Beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Did the affair happen? Maybe. Should the NYT ran this story with only he said/she said to go on? No.
Achilleus beat me to it but yes they endorsed Clinton so hardly in the tank for Obama. Anyway when someone becomes the front runner for the nomination the press is going to take a harder look at them as there is no longer a reason to report on the other candidates. If Obama wins the nomination in the next few weeks don't be surprised to see the NYT and other media taking a much harder look at him.
The story isn't just a he said/she said story since they both deny an affair happened. Its more about questionable lapses in McCain's behavior in regard to ethics. The central theme of the story is that while McCain might be as ethical as he says he frequently puts himself into questionable situations such as associating with a lobbyist who has issues before his committee and flying on corporate jets for companies that also have issues before his committee.
Except they ran a story with pretty much nothing behind it. You would think they would do a little more homework before doing this to someone they "endorsed", where is the logic in that?
Exactly. That is the only possible issue. The affair isn't really important. The only important thing is that the two were close and was there any favoritism that interfered in his duties. Whether there relationship was romantic or not, might matter to some of the family values voters, but I don't think it is that important on a national level. I just want to know if anything will come of this, or if it is just a non-story getting attention right now.
look, I don't agree with running the story and really don't care, but apparently there was something to it. we'll see. I saw this about two hours before the thread was posted. keith olberman was saying that they probably have more info and wanted to wait to see mccain's response before following up. again, the bigger issue is that she's a lobbyist.
This coming from a guy who practically wets himself over a youtube video of a crackhead. What color are the pots and kettles in your world? Half black?
This "story" is just one more in a series of yarns (Pecos Bill style) that leaves the New York Times' credibility on a par with the supermarket tabloids. They are such a shoddy cesspool of journalism now that they can't understand that there are many real issues on which to compare candidates.
Let me rephrase. They're in the tank for the eventual Dem nominee. Since it's looking more and more like Obama, that's why I mentioned him. If Clinton pulls off a miraculous comeback(or steals the nomination), then they'll back her as well.
Have you read the whole story? The story isn't that McCain had an affair its that McCain has shown questionable judgement. My impression of the response to this is story is that most people, including McCain, haven't read past the first paragraph. Most of the facts of the story aren't in dispute and even McCain is really only disputing whether his staff told him to avoid the lobbyist.
In other words, are you saying they put a dubious allegation in the lead without supporting evidence -- i.e., in the style of supermarket tabloid sensationalism? Oh, yes, I never read the N.Y. Times anymore -- they are not even as accurate or as reliable as Wikipedia (and that's sad).
According to Drudge, it's more interesting than this. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY Thu Dec 20 2007 10:49:27 ET Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist! McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT. The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication. The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.
From what I've read, the NYTimes was ready with the story in Dec. McCain heard about it and had his lawyer (by the way, who hires Bennett when the facts are on their side?) talk to the NYTimes. They killed the story then but continued to work on it. Here's Josh:
My thoughts exactly. Whatever is going on here, McCain has plenty of time to deal with it. There was no better time for this story to happen than right now. If this had come out in December, Romney would be the nominee. If it came out later on this year, McCain would have a rougher time recovering from it. I don't think this will have much effect on the campaign.
To follow up, it looks like Newsweek, among others, was also pursuing the story and The New Republic was set to publish a piece on Monday about the NYTimes internal deliberations about the story. TNR just posted their story:
I don't care who my president *****s as long as it isn't me. Yesterday there were five or six real news stories.. The shuttle, the satellite, the F-15's, Georgia annexing Tennessee... and the national news used 8 of their precious 22 minutes on the campaign..on a day where nothing was really happening. The piranhas smell blood. I can't get out of my head though that the Karl Rove wing of the Republican party has no option but to use their dirty tricks machine on John McCain. If they could disgrace the man into dropping out they could resurrect Mitt. If the Democrats wanted to use the hint of scandal, why not wait till after the nominations? Maybe it was purely and simply to sell papers.
I agree if the story was to break, now was the time for McCain. If it was before Super Tues it could have swayed things to Romney. Before that (Dec?) maybe Rudy gets the McCain vote. While such publicity isn't a good thing for McCain and his campaign and I won't go so far that it will have no effect, the timing isn't too bad (compared to last month, last year or maybe 7 year ago). Really sucks if there was nothing there--no actual relations with that women or favors, it would be a shame for him to get tarnished from it. Hopefully we will get clarity--but it is hard to get proof, and without proof we should assume the whole thing is made up/a witch hunt.
A couple of things about the story: 1. Unless there's more evidence of the "affair" angle, that shouldn't have been included. 2. If you're going to allege a possible lobbyist-favors link, that's a legitimate story. But how hard would it have been to find out the list of companies she lobbies for, how many times their issues came up before his committee, and how he voted each of those times? If it happened maybe twice, and he voted both times for the company's interests, it's a non-story. If it happened 30 times and he voted for the company's interests 15 times, it's a non-story. If it happened 30 times and he voted for their interests 30 times, it's a story.
