killer line from NYT: "...McCain acknowledged behaving innapropriately and..."

[npincus]

"pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman." :rofl:

OK, so it's "he said, he said", but was the standard any different when the media gorged on Bill Clinton's alledged activities w/ a White House intern? Why does the punditocracy seem to have it's panties in a knot this morning over whether or not the NYT is at fault for holding then publishing this story? Where was similar anguish about the appropriateness of reporting allegations of Bill Clinton's extramarital hijinks?

Oh, the humanity! Oh, the hypocrisy! :rofl:




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?ei=5065&en=30275248afff65bf&ex=1204174800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

[bklyncowgirl]

1. I did not have sexual relations with that lobbyist. nt

[H2O Man]

2. I think that

some in the media are aware that there is more to come on this story. Hence, they are going to play the story for what it is worth. That includes letting the McCain campaign make their denials today. McCain makes his statement in a half-hour. The republicans pushing this story will then respond, and tomorrow's media coverage will cover that. I don't think the anti-McCain forces believe they can hold off on this. Heck of a gamble on their part!

[MADem]

7. Maybe the McCain campaign pushed this out there, too???

Get it done early, play out the accusation/denial game, reassert the Honor and Integrity themes from the old days...rather than have it come out in October? Play the victim of the "liberal media?" Suggest that it's revenge, that his enemies are smearing him with "Clintonesque" charges...gotta pull poor old Bill Clinton in there somewhere, someway, somehow...!

It's a theory...

I don't trust the NYT, for reasons I have elucidated elsewhere in this thread...

[havocmom]

8. Find myself wondering what Gary Hart is thinking about now.

If McCain toughs it out and stays in the race, Hart might be shaking his head.

H2O Man, I missed the story first coming out and haven't had time to get up to speed. Who are the suspects for outing McCain's dalliance? Is it likely the RNC fried McCain's eggs or did some other candidate's people sniff it out then pounce?

And what about Mitt? Would it be likely he would be dusted off and trotted back out if McCain actually stepped out of the race? Mitt had cheney's daughter and, I believe, Jeb Bush for advisors/support, or am I wrong on that?

What a year! Nothing like it in our lifetimes.

[H2O Man]

18. In my opinion,

there are two overlapping factors at play. The first is the media itself, which has a goal of selling its product. There was mention of the McCain affair on the Drudge report in December, and the NY Times has been looking into it since. Apparently, one or more other publications were preparing to do a story about why the Times had the story, but didn't publish it. This is why the paper may have run the story today.

More interesting is who is behind this? I've posted a journal entry from Arthur Schlesinger Jr from November 1998, which notes McCain's reputation for a "wayward sex life." I don't think that this is really breaking news. But someone is pushing it.

The Times report mentions a couple sources who were formally in the McCain campaign. Were I to speculate, I would think it is possible that in the years since 2000 -- when McCain has tried to establish a relationship with the republican right-wing (including the religious right) -- he took in staff with close connections to the right. The McCain camp thinks it is John Weaver. But there are others. This is coordinated. This is being done by republicans with not only a grudge, but the ability to grind it publicly.

[havocmom]

19. Thaks for the thoughtful response. Coordinated, yep my thoughts too

Religious Right or cheney firing a shot across the bow of other pols who may be shaky on support of the junta of late? I keep coming back to FISA used for vehicle for telecom immunity. I keep thinking emails deleted from office computers may have homes on telecom servers.

Blackmail is such a nasty word. cheney is such a nasty man. Telecoms are quick studies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2901594&mesg_id=2901594

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Cindy, grab your scissors.

Gramps needs a trimmin'

[MADem]

4. The NYT has "held" stories before, if you recall. I trust them about as far as I can throw them.

Remember THIS from the NYT? http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html

New York Times admits it held domestic spying story for a full year

If they hadn't "held" that story, President Kerry would be finishing up his first term.

And then, remember it was the NYT that fed us, via ace reporter Judith Miller, that Saddam had WMD and was gonna kill us all!!!!


Yeah, the New York Times ... the paper propaganda arm of record.

Perhaps the wingnuts seek a brokered convention, and this is the only way they can manage it?

Notice how both "associates" (mafia term) aren't out and on the record. They're mysterious, shadowy figures who cannot be questioned, and we're supposed to trust the NYT to have vetted them as to their veracity and reliability. Of COURSE these two mystery figures have NO agenda....

Yeah, right...

Now, as far as McCain goes, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Odds are good, knowing how he was in his youth, that he probably DID.

But if they're going to run this story, they need someone who will go on the record, out in public, saying "Hell yeah, he was fucking her!"

[beachbum bob]

5. this is a con job people

NYT endorses mccain
NYT sits on story that would have given romney the nomination hands down
NYT time releases story

conservatives come running in support of mccain. Hannity, a harsh critic of mccain turns and defends mccain. I suspect Laura Ingram and Rush Limbaugh will doing the same....the story gives these guys the cover to throw support to mccain without looking like sellouts of the conservative cause

brings back the setup of Rather and bushco's TANG disservice...another setup

lets not forget the NYT was the major mouthpiece for bushco propaganda for going to war with Iraq and Judith Miller...perhaps it wasn't all Judith Miller

this is a major league con job

[bklyncowgirl]

6. Could be. this certainly helped McCain get the nomination.

If the NYT pulled this out before New Hampshire Straight Talk Johnny would be toast. If they pulled it out before the general election he'd be dead man walking.

They pulled it out at a time when McCain's trying to unite the party. One thing conservatives hate more than McCain is the NYT. Interesting.

[zbdent]

10. naw, flipside McCain wouldn't have been toast ... the MSM would have been

"Look, Bill Clinton did it. You're hypocrites!"

[TwilightGardener]

11. The NYT was clearly helping him. They agreed to hold off until he had the nom wrapped up, clearly.

But well before October, so people would forget.

[Cosmocat]

12. That is my sense of the timing, too ..

IF there is no more to it, then you are spot on ... Can't derail the nomination, will be LONG forgotten by the time the general opens up ...

There isn't enough "it" to this story as is for it to have a real impact, but it would be a "bad news cycle" or two during the GE ... Would have been another brick that might have effected primary voters ...

[beachbum bob]

14. its already happening

the rwing talking heads all rallying around mccain and making NYT the issue.

[UALRBSofL]

16. I thought the Republicans were about "FAMILY VALUES"

Isn't that what Bush43's "CAMPAIGN SLOGAN" was when he ran in 2000. I wonder if McCain will get a pass from the MSM on this?

[tyne]

9. Let's let

the repubs fight this...let those who despise John have at him.

Are we really ready to be done with "gotcha" politics?

Or, were those who agreed with that sentiment not being truthful?

[skooooo]

13. Teenagers "behave inappropriately," adults....

...take responsibility for their actions - or maybe not.

[robbedvoter]

15. Still Clenis's fault - he showed men it can be done. remember Enron? Also

his fault - Wall Street said innocent Murka has been corrupted by the Clenis. And someone on DU will bring this full corcle by demonstrating how it's actually Hillary's fault.

[enid602]

17. vote

How did McCain vote on the Clinton impeachment?

[karynnj]

20. Most people did give Clinton the benefit of the doubt

or at least said it couldn't be proven, until the blue dress that was bizarrely kept with its stain was produced.