TNR story on NYT’s McCain scoop finally drops; Update: Lanny Davis, Clinton aide, backs McCain

posted at 1:14 pm on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

They got a tip in November, threw four reporters at it, couldn’t substantiate the affair with anything sturdier than hearsay, then dithered about whether to spike it or toss it out there. The compromise solution: Bury it at the end of a long rehash of McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five, to give it some heft by association.

So lame is the story, and so heavy the backlash among conservatives — but not exclusively conservatives — that they probably ended up doing Maverick a favor by running it.

[W]hat’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: the new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece–both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves–the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories of McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain’s aides that the Senator shouldn’t be seen in public with Iseman – and departs from the Times usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: “In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, ‘Why is she always around?’” In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair…

In late December, according to Times sources, Keller told the reporters and the story’s editor, Rebecca Corbett, that he was holding the piece in part because they could not secure documentary proof of the alleged affair beyond anecdotal evidence. Keller felt that given the on-the-record-denials by McCain and Iseman, the reporters needed more than the circumstantial evidence they had assembled to prove the case. The reporters felt they had the goods.

“Why is she always around?” evidently constituting “the goods.” Consider this a variation on “fake but accurate,” where instead of using bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be true, you use possibly bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be possibly true. The product is the same; you’re just weighting the variables slightly differently.

It’s a five-minute read so dig in, pausing occasionally as you go to savor the irony of TNR scolding another publication for not being diligent enough in its fact-checking. Exit question: Who tipped the Times to this in November?

Update: Even TPM is underwhelmed. Although among lefties having Maverick’s back, this takes the cake:

Lanny Davis, a former special adviser to President Clinton and longtime Democratic activist, challenged reports today that Sen. John McCain may have done a favor for a female lobbyist, calling them meritless.

Mr. Davis said the likely Republican presidential nominee did not “yield to a lobbyist” and backed up Mr. McCain’s account that the senator only wrote to the Federal Communication Commission in a routine letter that did not cross the lines of propriety…

Mr. Davis, who emphasized he doesn’t support the Arizona senator’s bid, was also lobbying on the same deal [as Vicky Iseman].

“It is sad and unfortunate that facts are not included to make a fair story and that good journalism rules were not followed,” Mr. Davis said. “I am unhappy. I am sad that McCain’s actions are being described as improper when we went beyond the pale to avoid looking like he was violating an FCC rule.”…

During the Post interview, Mr. Davis reminded the reporter that he had already made a statement to the paper in 2000 which cleared the senator of wrongdoing. The statement was not included in today’s story which paints a damning picture of Mr. McCain’s activities.

The Times never contacted him at all, Mr. Davis said. He said he was troubled by today’s accusations.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

**** These liberal news rags.

Win Win Win on February 21, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Who tipped the Times to this in November?

I wonder what the huck is all about ?

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Exit question: Who tipped the Times to this in November?

Huckabee! heh, just kidding…Behar alluded to that on the View today tho.

JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM

sounds like we might be getting another “well the story is true even thought the documentation has flaws”

is Rather working for TNR?

CaptainObvious on February 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM

It is a tale
Told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene V

Always Right on February 21, 2008 at 1:23 PM

is Rather working for TNR?

Dan Rather has become an inspiration to the lefty reporters with his “Fake but accurate” mantra

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Ah, journalistic integrity at its absolute zenith!

pilamaye on February 21, 2008 at 1:23 PM

[NYT investigative reporter]Thompson had done investigative work: At The Washington Post in the 1990s she had edited Michael Isikoff’s reporting on the Paula Jones scandal, and in 2003 she broke the story that Strom Thurmond had secretly fathered a child with his family’s black maid.

Impressive resume, if you’re looking for work at the National Enquirer. I guess the NYT will hire anyone who can dig up unsubstantiated dirt on a Republican.

fogw on February 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Garbage In, Garbage Out. That’s the MSM in a nutshell.

Leonidas Hoplite on February 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM

When did Liberals start thinking men and women can’t be platonic friends? Oh right, it’s all about sex and sexuality for them. Never mind.

TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM

BTW the slimes answered McCain today

NY Times

McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 21, 2008

In response to Mr. McCain as well as media commentary about the timing of the publication of the article, The New York Times released this statement from Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor:

“On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.”

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Let’s review:

1) Old, old rumors.
2) Denied by the candidate and his wife.
3) If the picture on Drudge is accurate, the rumored-and-debunked “mistress” is quite attractive.

Conclusion: Even at his age, McCain must be quite the alpha male if a credible rumor circulates about him hooking up with such an attractive woman.

SECOND LOOK AT MCCAIN!

(Couldn’t resist)

Anton on February 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Wait a minute, I thought that the New York Times had rendered spraying DNA on an intern – irrelevant? It had nothing to do with the job, right?

Why is it [assuming arguendo that there was an affair] relevant, now? [he asked, rhetorically].

OhEssYouCowboys on February 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I wonder what the huck is all about ?

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM

To his credit, Huck defended McCain today. He said, “I only know him to be a man of integrity…”.

amerpundit on February 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I hate love Lanny Davis.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Welcome to the party Maverick. I’d come to your defense, but I’m still busy proving to the world that I’m not a racist thanks to your asinine actions trying to get McCain Kennedy passed. Guess you’ll have to face the press alone, you know, the way you were always happy to face them before. I’m sure you remember Maverick, when you were busy stabbing your fellow Republicans in the back.

Snake307 on February 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM

And that RAG is still referred to as a “newspaper because? What a joke!

libhater on February 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Uh, Mr. Keller, could you come to my office and bring everything in your desk.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Even if the allegations are true, they shouldn’t matter. It’s his private life.

At least that was the lecture we got from the lefties and Clinton apologists back in the 90′s.

Oh, wait…McCain is a “Republican” so that standard does not apply to him.

My bad.

Puleeze…. the NYT is so washed up. This make me wonder if the left is more afraid of McCain than they’re letting on.

Pulchritudinous Patriot on February 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Hey, at least McCain’s getting some attention during Obamapalooza. Even negative attention is better than no attention in politics sometimes. And this one looks like it’s shaping up to be a tempest in a teapot, with no expectation of lasting damage.

aero on February 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM

such an attractive woman.

Anton on February 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM

She’s fugly.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I just love the way McCain apologists are quick to pretend that there is nothing to this story. Funny how these same bastards went on for DAYS about the fact that Mitt Romney’s lawn service had hired illegals. Funny how these same bastards threw out all sorts of Christian-bashing items about Huckabee. NOW THAT MCCAIN IS GETTING SOME OF HIS OWN MEDICINE…..it’s “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Sorry, but if McCain was acting unethically (outside his Keating 5 corruption). Now is the time for it to be vetted not the weekend before the election ala GWB’s DUI story. You idiots supporting McCain without question are not doing the cranky old bastard any favors by covering up for him.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM

I’ll bet Bush’s people asked why Cindy Sheehan was always around too. Romantic involvement? Let’s ask the NYT to judge.

MayBee on February 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM

wait ABC News blotter is suggesting that ROMNEY pushed this story !

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/romney-camp-lam.html

Romney Camp Laments
February 21, 2008 10:18 AM

ABC News’ John Berman Reports: The remnants of the Romney campaign are shaking their heads this morning.

For months they were whispering about a New York Times investigation into John McCain’s ties to a certain lobbyist.

They would poke and prod reporters to see if they had heard anything new about when and if the New York Times would publish the story.

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM

This will benefit Mr. McCain. Even the conservatives who’d otherwise be against some of his policies, will rally with him now, for fairness. Other benefits:

- NYT will become even more the NYS(limes)
- NYT stock will continues to drop
- Focus will be on this over the weekend, not on the democrats’ “change/hope”, and other bla, bla, bla
- Being in the news, even with bad news, is better than not being mentioned (ask Donald Trump) – good for McCain, again
- Being unjustly accused brings out clear heads like Mr. Davis, with whom I often disagree, but whom I respect, and Mr. Bob Bennett, another hefty leftie, with a fair brain.
- Other bennies I can’t think of…and the NYT hasn’t factored in either. They deserve what they’ll get.

This might be Mr. McCain’s 2008 blessing, and the liberals’ Achilles heel.

Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

. And this one looks like it’s shaping up to be a tempest in a teapot, with no expectation of lasting damage.*

In February.

spmat on February 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM

You idiots supporting McCain without question are not doing the cranky old bastard any favors by covering up for him.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Analyzing the ‘facts’, or the lack thereof, as it may be, doesn’t make one an “idiot” or a McCain “supporter”.

Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Thanks for lumping me into a group. I did NOT support McCain until Romney dropped out. I am still ticked off about the ‘bigot’ remarks. I have bashed Huckabee plenty, but it isn’t because he is a Christian. I could care less what he is. He could pray to Mr. Hankie, for all I care, as long as he swears (and follows through) with ‘protect and defend the Constitution’. I never once bagged Romney on the lawn mower issue or his religion.

So this McCain supporter doesn’t fit your stereotype. Just thought I’d let you know that not all us ‘idiots’ smell the same.

Limerick on February 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

To his credit, Huck defended McCain today. He said, “I only know him to be a man of integrity…”.

amerpundit on February 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Perhaps after sniffing the wind and checking the prevailing currents? I imagine he decided it was better to hope for the VP brass ring than double down on a brokered convention. I mean that in the kindest possible way.

a capella on February 21, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Exit question: Who tipped the Times to this in November?

I don’t know the answer but it’s curious that the tip went to Jim Rutenberg, who covered the media and advertising beat at the Times. Whoever it was most likely had a previous relationship with him on stories related to that beat. I’m guessing it was someone who worked for another candidate’s advertising folks.

Anyhoo, I found this bit rather ironic:

Two weeks ago, in early February, Marilyn Thompson, one of the four reporters working on the McCain investigation quit the Times…She had spent just six months at the Times and recorded only four bylines before accepting an offer to return to her former employer as an editor overseeing the Post’s accountability coverage of money and politics

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM

During the Post interview, Mr. Davis reminded the reporter that he had already made a statement to the paper in 2000 which cleared the senator of wrongdoing. The statement was not included in today’s story which paints a damning picture of Mr. McCain’s activities.

The Times never contacted him at all, Mr. Davis said. He said he was troubled by today’s accusations.

Then NYT says,

“On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.”

So, they were working on the story for months and never contacted Davis who had already spoken on the record to them about the charges.

No politics here! Nothing to see people. Keep moving.

TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Don’t forget the large anchor thrown to TNR as it stuggles to swim ashore after the Foer Follies.

a capella on February 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Exit question: Who tipped the Times to this in November?

Check the above story from ABC News. It was Mitt’s team that set this up.

If so Mitt’s presidentual dreams are over

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Irony, Thy Name Is NYT’s

By including vague insinuations of a sex scandal, the New York Times has risked ruining their story even if there is something to the whole lobbying angle. Recall how Republicans revived Clinton’s popularity by impeaching him. Because there was sex involved, the whole rest of the story was quickly forgotten…

…the timing of this story could not possibly be better for McCain. He has just sewn up the nomination, and the general election is months away. Imagine if this had broken, without the unsubstantiated sex angle, in October. It could have been much more damaging. As published now, it inoculates him.

Topsecretk9 on February 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM

This will benefit Mr. McCain. Even the conservatives who’d otherwise be against some of his policies, will rally with him now, for fairness. Other benefits:

- NYT will become even more the NYS(limes)
- NYT stock will continues to drop
- Focus will be on this over the weekend, not on the democrats’ “change/hope”, and other bla, bla, bla
- Being in the news, even with bad news, is better than not being mentioned (ask Donald Trump) – good for McCain, again
- Being unjustly accused brings out clear heads like Mr. Davis, with whom I often disagree, but whom I respect, and Mr. Bob Bennett, another hefty leftie, with a fair brain.
- Other bennies I can’t think of…and the NYT hasn’t factored in either. They deserve what they’ll get.

This might be Mr. McCain’s 2008 blessing, and the liberals’ Achilles heel.

Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

They want the stock to drop. They want to take it private on the cheap. They have been driving the price down. It was all alid out by the Boston Herald Business Editor about 18 months or so ago.

TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Im seeing a trend here with TNR and Anton hit on it

Let’s review:
1) Old, old rumors.
2) Denied by the candidate and his wife.
Anton on February 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Sound anything like Paul?

offroadaz on February 21, 2008 at 1:56 PM

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

If it was Mitt he never would have pulled out. He would have stayed in and waited just like Huck has done.

Bay Buchanan who was part of the Mitt Campaign was on Kudlow and Company last night and said they never would have quit if they had known. She made the point that in her opinion, the NYT played politics by holding it until McCain had locked up the nomination leaving Republicans with no choice.

TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Ahh. Maybe all that reachin across the isle did make a difference. Lanny Davis helps out Maverick? Maybe Kennedy and Robert Byrd will help out later today as well. I’ll give the NYT’s editor two weeks before he steps down in discrace. Only to be hired and given a raise at the Washington Post. It’s kind of like the Catholic Priest scandal. Just send him away to be someone else’ problem. Out of sight out of mind. Can’t wait to see new head to head polls with Obamamessiah later this week. I predict a NYT’s bump.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM

ROVE YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!!!

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM

It was Mitt’s team that set this up.

William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

More rumor and innuendo at this point, and thus a premature conclusion dontcha think?

If it was Mitt he never would have pulled out. He would have stayed in and waited just like Huck has done.

TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Good point, although I don’t think this story would have delivered the goods for Mitt even if it had broken before Florida. The only thing it might have done is made Crist and others less likely to endorse him, but even that is not certain.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 2:09 PM

….where instead of using bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be true, you use possibly bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be possibly true.

You could also say “…you use hearsay and innuendo to support a story two unnamed disgruntled former staffers claim to believe is true.”

Infidoll on February 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Even the conservatives who’d otherwise be against some of his policies, will rally with him now,

This conservative won’t rally with McCain until he finally gets it that the MSM was never his friend. This first dirty trick, right on time, should start the ball rolling to get that message across to McCain. I expect more.

And as each new one rolls out, maybe McCain will realize what a chump he was for playing this so-called maverick role. And maybe he’ll get it that it simply does not matter as long as he has an R after his name.

And then maybe we’ll talk.

jmuchow on February 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Lanny’s such a sweet man. /s

Wonder what new Clinton scandal he’s using this to derail by being “nice.”

Connie on February 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Even the conservatives who’d otherwise be against some of his policies, will rally with him now,

Two words: JUAN HERNANDEZ

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Two words: JUAN HERNANDEZ

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM

You misunderstood – it’s Rush Limbaugh, for example. Not to vote for him necessarily, just to put this story in perspective…

Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 2:41 PM

My sources tell me that Pinch Sulzberger has been seen in the company of a cat, spending so much time with it that at one point some commented that it “always seems to be around” and that their relationship seemed overly close.

Pinch denies a sexual affair with the cat, who was unavailable for comment.

Hollowpoint on February 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Whoa! SOME CALLER ON RUSH SAID THE NYT EDITOR BOB KELLER LEFT HIS WIFE FOR SOME YOUNG BRITISH FLOOZY. DEVELOPING…

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM

NOT KIDDING

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Why is the fact that McCain is denying this reason to believe it did not happen?

This guy has been saying “It is not Amnesty” for two years.

And let’s not forget the “Time Tables” BS he flung around against Mitt Romney in Florida.

EJDolbow on February 21, 2008 at 2:56 PM

JOHN Kerry’s ex-girlfriend Emma Gilbey is now married to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times – and some wags are wondering whether Gilbey’s romantic past will influence her husband’s coverage of the candidate.
Kerry dated Gilbey, a British gin heiress, in the late 1980s before she dumped him for Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour. This was prior to Kerry marrying ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz and Gilbey getting hitched to Keller. But the dishier details of the Gilbey-Kerry fling are just now leaking out.
In the new issue of the American Conservative, co-editor Taki Theodoracopulos, another former flame of Gilbey’s, imparts a naughty new morsel about the Gilbey/Kerry romance:
“People do tend to tell each other secrets, and one of her’s was that she was involved with JFK Mark II [Kerry], the man who is now running for president,” Taki writes. “More details followed, and then it was time for a White House correspondents’ dinner.
“I had had much too much to drink . . . and when John Kerry lumbered by I heard myself yelling, ‘Senator, do you like to have sex in limousines?’ Well, he didn’t look best pleased, but then he’s a politician and knows how to roll with the punches. He also knew that I knew and left it well enough alone.”
“Still,” Taki writes, “the big question is whether Emma Gilbey will influence Bill Keller to endorse or not. Stay tuned.”
When we posed that very question to Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, she told us: “Bill Keller does not endorse the candidate. The editorial board of the New York Times does. Bill is executive editor of the newsroom.” But Kerry’s annointment by the Times is already a foregone conclusion – the Old Gray Lady endorsed Kerry in the Democratic primary, and will surely tap him over President Bush in the general election.
“Americans care about jobs, health care and national security, not gossip,” declared Kerry spokesman David Wade. “John Kerry’s coverage in the New York Times will be determined by his vision for the country and the fights he wages and nothing more.”
Gilbey was perhaps the least noteworthy of the string of attractive women Kerry squired around Washington in the 1980s. As a swinging single U.S. Senator, Kerry was linked to Catherine Oxenberg, an actress and member of the Yugoslav Royal Family; “Falcon Crest” actress turned Old Navy pitchwoman Morgan Fairchild; Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis; and Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas.

Still searching, give me time.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Since the general consensus is that this whole story is lame and weakly substantiated, by both political sides, and given the liberal slants of the NY Times and TNR,

then why isn’t there a loud hue and cry about it being the liberals (again) who are nosing around in other peoople’s bedrooms and private affairs?
Afterall, that’s been one of the fearful mantras about Conservatives forever, but who in truth actually does?

localmalcontent on February 21, 2008 at 3:04 PM

SECOND LOOK AT LANNY DAVIS!!!!

omnipotent on February 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Beauchamp journalism at TNR again, huh?

jcrue on February 21, 2008 at 3:13 PM

And as each new one rolls out, maybe McCain will realize what a chump he was for playing this so-called maverick role. And maybe he’ll get it that it simply does not matter as long as he has an R after his name.

And then maybe we’ll talk.

jmuchow on February 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM

McCain’s Sally Field moment with the press and Democrats: You HATE me, you really HATE me!…………

I’m not supporting McCain until he substantively addresses my concerns. I agree with him (mostly) on national security but he can’t call me racist for being against his amnesty deal and expect my support. He can’t abridge my Constitutional right to free speech and tell me to “hold my nose” and vote for him.

Don’t blame me, I voted for Romney.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Consider this. There has been no serious vetting by the MSM of Senator Obama’s political or personal life. So have the NYT attack John McCain, get Lanny Davis and other Democratic pundits to repudiate the tactics and call for a moratorium on this type of yellow journalism. The result – put the screws to any serious questioning of Obama’s political & personal life. Problem solved for the Obama camp and the MSM can claim the high road. Conspiratorial? – maybe. But then again, maybe not.

my2cents on February 21, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Even if Maverick did have an affair with this babe, he didn’t lie to a Grand Jury.

infidel65 on February 21, 2008 at 3:36 PM

If it’s true that Romney was behind this story, I can understand McCain’s hostility towards him, especially at that debate at the Reahgan library where the Maverick was real nasty.

infidel65 on February 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM

It wasn’t Romney. It was Obama or Weaver. Weaver’s name has been the constant in all the NY Times pieces aimed at McCain in the last few months. The “party switch” rumor that Weaver based on his own meetings with his “good friends” who worked for democrats like Daschle; the “Kerry VP” rumor which was based on the fact that JF Kerry tried very hard to get McCain to run with him, and McCain declined; and now this.

Weaver seems to be another version of that guy that the AP or NY Times was always quoting like some random man on the street.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM

my2cents Hmmmmm. Now that’s a theory I could actually see some truth behind.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM

McCain raising money off NYT story – Politico.com -

normsrevenge on February 21, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I guess they’re just mad that they didn’t get the “Voted Against Waterboarding Ban” tripe to stick.

Seixon on February 21, 2008 at 5:58 PM

If I recall correctly they did this to Bush 41 in the 1992 campaign. Accusing him of having an inappropriate relationship. They’ve got to lay the foundation for a story yet to come.

My bet is that the Obamanation has a Monica, of course he smokes cigarettes not cigars.

It should be fun to watch.

roux on February 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM