Drudge: NYT rejects McCain’s rebuttal op-ed because it doesn’t “mirror” Obama’s; Update: Text of NYT e-mail added
posted at 1:03 pm on July 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Which god did he please to get the Times to do him this favor, I wonder. Remember when they endorsed him in January and he very stupidly touted it on his website, only to quietly drop it when he realized the Republican base doesn’t consider the NYT’s imprimatur a badge of honor? This is the antithesis. You’re a real conservative at last, Maverick!
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles…
[Former Clinton aide and current NYT op-ed editor David] Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial [in an e-mail to McCain's staff on Friday].
‘The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.’
Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’
Drudge has the text of the rejected draft. The punchline? It’s true, the piece is short on specifics (and long on rubbing the left’s face in their misjudgment of the surge) — but then so was Obama’s op-ed, never delving beyond the Iraq/Afghanistan boilerplate he’s been pushing for the last year except insofar as he revealed the number of brigades to be redeployed. As for McCain’s non-definition of victory, quote:
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
Vague, but then so was Obama’s caveat in his op-ed about “tactical readjustments” to his timetable based on conditions on the ground. What exactly are they looking for by way of specifics? “We’ll go home when Sadr’s dead”? The more capable the IA is in defending its turf, the more American troops can be redeployed. I don’t know what they want beyond that. But if that’s not good enough, how about this for a compromise: McCain will offer a precise, legalistic definition of victory in return for Obama offering a precise, legalistic definition of defeat. Are we already there? If so, say so, because that sure would put Obama’s supposed meeting of the minds with Maliki in stark, stark context.
And to think, 49% believe the media’s trying to help Obama win. Exit question: Since when does Drudge do favors for McCain? Or was a hot story bashing the Times simply too much for him to resist, whatever the political fallout might be?
Update: Here’s the full text of Shipley’s e-mail:
From: David Shipley/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 PM
To: XXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX
Subject: Re: JSM Op-Ed
Dear Mr. XXXXXX,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.
I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.
I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.
Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. Her email is XXXXXXXX; her phone is 212-XXXXXXX.
Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
So, how’s that Campaign Finace Reform and MSM ass-kissing working out for you there, Maverick?
What a self-righteous schmuck.
TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 1:06 PM
When doesn’t Drudge ever do anything then get items to make his hits go up?
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Which means it will be seen by ten times as many eyes than if it had been published by the NYT.
Ha!
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Yet another reason to boycott the NYT out of existence! They are no longer an objective voice in journalism (as if they ever were in the first place!), they are the willing mouthpiece for the DNC. This is bias, plain and simple. Absolutely disgraceful!
pilamaye on July 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM
It looks like all those years McCain spent trying to gain the favor of the New York Times has come to nothing. McCain was a fool to even try. The NYT had praise for McCain only when he was trashing conservatives and opposing their agenda. This allowed the Times and other outlets of the Archaic Media write stories supporting liberal policies where they could say “even some Republicans reject the hard line position of the Republican leadership and are backing the proposal.” McCain was their patsy.
McCain should have realized that even a Republican “maverick” will never be preferred by the MSM over a true blue Liberal. Hence, his present treatment by the NYT and MSM in general.
Cicero43 on July 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM
So, Senator McAmnesty? How do you feel about all that time you spent on your knees giving “monica’s” to your close personal friends at the New York Times so they will like you?
sabbott on July 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Roger that.
Redhead Infidel on July 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Something like: On Feb 1, 2009 we will surrender to the 3 remaining live jihadis in Iraq, disband the US military, turn over all functions of the Federal government to the United Nations, ban the internal combustion engine, retroactively lose the Cold War, convict GWB, Cheney and 147 other eeeevil rethuglicans of war crimes and all 300 million of us will collectively kneel and beg the world for forgiveness.
trubble on July 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM
So the NYT decided that they would only publish one side of the story. Whatever happened to objectivity of the press? So we have to be subjected to whatever news fits a particular opinion?
Hmnmm, this won’t end well….
mjk on July 21, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The NYT only has one useful purpose, lining the bottom of bird cages!
old trooper on July 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM
and yet the NYT allows an editorial entitled “What HAMAS wants” as well as previous editorial by YASSER ARAFAT???
Note the times defending Hamas because of the “danger of one-sided debate”
RIDICULOUS!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30713_New_York_Times_Rejects_McCain_Op-Ed
battleoflepanto1571 on July 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Ha! If only that were true. Because, as we’ve all come to learn, by that logic Hillary Rodham Clinton is also a real conservative.
Zetterson on July 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM
WRONG.
It’s also good for wrapping fish.
Cicero43 on July 21, 2008 at 1:15 PM
That’s what pandering usually gets you. I suspect his immigration reform will pay off in spades as well.
saiga on July 21, 2008 at 1:15 PM
People make mistakes. Film at 11.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:15 PM
How astoundingly arrogant and foolish of the NYT. The only reason I can think of for them to do this is to try and “speak truth to power” in an effort to convince more New York liberals to buy their fishwrapper. Otherwise, their decision is beyond asinine.
Outlander on July 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM
heh- that was my (exit) question too.
Diogenes of Sinope on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Cicero43: is that before or after the bird cage?
RINO_Hunter on July 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I hope the NY Post is cheeky enough to run the essay on its front page tomorrow.
“The McCain essay the NYTimes censored!” (Well, they’d think of a funny headline.)
Wethal on July 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Why would Drudge be concerned about political fallout in favor of McCain? Drudge is a conservative. Where does this ridiculous notion that he’s in the tank for Ohimself come from? It’s absurd!
Kensington on July 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Why would/should the liberal Times print the Republican nominee’s self-serving piece?
The lining up of the media into liberal/mainstream and conservative/alternative is a net benefit.
Demanding the Times and others be impartial and fair gives them more power and authority than they deserve. If you want pro-Republican stuff, read the conservative media.
JiangxiDad on July 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM
He is the messiah after all…
acleaver on July 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM
It would help if Mav would indicate that he, too, thinks it was a mistake.
Kensington on July 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM
The Unfairness Doctrine in practice. Smokey rules the for smoke-up-your-keester New Yarns Today.
Limerick on July 21, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Kensington, for a while Drudge did seem to be in the tank for Obama. But now I think it was only because Drudge despised Hillary.
Wethal on July 21, 2008 at 1:23 PM
If you want pro-Republican stuff, read the conservative media.
JiangxiDad on July 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Outside of the Washington Times, name one that is published daily on dead trees.
TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I just love the way The Messiah’s acolytes jump on McCain for being “self-righteous!”
Their Anointed One has him covered on that score.
One day, there will be a reckoning for the biased Lefty media outlets. But it will come through rejection by the public, not some fascist-style “fairness doctrine.”
MrScribbler on July 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM
The New york Times (Sulzberger family) have been brainwashing New Yorkers for decades. Why would anyone living outside of New York give any credibility to anything that propaganda tool presents? The truth to a Sulzberger is what they want the truth to be and not what the facts are.
volsense on July 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I suppose that should include the IBD, but I haven’t yet gotten over the WSJ’s Pravda-like censoring of anti-illegal immigration viewpoints during the whole McCain-Kennedy fiasco.
TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM
MrScribbler on July 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Since there are apparantly enough stupid people in this country to elect a Barack H. Obama to the Presidency, anything is possible, unfortunately.
TexasJew on July 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The New York Times? Who are they?
TooTall on July 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Rush is just killing the Messiah today-which is good since the MSM will do anything to help this moronic novice win.
My only hope is that McCain gets pissed off enough to realize that sucking up to these clowns got him nowhere when it counted.
No fool like an old fool- cmon John, join us conservatives for the mother of all political battles!
jjshaka on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I tried that, but it made the bird sick.
MarkTheGreat on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM
The danger of one sided debate, by Clark Hoyt, public editor of the NYT. He defends the publication of an op-ed by a terrorist shill, but notes that one-sided debate isn’t what the NYT is about.
Oh really? How come Obama got the forum and McCain didn’t?
lawhawk on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM
The New York Times continues to disgrace itself.
SoulGlo on July 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM
And 51% don’t. Boo hoo.
Grow Fins on July 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Yes they did.
And more than a few mentioned it ‘as proof’ that McCain is bad. Well, consider this the New York Times official “un-endorsement” of McCain, because they wanted Obama to be the next president all along.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM
..and prompting the perpetual outrage of righty bloggers…..
Grow Fins on July 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM
In your world, there is no room for the undecideds?
MarkTheGreat on July 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Can I say I told you so now?
I predicted back before the primaries that the NYT on other DeadStreamMedia would only support McCain until it came down to a choice between him and a real Democrat.
MarkTheGreat on July 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Here’s a formula for a McCain victory: Drill for domestic oil. Secure the border. Win the war. Low taxes. No earmarks. Fight with the New York Times.
He comes out stronger every time he’s in a conflict with those clowns.
forest on July 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM
RNC, file suit against Tom Shipley AND the NYT!
Damnation, to be gagged under the “equal time” rules set by and abused by the Demagogue Party!
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Oh, and by the way, McCain isn’t running for the president of the ‘Republican base,’ but the president of America.
And in addition to republicans(who are free to vote for him over Obama if they think that Obama will be bad for this country) McCain has decided to campaign in a matter that is hoping to attract moderates and undecideds. Will he turn out more and get elected, or would he have only asked for the votes from conservatives and lost the election? Only the results in november will let us know for sure.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Come on people, Drudge has not been kind to the GOP or McCain this cycle, how many more shots of McCain’s head with ominous cancer one-liners attached will it take? The last one was left up nearly 48 hours, despite having been caused by a bump exiting a vehicle.. Pretty low, despicable actually.
Obama has zero accomplishments, yet is feted at Drudge like he’s the 2nd coming, allahpundit has it nailed & squared away, NYT trash talking.. The weekly drudge nielsens he posts on the right say it all, he loves to trash the NYT.
saus on July 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
There seem to be plenty of self-righteous schmucks around today, but McCain’s not one of them. Just sayin.’
WSJ Pravda-like? Okey doke. Yew betcha.
Gilda on July 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” NYT.
The Grey Lady stacks another skeleton in her storage closet.
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Whatever the NYT is doing it seems to be working. Rasmussen today has Barry taking a gigantic 1 point lead.
Limerick on July 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM
When does an Opinion piece stop being News, and start being an unpaid political ad?
This sounds pretty darn close to me… too bad the Dems are stopping anyone from getting on the Fed Election Comm… no quorum? No investigation… funny how that works.
Romeo13 on July 21, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I think the Ol’ Grey Lady just farted. It’ll be interested to see if anyone other than Drudge will have the courage to say anything about it.
.
GT on July 21, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Heh.
Weight of Glory on July 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM
you idiotic sheeple, the endorsement they gave him was to be the republican candidate because they knew if he was elected he would the least “damage”, which to them is the least to push the republican platform. he isnt a RINO, he’s a democrat through and through. but you keep building up those mccain points, maybe you can use them to buy some credits for juan’s cap-and-trade scheme.
chasdal on July 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I just sent this to the public editor of the NYT, public@nytimes.com, not that they could care less:
The Danger of the One-Sided Debate
By CLARK HOYT
Published: June 24, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I guess this pretty much confirms it: The NYT is 100% in the tank for Obama. You’ll print Hamas, but not McCain. You only divulge the names of CIA interrogators who won’t cooperate with you, even if it adds nothing to the story…but all those unnamed informants remain protected.
The NYT truly is the 5th column. You are the enemy within the gates that our forefathers warned us about.
[name]
[city, state]
JustTruth101 on July 21, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The NYT has always done it. It wasn’t a predicition.. it has always been known.
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I have the headline for the Post to use when publishing McCain’s editorial
Unequal Times
Immolate on July 21, 2008 at 1:57 PM
chasdal – Thanks for checking in from the Obama campaign, giving it all for your candidate I see.
NoDonkey on July 21, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Please tell me which nominee you are going to vote for?
Bob Barr? (who isn’t a conservative anymore then anyone else)
Obama? (yeah I can see that coming)
Ron Pau? (Didn’t he drop out?)
I am curious….
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Wow, y’know, up until you called me an idiotic sheeple I thought I was purty durn smart n’ stuff. But now, now I see the light thanks to your astonishing eloquence and argumentation skills.
I’m too good, too righteous, too pure to vote for John McCain. Not me not me not me you idiotic sheeple! I’m voting for…
wait for it…
the choice of Real True Conservatives™ everywhere…
Ron Paul!
/sarc
/yawn
/he lost for a reason
Gilda on July 21, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Well then.
Your superior debate skills have swayed me. I’m not going to vote for McCain now.
Thanks!
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I’ll take door #2.
I guess the presstitutes are going for a majority of the public realizing they’re in the bag for the Obamination.
steveegg on July 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Actually, I’d neither subject a bird to those words (animal abuse) nor sully the honor of fish by encasing it in that. It is, however, useful as a paint-catcher (especially for us sloppy painters).
steveegg on July 21, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Green Alert:
Save a million trees! Remove tons of waste paper from our landfills! Reduce Global Goreing and flatulent emissions! How?
Stop printing the New York Times.
Steve Z on July 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I’m a conservative that looks upon McNumbnuts as a democrat too and I am far from a hussein supporter. I agree with Chas and I would add the MSM worked very hard at choosing the gop candidate.
And I may cast my vote for Ann Coulter.
dogsoldier on July 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM
LAWL!
So much comedy in one single post.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM
The time’s posistion is BS. There wasn’t anything “new” in Waffles 2.0 op-ed. Well nothing new except him saying the summer of 2010 he would have everyone out, but thats still 16 months. Everything else is the same, 16 months, no concern for Iraqi stability, only tying training to political progress (which begs the question, if the finish all 18 benchmarks can they really “progress”), the only holdups for the withdrawal is safety of US troops not Iraqis.
Its also hillarious he calls for debate, yet not only avoids debating McCain but now the Times won’t allow debate!
Zaggs on July 21, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Maybe the NYT has dome McCain a favor. They have single-handedly worked up the base (ours) in a way he never could.
faraway on July 21, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Lets vote for Obama.. half man, half ass! Because it isn’t SHEEPLE!
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM
What an unbelievable a*hole.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 2:27 PM
A draft that needs to mirror of what Obama said?
What the hell does the NYT want, Clones?
Thanks for the update Allah.
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM
No bias here – glad it has been made clear.
Think_b4_speaking on July 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Well, McCain should be happy he only got his homework returned to him for resubmission. Next time he’s going to get after-school detention.
progressoverpeace on July 21, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Perhaps we should start advocating for The Fairness Doctrine: Print Edition.
And the more I think about the ensuing mayhemming and mayhawing, the more I like it…
Bob Owens on July 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Is this like reverse psych?
upinak on July 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM
How conservative would the Govt. be if not for the Liberal Media?
jp on July 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Actually, I think I understand where the NY Times is coming from. They wanted to Sen.McCain to lay out his plans. As written McCain’s piece is more an attack on Sen. Obama. Sen’ Obama’s piece only mentioned John McCain once.
terryannonline on July 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Brilliant!
MsUnderestimated on July 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Mutually Assured Destruction
progressoverpeace on July 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM
That should be drummed home again and again. Would make for a great RNC spot. (Hello? Hello? Is anyone listening?
The New York Times will print an op-ed by Hamas, but not one by John McCain.
aunursa on July 21, 2008 at 2:41 PM
And what a crappy thing for the person who sent this to Drudge. It seems like The NY Times just wanted the piece to be re-written that’s all. What newspaper doesn’t want re-writes!
terryannonline on July 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM
That’s what they want you to think.
a capella on July 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Don’t omit Drudge’s curtain call.
This goodwill gesture holds the tide of conservative readers LEAVING Drudge a bit longer, feigning equal opportunity as if that principle means more to him than his prostitution ring of headlines that generate the income hits to which he’s proven himself beholden.
Drudge can pat himself on his back, “what a good boy am I” as he tucks himself into bed tonight. Sorry, Matt, there’s ALWAYS more to it than meets the eye. Hearing an assassin say “peace be unto you” doesn’t make one feel any less threatened.
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Agree completely. Until that whole debacle and the WSJ’s shilling for shamnesty, I had read that paper every day for thirty years. Canceled my subscription over it, though I read it now from time to time.
JiangxiDad on July 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM
You shall have no other gods before Obama.
kirkill on July 21, 2008 at 2:51 PM
next time I get one of those direct mail marketing letters telling me to subcribe to the NYT, I’m going to write them back on their postage-paid return mailer: “sure, as soon as you start to mirror a real news organization.”
wildweasel on July 21, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Wait a minute, didn’t NYT endorse McCain earlier this year?
Sir Napsalot on July 21, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Here’s a novel idea: perhaps we can put aside our MDS for a moment and stop trashing him long enough to publicize this story to demonstrate how the media is trying to rig the election for Obama, and, you know, maybe do something to actually HELP Republican’s chances of maintaining the White House.
But hey, that doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s interests around these parts.
Vyce on July 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM
According to Jake Tapper at his ABC news blog, the NYPost is interested in publishing McCain’s essay.
Wethal on July 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM
No Terry, you should learn to count. He mentions McCain three times. All three times McCain’s name is mentioned its to attack him.
Now Obama’s op-ed is concrete as is asked by the email, but its only because they want McCain’s to be exactly the same. For instance “..measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.”, how are the Iraqi’s not cooperating? Because obama says they aren’t? Also why did they not impose upon obama what happens if violence flares up and Iraqi stability is threatened? his only concession to adjustment is safety of US troops and personnel.
Zaggs on July 21, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Yes sir.
They also mentioned this at the top of this page. Second sentence.
/my head hurts. I’m off to take a nap.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Sorry, you are right he mentions McCain three times. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that a newspaper can ask for re-writes. How do we know they didn’t ask Sen. Obama to re-write his?
terryannonline on July 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I’m guessing a big fat zero.
Ask the blessed St. Obama to change a single divine
wordrevelation? Scoff!pseudonominus on July 21, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Name the Wicked Queen stepmother with dastardly vanity in her magical MSM mirror, “who’s the fairest of them all?”
1. The Grey Lady
2. Tom Shipley
3. BHObamarx
4. All of the above
The NYT can’t give McCain a survey they’ve created with mirrored blanks “providing McCain a voice” and call it McCain’s editorial response to Obamarx!
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 3:26 PM
The Obama piece worked for me because
it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plansI’m a mindless, liberal, Obama-fellating hack who will say and do anything within my power to prop up my beloved Democrats, as well as anything within my power to harm the gun-toting, Bible thumping white trash that voted in Chimpya McHitlerburton and the GOP.There. Fixed that for you, David.
Blacksheep on July 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM
= Victory
tommylotto on July 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Well we don’t know that because we don’t have private email transactions between NY Times and Camp Obama.
terryannonline on July 21, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Breathtaking arrogance. Sen. McCain has already offered many more specifics of his overall plans while Sen. Obama has been permitted to skate with “Hope, Change…” (repeat as needed). This snotty little functionary has essentially insisted that Sen. McCain deliver exactly what no sensible person calls for: a published plan for Al Qaeda to try to use for its plans.
Jill1066 on July 21, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Shipley is an arrogant ass. Hope the NYT crashes and burn in the not too distant future. I’ll NEVER buy it again.
jeanie on July 21, 2008 at 4:00 PM
That’s unbelievable. Utterly unbelievable.
Now the NY Slimes wants a piece from McCain that mirrors what Obama says.
I would not be surprised if the Slimes stops covering McCain altogether and simply endorses Obama as the official “news” policy.
The sooner the Slimes dies, the better.
drjohn on July 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »