The Foul and Fetid Swamp that is Politics
By now, I'm sure you've heard that the New York Times is set to release a long story tomorrow, exposing a supposed affair that John McCain had with a female lobbyist some years ago and much worse - that he granted her special dispensation as a U.S. Senator.
The back story is that another publication - The New Republic - a very liberal leftwing rag - threatened to reveal that the NYT had sat on the story for some time, thereby 'forcing' the NYT into publication. Does that sound familiar? That is precisely the ploy that Dan Rather used to justify going to press with a patently false story - Rathergate. He ultimately lost his job because of it. Regrettably, the New York Times doesn't stand to lose much, as they've already lost two thirds of their subscribers, half their ad revenue and their stock is in the tank. But claiming they were 'forced' to publish prematurely is not going to provide cover for them anymore than it did Rather.
Every single source I have heard from who has read the entire NYT article says the same thing - it is an attack piece, repackaged from old material and in which every single one of the principals involved adamantly denies. Not one single attributed source is used. Anonymously rumored garbage and nothing more. The big question is - if this is so damning, why publish it now? Why not wait until McCain is the nominee in fact when it could be used to defeat him the election? I'm glad you asked.
Barack Obama is kicking Hillary Clinton's ass from one side of this nation to the other. All he has to do is show up and give the same tired stump speech and people swoon. To date, the Clinton machine has been unable to draw any real distinction between the two (because there IS none) and the Clintons believe it is THAT which is causing them to get trounced. Meanwhile, rumors are flying that the Clinton machine is literally stealing Obama's 'pledged' delegates even as he wins more. The Clintons are also preparing for a floor fight over the Michigan and Florida delegates. She needs time to do all of that and she cannot do any of it if the harsh glare of the spotlight is upon her. This 'revelation' removes that spotlight.
The Clintons are well known for their use of 'triangulation' and this smacks of that. In one fell swoop, they get the spotlight off them, don't appear to be attacking Mr Wonderful AND cause great harm to the opposition candidate - McCain. What's more, by employing a sexual scandal, they are tugging at the subliminal heartstrings of the Democratic party. Remember - it is the image of Hillary Clinton 'standing by her man' that won her all of her initial support - especially with women - where Obama is making large inroads. That support literally won her the Senate seat in New York State. By accusing McCain of sexual daliance, they are reminding Democrats of the long suffering wife AND providing them with the delight of seeing McCain hoisted by the same petard as Bubba. And believe me - the Democrats are STILL angry about that.
The New York Times has already endorsed Hillary Clinton, and begrudgingly - John McCain. They did so, knowing full well that this story was in the pipeline. Now, they cannot be accused of trying to manipulate the election, nor can they be held to account for being hasty in the release of dubious material, if that can proven to be the case. The NYT has covered all the bases, thinking they can do this and not be held to account. They are wrong. When this story comes out tomorrow, it will be dissected and revealed to be exactly what it is - a transparent attempt to besmirch an honorable man for the benefit of a wholly dishonorable bitch.
Politics as usual............
Posted by: Oldcatman | 02/21/2008 at 07:26 AM
Typical tactics of a pinko rag like the NYT.
Posted by: David | 02/21/2008 at 08:28 AM
Boy , is the NYT getting lambasted for this! hah.... opposite effect they wanted - the conservative base is rallying around McCain.
You got it on Clinton and her inability to fight Obama. Her campaign is engaged in an insternal war over strategy right now.
Posted by: Phoenix | 02/21/2008 at 10:18 AM
An insternal war is when you become very obdurate and refuse to give up your position.
Posted by: Phoenix | 02/21/2008 at 11:25 AM
I say, bring back caning, or better, dueling. How long before the NYT goes from the newsstand to the checkout line? Phoenix I would think that you'd be tough to beat at Scrabble.
Posted by: Ron | 02/21/2008 at 07:44 PM
Heh ...
She claims she's terrible at it.
I think she might be lying.
But I am a master at Scrabble and I can her ass whether she is lying or not.
Posted by: Steel | 02/22/2008 at 10:57 PM