The ice fell early this morning in Springfield, but later turned to rain, making this more of a slushstorm than anything else. At least in the Springfield area.For us political junkies, the real storm will come tonight -- when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton face-off in Texas at CNN's debate. Clinton needs a long-ball tonight. As Pat Buchanan puts it, "she's in the 2-minute drill." You can bet the Obama folks are boning up on Kosovo and Serbia right now.
And what do make of this John McCain story and his personal-professional-romantic relationship with the lobbyist? To steal Tim Russert's language, it looks to be "lots of smoke, but no fire." To me, the most striking thing is the timing of the release of the story. We know the New York Times had planned to run this story back in December, but opted against it after pressure from the McCain campaign. Would this have altered New Hampshire and beyond? The right seems to be rallying behind McCain now, so in that sense, it may end up being a unifer among conservatives.
Will it have legs? Further reporting would be the key to uncovering a possible fire festering beneath the smoke.
3 comments:
The good Democrat ( I know that in this area many might say there is no good Democrat) in me says "This isn't right It's shameful that our political system has come to this. The NY Times shouldn't publish a story with such weak sources. It's just more dirty tricks!"
The bad Democrat in me say says "Screw it! It's that darn Constitution messing up this country again. But the First Amendment still applies. Freedom of the press, indeed. So even if it hurts the Democratic Party it doesn't bother me to see a Republican Presidential Candidate on the defensive. Sometimes the chickens come home to roost. It's feels Roveian."
P.S. When I ran spell-check on this it replaced "political" with "polecat " before I noticed. Maybe that was more appropriate.
Since the Texas primary is coming up, it's only appropriate that I liken the NYT's work product to the major byproduct of a Texas Longhorn.
This scurrilous piece of trash "story" is nothing less than recycled rumor and innuendo thrown against a wall like the dung that it is and what stuck, they ran.
Where's the "there" there? What did it prove other than there is no real defense to canards and that an accusation once leveled equals a guilty plea without a trial. I ask the NYT: where's the quid pro quo? Is the only accusation that lawmakers sometimes keep the company of lobbyists?
And while that point is up, what did Iseman's relationship with McCain garner her in the way of favor? In 18 votes where Ms. Iceman's clients stood to gain, they went 0 for 18 with McCain.
This is the worst piece of tabloid garbage which regurgitates a few anecdotes, while torturing the narrative to suspend disbelief. And if the NYT is so confident, name your sources! If they are former associates of McCain's as the article suggests, then they should have nothing to fear from coming forward to finger McCain.
This man deserves better than this- any established public servant, regardless of party, does.
so we americans are more interested in the sex capades of old men then the ablity to fly a 757 into a 15ft. hole in the pentagon. who would have thought, sex is more important than lies to take us to war. sex is more important than being the foundation of the savings and loan collapse. with a million murders on the hands of americans do we not desreve the same responsiblity as those parents that allow their children to drink boze? know our lives hang in a fragile balance and until we come to grips with the blood we as americans have shed in this world nothing changes. let us continue to lie about the issues and pander to old man sex. the facts do not change, the guilty are walking free, and our candidates refuse to address the real facts. how do you fly a 757 threw a 15 foot hole?
Post a Comment