Vicki Iseman...

[Torie]

This story isn't going anywhere unless more surfaces. It is a pretty thin circumstantial case. Voters don't expect politicians to be angels in any event. Politicians write letters on behalf of lobbyists with influence or who give money when they think they have a legit beef all the time. You know the article is weak, when most of it is recycling Keating for ballast, regarding which McCain was exonerated, as Robert Bennett has said, and now says again.

The question as Robert Bennett posed it, is  did McCain do something against his personal beliefs because of a personal relationship? There is absolutely no evidence so far that that is the case.

[Likely Voter]

well unless there is a credible witness and/or some photo (like the Gary Hart girl on his lap photo) this will go away quickly

[Rococo4]

seems very flimsy to run....

[Mr. Morden]

Before running this, they should have at least asked McCain's black lovechild to comment.

Also, does this mean that McCain will now be forced to step aside, and Alan Keyes will get another shot at running against Obama?  Or does this only rise to the Alex Polier / Huma Abedin level of evidence?

[Reaganfan]

Both McCain and the woman claim there was no relationship at all and that she never got special treatment. Sounds just as boring as that thing I read the other day about Obama being a "womanizer".

[WalterMitty]

im not a mccain supporter.

i read the article.  the ny times should be ashamed.  it was based on nothing more than rumor and gossip.

the sources?  a few staff members thought they were 'too close'.   

uh.  okay.  what the hell does that prove? 

[agcatter]

I'm no McCain lover, but this is an out and out hit piece.  1991?  And the timing (wait until McCain secures the nomination).  Good lord.  The NY Times ought to be ashamed.  Of course they're not.  Total smear.  Deliberate and agenda driven.

Pathetic.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I just heard about this - I don't think it's true though.

[J. J.]

First, McCain did have affairs by his own admission in the 1970's, by his own admission.

Second, if there is nothing to it, McCain just got the right wing, and the talk radio crowd.  Think Clinton in the first week.  It also keeps him in the press.

Third, there has to be some meet, something like a decision that looks like it was influenced.  If that isn't there, Rezko is more damaging to Obama that this story is (and I don't think there is too much with Rezko).

[MODU]

I'm trying to figure out - why release it now?  Seems to me a month ago or a few months in the future would have been wiser to get full impact.  Right now, it's liable to get overshadowed a bit.  But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

It's a hit job.  Now that it looks like McCain will be the nominee, come out and whack him early before he has a chance to gain some momentum.  In any case, the article itself doesn't provide any facts to back their claim other than "it seems like" and "it could be."

[TomC]

It's a decent below the foild story about ties to lobbyists, a tacky story otherwise. What the NYT should be ashamed of is its timing on this. It holds a story on a candidate it endorsed until that candidate has all but won the nomination. I know the editorial board and the writers are different folks, but still, one paper.

[Wiz in Wis]

Yeah, I don't know how long this lasts unless the sources come out with some evidence... and names..

Having said that, anything that gets the Dem contest of the air is bad for Clinton... she needs press coverage now like a blood transfusion.. Otherwise, Obama's momentum remains unchecked

We'll see if the debate tonight returns the coverage to the Dem race.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

First, McCain did have affairs by his own admission in the 1970's, by his own admission.

Second, if there is nothing to it, McCain just got the right wing, and the talk radio crowd.  Think Clinton in the first week.  It also keeps him in the press.

Third, there has to be some meet, something like a decision that looks like it was influenced.  If that isn't there, Rezko is more damaging to Obama that this story is (and I don't think there is too much with Rezko).

I have to disagree here - not having an affair isn't going to win the right wing - he's going to have to find some other ways to do that, although I've already been swayed due to the little "R" next to his name (and the fact that Hillary and Obama would kill the nation).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is all boring trash.

Now if it was Hillary that womanizing, I might pay attention.   Hell if I was McCain I'd just be happy someone thought I could get it up that often.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If anything, this probably strengthens McCain unless the NYT can come up with something more than this real soon.  Not only does it infuriate those who see this as yet another left-wing media smear attack, it inoculates McCain against a future scandal that while minor, would have a chance to actually harm his campaign.

Still, anything that keeps Shrillary and Oprama off the main news coverage has to be a good thing.

[J. J.]

First, McCain did have affairs by his own admission in the 1970's, by his own admission.

Second, if there is nothing to it, McCain just got the right wing, and the talk radio crowd.  Think Clinton in the first week.  It also keeps him in the press.

Third, there has to be some meet, something like a decision that looks like it was influenced.  If that isn't there, Rezko is more damaging to Obama that this story is (and I don't think there is too much with Rezko).

I have to disagree here - not having an affair isn't going to win the right wing - he's going to have to find some other ways to do that, although I've already been swayed due to the little "R" next to his name (and the fact that Hillary and Obama would kill the nation).

What wins is the right-wing's standing up and complaining about the [sarcasm]terrible commie pinko liberal effete media[/sarcasm] bashing poor ole John McCain.  It plays to the base.

[J. J.]

Last line of a McCain e-mail:

We'll never match the reach of a front-page New York Times article, but with your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine.

[JSojourner]

Was the WaPo story any different than the NY Times?  I don't have time to research it. 

[Lief 🗽]

I'm trying to figure out - why release it now?  Seems to me a month ago or a few months in the future would have been wiser to get full impact.  Right now, it's liable to get overshadowed a bit.  But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

Probably didn't want to hurt McCain's campaign for the nomination with a story that is, admittedly, a little "lacking" in the evidence department.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's funny is that the NY Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination after they must have known about this. It's worth noting that the FISA wiretaps story should have run before the 2004 election, but the NY Times decided to wait until after the election on pourpose.

[หมูเด้ง]

If anything, this probably strengthens McCain unless the NYT can come up with something more than this real soon.  Not only does it infuriate those who see this as yet another left-wing media smear attack, it inoculates McCain against a future scandal that while minor, would have a chance to actually harm his campaign.

Still, anything that keeps Shrillary and Oprama off the main news coverage has to be a good thing.

R-SC?

[Lincoln Republican]

The New York Times

The New York Rag

Thre New York Sleaze

Accusations, insinuation, innuendo, not a shred of evidence, smear campaign

[J. J.]

What's funny is that the NY Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination after they must have known about this. It's worth noting that the FISA wiretaps story should have run before the 2004 election, but the NY Times decided to wait until after the election on pourpose.

It's not exactly a strong story now.  Maybe they should have waited.

It doesn't seem to have any traction, which I find very surprising.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If anything, this probably strengthens McCain unless the NYT can come up with something more than this real soon.  Not only does it infuriate those who see this as yet another left-wing media smear attack, it inoculates McCain against a future scandal that while minor, would have a chance to actually harm his campaign.

Still, anything that keeps Shrillary and Oprama off the main news coverage has to be a good thing.

R-SC?

Nah, just someone who thinks the primary season has lasted too long already.  At least on the Republican side everyone except the Huckster recognizes that Mr. POW has wrapped it up.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Watching the Sunday news shows, all of them are trying to find inconsistencies about McCain with lobbyists particularly related to this lobbyist.

They are starting to find it.

As I stated, this is not about sex.  It's about lobbyist influence and trying to dirty up McCain on influence of lobbyists which is his signature issue.