<p>ff – Actually, I’m on the side that says ‘drag it all out so everyone can get a good look, then make up their own minds.’ So far <em>nobody’s</em> found anything substantive against Obama…which is why their attacks (Democrat and Republican) are so worthless. When they find something ‘juicy’, I’m sure that will be told too and our citizens will decide how important it is. </p>
<p>Divisive politics <em>is</em> politics. I’m just clad they don’t still hit each other with walking sticks on the House Floor nor meet with pistols at dawn in Anacostia.</p>
<p>Novellisto, you are oddly silent on the rest of his post - namely the part where Bob Bennet, a democrat, basicly blows what you said in your first nasty post out of the water!!</p>
<p>Very political of you to shift your attention to unsubstantiated innuendo pertaining to Obama.</p>
<p>Sorry, Ag54, had to walk the dog. I responded to the personal side of FF’s post first.</p>
<p>I’m not seeing any date on this comment by Bob Bennett. Um, would this be the same Bob Bennett who presently <em>representing</em> McCain in this matter according to the WSJ? 'Nough said, right there, I think.</p>
<p>What I took from the NYT article was that the man is often (and deliberately) oblivious to how things look because he believes/knows he is acting properly. Of course he has been involved in some improprieties, as the article points out, including the Keating scandal.</p>
<p>I don’t think the man had an affair, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised. It is a common temptation for politicians. George HW had his (I have a friend who knows the Bush family). Neither of them has/had a zipper problem a la Big Bill.</p>
<p>This all coming from an Obama supporter. One of the first things that came to my mind when I learned about Obama’s unusual childhood was, gosh, I wonder if he has Bill Clinton-type issues. So far, in that respect, he seems squeaky clean.</p>
<p>“I’m not seeing any date on this comment by Bob Bennett.”</p>
<p>This is from his upcoming book so it was probably written quite some time ago. It is also the same Bob Bennet that represented Bill Clinton. I seriously doubt that he would lie about what is part of the public record and can be easlily verified by looking at his actual report to the Senate committee.</p>
<p>It is baseless. They only source they referred to was outed by the Washpost in an article that was published just hours later. This man today emailed the WP and said McCain never had an inappropriate relationship w/ the lobbyist. In fact, McCain took $85,000 over 8 years from a lobbying group. That’s about 10k/yr from that group, which is nothing! Obama takes $$ from lobbysits, so does Clinton. It’s no “news” that he took $ from a lobbyists, all politicians do this, the NYT is trying to imply that he had a sexual affair with this woman. </p>
<p>There is no difference between NYT saying McCain had an affair with this woman and Larry Sinclair saying he had sex w/ Senator Obama. Both are baseless smear jobs…the only difference is one was published in Americas leading liberal newspaper.</p>
<p>McCain, his wife, the lobbysits, and the NYT’s “source” all have denied any sexual relationship. The “source” the NYT had also denied any relationship in the Washpost this morning. </p>
<p>The NYT should be ashamed of this hit piece…fortunately everybody (or most everybody) sees it for what it is.</p>
<p>The same scandal that a democratic senator said McCain should not be punished for because, upon learning of its illegality, immediately ceased assocation with?</p>
<p>FF – Yes, it could have been written some time ago. But Bennett has been retained by McCain for ‘some months’…since the story was alive in rumors as long ago as December this excerpt could also have been written at the end of last year. I don’t know…neither do you. All the same, since the guy is presently one of McCain’s attorney, I’m going to be taking what he says with an olympic-sized grain of salt.</p>
<p>The NYT needs to be taken with an olympic sized grain of salt. Apparently they had this story in December but just happened to break it now. Hmmmm, what a coincidence. Everybody is bashing this piece for what it is, a horribly constructed story that relies on unnamed implications, heresay, and rumor.</p>
<p>“This is from his upcoming book so it was probably written quite some time ago. It is also the same Bob Bennet that represented Bill Clinton. I seriously doubt that he would lie about what is part of the public record and can be easlily verified by looking at his actual report to the Senate committee.”</p>
<p>He was on TV last night to plug his book and this issue was discussed. He went absolutely off on the Times and it certainly seems as if this is baseless.</p>
<p>Whether he’s a dummy or not is debatable. He clearly wounds his paper when he prints the tabloid trash that he did this morning. For lefties the momentary high of trashing someone who isn’t is a wonderful rush. That being said each time he displays his partisan colors the NYT sinks lower and lower. For anyone who’s watching the bottom line, he’s a dummy.</p>
<p>Oh, I think the truth will out. The “anonymous” comments will pretty soon no longer be anonymous. No one was in anyone’s bedroom, and NY Times didn’t claim it. But they (or others) will soon corroborate that he did indeed have aides warn him about the thin ice, and that they did indeed keep her from him (for appearances sake), and he already confirmed today his “friendships” with multiple lobbyists.</p>
<p>I was actually most struck by the restraint of the article. Keller clearly thinks he can prove, at least to his satisfaction, every sentence in the article, and apparently held up its publication until he felt certain he could.</p>
<p>No, I would argue that this is a serious screw-up by Charlie McCarthy Keller. The New Republic was about to expose the fact that the NYT was sitting on a story that could harm the opposition and that would do serious damage to the NYT as it relates to the preponderance of its readers who are hard core Democrats. </p>
<p>You’re right the NYT didn’t claim that anyone was in anyone’s bedroom but you’d have to be Charlie McCarthy not to believe that they didn’t imply it. Charlie McCarthy got burned on this one. Huge upside for McCain. Every conservative talk radio host in the land couldn’t stop talking today about the cheap shot of the NYT. It’s almost as if it was scripted by the McCain team. The conservatives are now on board with Senator McClain. I love irony.</p>
<p>What strikes me is the glaring difference in the articles. The NYT piece is full of “unnamed sources” and “sources within the McCain campaign staff”, and the only named source denies the alligations. They also drudge up gossip and innuendo and rehash things, like the Keating 5 stuff, that have already been done and McCain was cleared. On the other side is the New Republic article that clearly names ALL of its sources, puts it all in a current context and keeps the discussion on topic.</p>
<p>One is a smear job, the other is concise reporting of the smear job.</p>
<p>New article in the Washington Post today about how McCain’s staff is <em>loaded</em> with lobbyists, including Charles R. Black Jr who boasts that he makes phone calls for his lobbying business from the ‘Straight Talk Express’.</p>