Political Punch

Although I am voting for Hillary, I believe Bill Keller published that article because he wanted to repulicans to vote for Obama. Underneath he really is an Obama supporter and played dirty pool about McCain to sway voters. Well, if Hillary does not win the nomination my family and I are voting McCain. Obama does not have the intelligence to run this country. He is only running to make history as the first black president. He has no experience, has a very bad accent and I don't know how voters can vote for a candidate whose father was not a citizen of this country. Obama was raised in Hawaii, Indonesia and Kenya for some time. It is not a question of race it is because he is l/2 white l/2 Kenya and I would only vote for a black candidate who is not part of another country. I was born and raised in this country not l/2 raised in another country, respect my country, and proud to be an American. Obama's mother should have raised him in America but apparently she remarried and her new husband was Hawaiian. Maybe he did want Obama so she shipped him out.

The right wing is hilarious. If this had been Bill Clinton, they would have impeached him over night -- in fact they impeached him for doing a lot less.

John McCain claims to not take money from lobbyists, but he takes as many gifts as he can paws on. He claims to be from the "moral" party, but he's been cheating on his wife for years AND already admitted to cheating on his first wife. He claims to be for Bush's tax cuts, but he was against them at the time. Now he claims that the New York Times is a liberal rag, even though he cites to them in speeches on the floor of the Senate constantly.

The Republicans will say and do anything to keep their hold on power so that they can continue to prosper on the backs of hard-working Americans. John McCain is just the latest Republican hypocrite.

John McCain is not perfect.
But he is the best candidate available.

America, refuse Obama Hussein. He is Muslim.

PPS: A new NYT article is out called, "Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole." That seems to hurt McCain on the issue of lobbyist ties, but it does nothing to move the 'affair' story forward.

In my opinion, the lobbying aspect of the story is fair game, but the sexual part of the story was not appropriate. Curiously, yesterday's Times article refers to the original story as "an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay's."

I find that description to be disengenuous. If that was the focus of the story, then why did they include anonymous supposition from "disenchanted" former employees about a sexual relationship?

The NYT ought to be publishing stories about whether McCain was in bed with K Street. It shouldn't be publishing rumor and innuendo about his sharing a bed with a lobbyist.

PS: Thank you Mr. Tapper for bringing the Hoyt statement to our attention.

Thank goodness. I am so glad that someone at the NYT is showing some sense! Arguing that it was necessary to include ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS about a politicians sex life in a story whose ostensible focus is on the role of lobbyists strikes me as the height of mendacity.

Come on now, form the words, it's easy. "We screwed up." Was that so hard? Maybe. If you're the New York Times.