Me too, on all four of your points. My kids want me to get an “Obama Mama” t-shirt…
I was listening to the candidates talk on TV quite early in this process and someone asked John Edwards why he thought he could win. He said basically what you have in political speak. Basically - “Because all our past candidates have looked like me.” See what that got him.
Look at the number of people voting in the primary elections - the democratic candidates are outdrawing the republicans by huge, huge margins. It’s hard for me to believe that 1 million people are willing to vote for Obama in primaries vs. 300,000 for McCain in the primaries and then either switch or sit on their hands in the general.
This year, the goat would beat a Republican.
Did any of you idiots even read the story? The Times did not say that she was sleeping with him. All it said was that some of his aides were worried about the possibility, because she was attractive and always around, and it looked bad.
Here is the horrible scandal:
Do you think they did wrong? Don’t you think that if he was playing around, and it got out, his candidacy would be dead. (It is not unknown for congresspeople to do this.) Don’t you think it would have spared us a lot of trouble if one of Bill’s aides had done this?
I don’t think he did anything myself, but it sure looked bad.
I’m not defending the Times for holding the story, but as for endorsement, who else would they endorse? The other candidates were psycho baboons or worse.
Yeah, but he’s a Republican man and she’s a woman. Gotta keep it plausible. 
No, but they certainly inferred that it was a possibility- why else would they even bring it up? There’s no evidence and even an inference that a politician is sleeping around will hurt.
I don’t think the NYT Editorial Board would really know al the details of stories that are in development. I guess they might know that there was a story about McCain having an inappropriate relationship, but I’m sure there is always a story like this being investigated by the paper, for every candidate.
While a possible romantic relationship is something that many will glom upon from that article, even if there wasn’t anything sexual, I think one should still consider the ethical dilemma of possible influence that a closer-than-advisable personal relationship would put him in.
Also, more worrisome, to me, is this: FEC wants to know whether McCain encumbered public funds
"McCain’s lawyer, Trevor Potter, said Wednesday evening that McCain has withdrawn from the system and that the FEC can’t stop him. Potter, who was FEC chairman in 1994, said the campaign did not encumber the public funds in any way.
“Well, it was done before in another campaign. … We think it’s perfectly legal. One of our advisers is a former chairman of the FEC, and we are confident that it was an appropriate thing to do," McCain told a news conference Thursday.”
While the article states that it is not clear whether the FEC can disallow a candidate to withdraw from public funding, or even what can be done where there currently is no quorum on the commission, either to rule on the position or to rule on a McCain appeal of it, the contradictions in the comments above, are troubling.
Also, the article quotes text from the loan agreement that seems to clearly state he did so, though Potter still says he didn’t.
But almost all of the story, which took a full inside page was about lobbyists, and the part I quoted was the only mention of the possible affair. She hung around too much even if it was just for lobbying - especially when the politician is basing a campaign around not being influenced by lobbyists. When the affair thing came up, should they have censored all mention? It seems they got multiple independent confirmation of the concern the aides had.
They inferred nothing - they just said that the aides inferred it, which was factually correct, as far as we can tell.
What I read was that the Times editorial board certainly knew about the story it was carefully checked, all parties had the chance to respond in the story, and that Keller even toned down some stuff.
Charles Black, according to this Washington Post story, is McCain’s “chief political advisor”. He is also the “chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.”
I just love this quote from Black:
[QUOTE]
I not only do not lobby him [McCain], but if an issue comes up that I have a client on, I will tell him that and stay out of the discussion."
IOW: “John, I can’t say any more, but they’re my clients.”
I read the exact opposite:
You’re right. I should have said the editors - I wasn’t thinking of the real editorial board who writes the editorials. I was visualizing the people who sit around the big table figuring out what goes on the front page, and where.
No, that was the other Clinton.
Oh. I saw the title and thought we were discussing my ex husbands.
Carry on.