John McCains’s face. Maybe they can move onto Obama’s large hobbit like ears — surely they can’t even be human.

One thing is for sure… there’s no thinner skin than that of a liberal, or a liberal journalist and the organ for whom he writes.

I’m waiting to see Hillary’s health records on all her BOTOX injections.

That can’t be good for one’s skin, can it?

Kerry has only released his complete naval records to three people-all reporters for liberal newspapers.

What’s he hiding?

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Either that his Purple Hearts were for scratches, or his discharge had to be upgraded from something other than honorable due to some “activities” while he was still in uniform.

I’m still wondering what three great military liberals were allowed to review his records.

Bill Clinton never fully disclosed his medical records did he? Not even after eight years of office.

Where’s the NYT’s complaints about that?

DubiousD on May 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM

On the same page where they are complaining about John eFing Kerry not releasing his military records.

They have zero credibility on this until they start asking some serious questions about Obama and Rezko, and Clinton and her cash from China, as well as the cash Bubba has been raking in from foreign sources.

A starting question for her is how will Bubba’s speech payments affect any decision of hers?

Absolute buffoons!

When you hang with them, they hang you. Live & learn.

Although I expect to end up voting for him despite my wretching innards . . .

. . . I have a lot of trouble finding any sympathy for “Maverick” whenever the MSM conveniently turns on him. Its not more than he’s due.

In fact, neither did the New York Times editors, which endorsed McCain in February.

Nice.

Why does anyone pay attention to the NYT? It looks like they will be in chapter 11 very soon. It can’t be soon enough.

duff65 on May 4, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Ditto. They’ve already done enough damage.

Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Tom, yes I can see what you are saying with respect to issues that

ay arise after the endorsement. This was something they could have hinged their endorsement on, if its so important…it’s been no secret that McCain has had past health issues, just like any other guy who gets to be his age…if an official disclosure of some sort was a concern, they should have held out for it. They just wanted to nudge him forward, they thought the timing was right. Thats my perception.

And they don’t realize they don’t have the relevance or the influence they used to.

Bill Clinton changed the law whereby people had to retire at 65. Now, there’s no cap at all. Work until you’re 150, if you’re able. How would Hillary argue against her own husband?

Say, did John Kerry ever release those military 180s like he promised? I don’t think so.

a capella on May 4, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Kerry has only released his complete naval records to three people-all reporters for liberal newspapers.

What’s he hiding?

Ed, it’s because they were trying to pick our candidate for us, so their opponent would be a weaker candidate to beat.

bikermailman on May 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM

That’s assuming the NYT’s opinion means anything to most Republicans. They were probably being even more cynical than you posit and endorsed him precisely because they knew it would hurt more than help, thus attempting to derail the nomination of the strongest candidate the Republicans had at the time.

They don’t say that he shouldn’t have been nominated. They say…

No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.

They are saying McCain has a responsibility, especially since he has locked up the nomination, to release his medical records. They are using locking up the nomination as a yardstick as to when medical records should at the very latest release their medical records.

They don’t say he should not have received the nomination because he didn’t release his records. And it should be noted that the Times endorsed him before he locked up the nomination.

You seem to think that because a paper endorses a candidate either

A) They don’t think there are any issues that would raise concern about he or she becoming president.

or

B) If there are, they should not raise them.

Quite bluntly, that’s not how it works. A paper can endorse a candidate and still raise concerns about their candidacy. Heck, the Times even basically rescinded it’s endorsement of Clinton last month.

Endorsing a candidate does not mean a paper becomes that candidates cheerleader. After an endorsement is made, the paper goes back to work in reporting on that candidate for the public. That often means looking at the candidate and their campaign with a critical eye.

They’re saying that he shouldn’t have been nominated without disclosing this material. Why would they then urge people to vote for his nomination before it was released? It’s pretty hypocritical, to say the least.

I’m just sorta flabberghasted that it has to be explained to you. No disrespected intended, it’s a pretty obvious…geez, i’m not sure how to proceed here. LOL

It’s not a violation if you choose to release the information. The law only protects you from third parties giving out information w/o your knowledge. That’s why you have to sign a release form when your folder, or x-rays go to another physician.

I don’t understand this line of thinking. Do you think because the NYTimes endorses a candidate, they should stop reporting on a or challenging a candidate?

After an endorsement, should every story be positive?

Just wishful thinking…

The hitch is, nobody cares what they think anymore.