The New Republic has a fascinating story up about what went on at The New York Times in the months leading up to their story on Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.
What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable.
And in case you missed it, Cindy McCain has decided to stand by her man.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I think the NYT held the release so that McCain would not be harmed in the primary against Mitt Romney. Now that he is the likely nominee, the leftist media will go after him just as they do any Republican, regardless of their prior feigned adulation of all things McCain.
It is repugnant that media spends its time on salacious crap rather than pinning these candidates to the wall with specifics on policy issues. For example, what will Osama Obama or McCain do to enhance our liberties, or curtail big brother government?
As for the affair allegation: At John McCain’s age and with his war wounds; that he could have sex at all, with anyone, makes this supposed “revelation” that he is virile, vigorous and potent, to be a great day for America. Go Navy!
It’s not a bout sex, it’s about corruption in order to counter Obama’s lack of experience –
The NYT smear on McCain yesterday is the openning foray to counter the charge that Obama is too inexperienced for the job. By positioning McCain as the good OLD boy tainted Washington Insider it permits Obama to claim the fresh Washington outsider position.
Combined w/ this dreck from George Will, it’s transparent where this is headed:
“The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America’s worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.”
Stealing a quote from Reagan …. “I won’t hold my opponents’ youth and inexperience against him”.
jimi
I don’t like Obama or Clinton, but can we please refrain from the “Osama Obama” silliness — it does not foster intelligent conversation.
Thanks, Mouse. I agree on the name calling.
As for the rest – I wonder if anyone bothered to read the linked story. If I’m reading it correctly, the NYT piece was far from being a hit piece and they actually held back.
It’s like Jayson Blair is back at the NYT.