McCain kudos for accepting favore from lobbyists and working on behalf of the lobbyists' clients.

    YEP (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    Laura  Ingraham  may have  a   major conniption  fit  tomorrow.  

    YEP (none / 0) (#132)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:02:09 PM EST
    Laura  Ingraham  may have  a   major conniption  fit  tomorrow.  

    Pat Robinson (none / 0) (#74)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:35:51 PM EST
    comments were to leave this one alone.... why do I find I keep agreeing with this guy!

    Because he's smarter and more savvy (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    than those they have masquerading as pundits. This year's crop of pundits is the worst I've seen in the past 10 years. Pat Robertson at least is the genuine thing, regardless of his politics.

    Robertson? not Buchanan (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:58:11 PM EST
    If Pat Robertson has ever had a cogent thought about anything I would be very very surprised.

    Any blue dresses? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    So this happened when he was running against Bush? Does Karl Rove have a blue dress he has been saving all these years?

    Obama has been saying no lobbyists (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
    in his White House....I wonder if he'll change that line any....

    I feel bad for his wife Cindy, as it cannot be (none / 0) (#104)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    easy to stand there and applaud him after this comes out....Poor lady...

    I wonder when all the righteous indignation about (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    Cindy standing by her man will begin.  That's what the repubs hated about Hillary.  She stood by her man because it was a personal matter, not one for public consumption.  But they're hypocrites, and we know that.

    She was once the "other woman" (none / 0) (#125)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:52:58 PM EST
    I am not sure why she expected anything different

    Now, now. You sound like a newspaper (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    advice columnist, or, the horror, Dr. Laura.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:36:15 PM EST
    Isn't it awful?

    LOL. I never said I was perfect. The poster was feeling sorry for her. I simply cannot feel sorry for that woman.


    was there a betrayal of public trust? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Compound F on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    as a consequence of the affair?  That is the ONLY question.  Der sex machts nichts.  Who cares?  And if NYT is after the sex angle ONLY, they should be pilloried.  WE DON'T CARE.  We care about the public trust.  Period.

    Certainly newsworthy... (none / 0) (#108)
    by dmk47 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    if McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and granted favors to her clients.

    Looks like Huckabee got his miracle.

    I think Romney is still ready to go, all fired up, (none / 0) (#114)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    and all those other figures of speeches that belong to Obama.  

    Just heard a right-wing talk show host on MSNBC (none / 0) (#115)
    by dmk47 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    making a big deal of this. A lot of them would love a chance to toss him over the side/

    Hannity and his guests (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    skewered the times and called it yellow journalism. Really funny.

    Ha (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    Olbermann read it really fast but I didn't hear any denial of the allegations pertaining to the female lobbyist.

    Me either

    so what? (none / 0) (#126)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    more unsubstantiated rumors and allegations. this won't hurt mccain amongst the party faithful. absent actual evidence of sexual activity, it won't hurt him among the huckabee crowd either.

    this is a big, fat nothing.

    He is far enought ahead to take a week (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    or so to go to rehab.

    I wish I could rec you 1000x (none / 0) (#151)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    for this!!!

    Perhaps it was a "youthful indiscretion" After all, he was only 63 at the time.

    Other "youthful indiscretions" include:

    Calling out Falwell and Robertson, speaking out against the Tax cuts at a time of war, speaking out against torture.


    He won't be hurt with the (none / 0) (#130)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    "Party Faithful" unless he's caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.   To quote former LA Gov Edwin Edwards  :-)

    I just deleted a comment (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    linking to a hit piece on the Clinton's -- nice try but this isn't about them. Don't even go there.

    also deleted a comment (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    blaming this on Axelrod.

    Considering the history with (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    Jack Ryan's divorce records being outed and the Democrat who was Obama's primary opponent in Illinois having his personal dirt in the papers.  I don't think it's out of bounds to wonder about Axelrod.  There's no proof so no accusation can be made, but it's in the same category as the NYT's sex angle.

    It appears (none / 0) (#162)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:48:18 PM EST
    That the NYT (and the rest of the MSM) have been sitting on this story for months. It's pretty obvious that there's more here than just the pretty meager stuff the NYT published today.

    I for one hope it is a huge sex scandal. Huge break for our chances in November if true.


    and not only that... (none / 0) (#175)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:46:40 AM EST
    Not only has the NYT been sitting on it since last December, but also, since last December, they endorsed McCain for the GOP nomination.

    Okay--what evidence do you (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:04:44 AM EST
    have that Axelrod was involved in either situation?

    Who is the most righteous? (none / 0) (#148)
    by pedagog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    The sex part of the story is NOT the real story--it's the fact that McCain has always been seen as political clean [McCain-Feingold, after all], the straight-talker, Mr. Clean who doesn't take $$ from lobbyists. If the non-sex part of the story is true, then that hits McCain where he lives big time.  Then, Obama can claim that he is "The One" who is pure in this regard.

    Amazing coincidence (none / 0) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:12:51 PM EST
    how this breaks just in time to squash the story about Michelle Obama's perceived anti-American coments.

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST
    the story isn't squashed. It'll be back in October.

    I am afraid that (none / 0) (#178)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:12:18 AM EST
    you are correct. They will turn this stuff into a "pattern" of anti-Americanism.

    Digby has a post up discussing (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:12:53 PM EST
    the NYT article also.

    What does this have to do with Obama/Clinton? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM EST
    Re some comments above: Everything indicates that the NYT and much of the rest of the MSM has been sitting on this story for literally months. It had to come out sooner or later, and apparently some other media outlets were going to break the story, so the NYT rushed their version to print first.

    I don't see how "timing" plays a role in it (except insofar as McCain is now the Republican nominee, a nice nugget for the right-wing conspiracy theorists out there).

    One instance (none / 0) (#165)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:40:06 PM EST
    This is one instance where the metaphor of "being in bed with a lobbyist" is more important than the literal. I don't really care about who McCain slept with eight years ago. If it was a guy and he's against gay marriage, then it's news. If there's proof of some material gain someone got, show it.

    Otherwise, I yawn.

    gay / straight? (none / 0) (#173)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:10 AM EST
    You wrote:
    If it was a guy and he's against gay marriage,

    Is there much of a difference between that and a guy who proclaims he's for the sanctity of (straight) marriage, and then violates his own marriage?

    Something's fishy (none / 0) (#168)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:37 AM EST
    The story gives as sources former McCain "campaign advisors."  If these people were trying to protect him back then, why are they ratting on him now?

    Snitching on a client seems like the kinda thing that would be a professional no-no, don't you think?

    Supposedly the NYT's is running this story because some other rag was about to.  But why did the NYT's sit on this story in the first place?  Who made the decision to kill the story originally?

    Set up with GOP establishment? (none / 0) (#169)
    by wprange on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:24:30 AM EST
    I'm wondering if the GOP-establishment itself didn't push for the story to come out now. To set the stage for Romney to re-enter (he `suspended' his race) or create a brokered convention where somebody else will get the nomination?

    At least one of the campaign advisors (none / 0) (#172)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:16 AM EST
    was axed when McCain had his staff reboot back in the fall.  Maybe some other paper was going to run this story, and NYT jumped, that would explain why they went with something so weak.

    TNR (none / 0) (#174)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:45:01 AM EST
    Indeed.  Salon, I think, said that The New Republic was going to run the story, which prompted the NYT to print it.

    Noam Schreiber at TMR (none / 0) (#179)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    said the first thing that came into his mind when reading the NYT story was "Blair Hulle" and "Jack Ryan".  He wondered if Obama wasn't the luckiest politician on Earth.

    while we're at it (none / 0) (#181)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    ... let's float some innuendo that Obama is behind global warming, too

    None of This Surprise Me (none / 0) (#171)
    by bob h on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:45:59 AM EST
    as flyboy McCain must have picked up some bad habits in ports-of-call in the Orient back in the 60's.

    Dont Care (none / 0) (#180)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    at all.