In the first news cycle, Mac loooked xln't. Standin with the Mrs., calm collected .... what me worry? In the second (strangely repeating same response, but mechanically), he looked haggard, pale and tired. Beat (with just a little hint of road kill odor even). And in that same (second) news cycle, seeing Bennett as trusted second, picking up the thrown gauntlet. Looking the part of no one's White House Advisor.

Whatever trash bin of the mind, or political playbook the NYT's is now immersed in. It worked. One day Mac was fine, the next cut to the quick. History.

On day two, Senator McCain should have been involved in nothing but photo ops. Letting the media wrestle with their own one eyed snakes, til they tired. McCain should not have helped keep the story front and center, by giving it any additional loft.

That he could have been humbled so easily? And by such amateurs?

THE FUTURE'S SO BRIGHT I GOTTA WEAR SHADES

I've got a job waiting for my graduation
Fifty thou a year -- buys a lot of beer
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

Wow. I give you top marks for chutzpah.

He was a member of the Keating five (not in it as deep as the others, but certainly not clean) and I believe the fact that he cheated on his first wife is not in question.

McCain is worthy of admiration on a number of levels, but his character is certainly not above question..

First, the NY story in question was not an editorial. Yes, the PI story is an editorial, but clearly that's not the story I was referring to.

Second, there seems to be not just smoke, but actual fire and there's more turning up. I mean, you can kind of get the whole "confidence thing" going that y'all on the right like to do - kind of patriarchal and "daddy knows best", but you seems to love it - but that really isn't going to stop the story at all.

Third, just to be pedantic, because there's video and words doesn't make it news. I mean, there's plenty of video and words regarding this entire matter with John McCain. In fact, as one can plainly see in the newsweek story I linked to above, John McCain's own words are starting to trip him up in more than a "I was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU" style of almost victorian era fainting spells y'all seem to love over Michelle's statement.

Good to see your priorities. On the one hand, a PC police action swarm enforcing right think and the proper respect (as you see it) proclaimed in the proper protocol with the proper words. On the other hand, actual lies, sex scandal and plenty more to come.

Not News - Commentary on those words (hence why this is on the EDITORIAL page rather than the news sections)

Also Not News - Printing a story implying that where there's smoke there's a fire, even though there's no smoke.

What do you mean by "strained interpretation"?!?

Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama has never ever been proud of her country till her husband campaigned for prez. (she actually clearly said it more than once) She also said that she believes Barack Hussein Obama supporters are uninformed and the only way to inform them is for Barack Hussein Obama to be elected. Oh yea, and that every one of her wealthy friends is struggling to "keep their head above water".

How is that "strained interpretation"? Sounds like the wife of the leading candidate for the democrat presidential nomination is a KOOK. You don't think that is more of a story than the NYT’s saying McCain may have behaved unethically, but we’re not sure?

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Guess the PI doesn't really have a nose for news.

News: Overreacting, distorting and acting shocked about a strained interpretation of what someone said.

Not News: Wondering if there's a fire to go with that smoke in a story that has a rather interesting history of its genesis.

Again, top marks James. But really, it's pretty clear there's more to McCain's story than we know. People are digging and it's not going to be all that pretty. Having the PI opine about it not being news isn't really going to change that.

But hey, Chris Muir can sure draw some sexy nazis.

good, long discussion regarding how fast she'd better walk back her comments.

Again, you seem to confuse the news pages with the editorial pages.

Are Mrs. Obama's comments in a speech touting her husband relevant for news reporting? Absolutely. As would be hypocrisy on the part of McCain vis-a-vis lobbying, let alone marital infidelity. The difference is that the former demonstrably happened and the latter are conjecture.

Because that should be the real issue of the day.