Media love affiar with John McCain officially over

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Page 1:

It would have been nice, if in his zeal to cleanse himself and his kind he would have had a bit more hesitation in taking my rights away from me.

Or, at the least, have the wisdom to recognize and reverse his error.

That would require him to admit error, which he never does unless it can win him an election.

Oh shit!

We've got a mistress on the scene!

Political season has officially begun!

It was so nice of the NYT to sit on this story until the GOP nomination was all but wrapped up, it's almost as if they wanted McCain to the be one that the Dems would face off against in November.

Media love affairs always die.
The media is a fickle golddigging little skank.

Actually, it'd be very helpful in that regard.

This passes for a scandal?

A scandal? No. But it's good, solid journalism that bursts McCain's "Mr. Clean" rhetoric. Plus, being in the Times and Wash Post, it will echo through the rest of the media — media types tend to read those two sources.

This is part of the vetting process — just like going after Obama on substance or the plagiarism claims, or any of the myriad stories about Clinton's failings.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. As a journalist, perhaps you can shed some light on why a newspaper would sit on such a good story till now.

Good, solid YELLOW journalism, HB. McCain has never, to my knowledge, had a Mr. Clean image. If anything, though, it underscores his hypocrisy about campaign finance reform. A real "do as I say" kind of guy and exactly why he wasn't the first choice of hard-core conservatives.

Exactly, not a lot of substance here. And nobody wants to hear details about the alleged encounter.

No, it is not.

I get what you're saying yet I wouldn't describe this part of the vetting process as good, solid journalism.

HAHAHAHA

They endorsed him while they where sitting on this story and then once its clear he will be the nominee they fire with both barrels.

Ahhhhhhh Senator McCain now you will see that all that ass kissing you do with the media will be for naught!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The MSM was pissed that McCain didn't get the nomination in 2000 because they had dirt on him and all they had on Bush was an old DUI.

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks.

What the fuck?



I wonder how fast you would change your tune if this story was about Black Jesus?

How does this demonstrate that the media love affair with McCain was over? If they had an ax to grind with McCain they would have run this stale old story in January when it might have cost him New Hampshire and thus the nomination or October when voters would actually remember it.

The NYT sat on this story for 8 years and NOW decide to run it?

By the Bill Clinton standard, this is pretty lame. Although, he should be getting the hero treatment from the left for snagging a woman half his age.

I don't know that McCain has ever had a 'Mr. Clean' image. If anything, he's portrayed as a foul-mouthed hothead, neither of which I have a problem with. It's his record as a senator I have a problem with.

As for the rumors of another woman, look at how he kicked his first wife to the curb after she stood by him all those years he was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. So he's no angel on that front, either. Again, I couldn't much care. I think the guy's a washington insider, and a vote for him is a vote for 'let's keep the downhill slide right on going.'

Of course, a vote for Obama or Hillary is a vote for tilting the downhill slide to the vertical position and going into freefall.

Slow poison, or a gutshot. They both kill you, but at different speeds. That's what the two parties are doing to this country.

Do you really think they sat on this story for eight years? No. They ran it when they got it nailed down, period.

And for the record, I'd respond exactly the same way if the same story about Obama came out.

And yes, McCain has tried to cultivate this "Mr. Ethical" profile since the whole Keating Five scandal — but this story suggests that he really never changed his behavior, campaign finance reform bills and all.

Which is why you should vote for Obama. Get it over with real fast.

"Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers."

HELL FUCKING YEAH I THINK THEY SAT ON THIS STORY FOR EIGHT YEARS!

Really Harmon you can't expect us to not believe it. It doesn't take eight years to nail something like this down.

I've got no sympathy for the man since I don't want him to win but I'll be damned if this story just happened to be nailed right this week when it was clear he had the nomination for the party.

Heck if the Bush campaign had known about this eight years ago they would have run it against him as if he were Bill Clinton himself.

In this instance, I cry foul. Who the hell in their right mind would want to have sex with John McCain? Have you seen the old tart's teeth?!!? I'm pretty sure he bought his current trophy wife from a Russian mail-order bride service.

YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN

So, you're saying the Times knew about it when the Bush Campaign did not? And they sat on the story just on the off chance that McCain might be a candidate at some future point down the road — and then they could fuck him.

Having been professionally in journalism and politics — I can tell you from reading other stuff about this, that the info came to light in December and the Times has been working on it since then — and yes, only now felt they had the story nailed.

That's how it works.

I'd hit it!

Ah yes, this proves that the NY Times controls the ENTIRE MSM monster and unilaterally decides what stories to run when and where! The head of the Media Mafia, if you will. Certainly no other news organization is allowed to scoop them unless it is with their explicit permission (which they obviously grant on occasion to soften their overlord image!)

It all makes sense now!

No, it's a piece of crap.

The second paragraph of the story tells us that some of his advisers were "convinced the relationship had become romantic." The fourth paragraph contains McCain's denial. Then four pages worth of story unfold, without a single piece of evidence that there was ever any romantic connection. Finally, buried at the bottom of the story, an actual named source (for once) says that as far as he knows, aides never discussed the woman with McCain, and "I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship."

Two of McCain's advisers gave examples of times when McCain had refused requests from the lobbyist and the companies she represented, and said he only sided with her when her requests were in line with his own principles. That as well is buried deep in the story.

The story begins by talking about advisers being worried about the appearance of a romantic relationship. Even putting aside the lack of any evidence that such a relationship existed, the fact that the advisers were worried is pretty much insignificant. Advisers in a presidential campaign are paid to worry about everything that could conceivably go wrong, no matter how unlikely.

And then the allegation that some staff members were concerned about the possibility of something that doesn't seem to have actually happened becomes a flimsy reason to rehash the Keating Five scandal.

That's not "good, solid journalism." It's trash.

LRC is saying McCain's hired Bob Bennet; Clinton's lawyer during [if username=Kyle]the Monica Lewinski sex scandal[/if] [else]Monicagate[/else].

I'll see if I can find a corroboration.