Readers Comment On Times McCain Story
February 21, 2008 -- 5:52 PM EST // //

I hope to do more of this when the comments section is up and running. Here are a couple of reader emails on the big New York Times piece on McCain and the Lady Lobbyist:

TPM Reader LB:

I think it's entirely possible that there is more to the story than the Times felt it could publish, but strong possibility is not certainty, and especially after his last run for the presidency was destroyed by a whisper campaign of lies and innuendo, I think it's doubly important not to risk causing essentially the same thing happening to him again. Not to mention that those of us who were incensed by the unconscionable way the Times dogged the Clintons and helped to damage Bill Clinton's presidency by publishing innuendo and half-truths should not rejoice to see the same thing done to someone else, even if it's someone from the opposition.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not McCain had an extramarital affair 8 years ago. That's his business, and his wife's, and that of the other woman involved. I do care whether friendship or an affair or any other undue influence caused him to act to benefit a lobbyist or her clients in a way he otherwise would not have. If the Times (or any other media outlet) has publishable hard evidence that any personal relationship with Ms Iseman has resulted in McCain's giving undue consideration to her firm's clients, then they should say so. If they have not, then they should shut up about it until they do.

I'd agree that fairly or not, bad memories of the Bill-impeachment stuff -- and of the role of the traditional news orgs, the Times included, in that whole circus -- drove some of the irritation with the piece.

Meanwhile, TPM Reader RS agrees that tossing in the allegations about the affair only distracted from the lobbyist-politician side of the story:

While I was watching MSNBC this morning, while Scarborough and Buchanan were just foaming at the mouth about the Times and the sex angle, David Gregory and even Chris Matthews were actually trying, gingerly, to focus on the substantive corruption angle. This is a pivotal moment: it can prove to be the opening that's been sorely needed to get people to look at the real McCain, or it can be the nail in the coffin of any attempt to get people's eyes open.

Reader emails have decidedly tipped in the direction of criticism of the piece.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

---

---