You'd think this would make Democrats like McCain even more, now he's just like Bill Clinton, at least I think he is. But that depends on your definition of "is"

This is just the tip of the iceberg with McCain...MANY SKELETONS in that musty old closet. Why he'd ever run for president...or anybody would let him...I don't know. This PROVES he's crazy. And it proves the GOP is just as incompetent as they've proven themselves to be these past twenty years.

Can't do your usual blaming of the Clintons on this mud. McCain brings up Obama's financing and BOOM this story.

I respect John McCain but Condi Rice would take care of the "talking" head Obama.

wow... obama would have crushed mccain in november with out this story but now obama might pitch a shut out. mccain is just an old cheating warmonger.

GO ROMNEY!!!!!!!

Obama looks clean but he isn't

This is out of line like it was out of line with bill. If it isn't political leave it alone , none of my business

Here we go..the Liberal press cannot wait to start throwing mud, but heaven forbid Obama be touched...he's the second coming of Christ...or is that Allah?

Is anybody surprised by all this coming out about McCain? "Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it?" McCain was one of the "Keating Five," from the S&L debacle that cost the nation billions.

If McCain has anger management issues, Obama will be merciless in the debates, just to see if he can get him to blow. Now that will be some fun TV.

I do not care about Sen. McCain's sex life and his marriages and whether or not he married his present wife because of her money and political connections. I DO CARE about his involvement in the Keating-5 Scandal which cost all of us millions. I DO CARE about his bending the truth re: involvement with accepting favors, money or other compensations for preferential treatment. Those who know him and worked with him in the past seem to agree that he does NOT have the temperment to be the President...he has a short fuse and moves his mouth before his brain---his latest statement
that we will be in Iraq for 100 years is an example. I can't believe he'd
have said this if he understood deficit spendingfor expendible war material,
diplomacy while endorsing Bush's War, taxes and those other gems. My Republican Party is making another drastic mistake. GOD HELP AMERICA!!
of

Come on! As a disclaimer, I am a Barack Obama support. But, that said: NY Times? !? Come on!! While I can see reporting on the Keating Five business - or rather, dredging it back up - but the lobbyist thing? Come on! You are/were a serious media outlet and this is just sad. Rise above it, everyone. This election is NOT about personal scandals, if they even happened; it's about healing our country with positive change and bringing all of us HOPE!

Boring! I think is called "Drive By Journalism." Whatever!

Interesting. Apparently this is also a coordinated effort from not only the NY Times rumor mill but from The New Republic.

I predict there will be some blowback from this smear story against The New York Times and The New Republic.

This makes me want to vote for McCain even more. Don't go critisizing a man who served his country and proudly watched as his son went to war in Iraq, too. Serving your country trumps everything. Mccain 08

America BICKERS and then goes to bed... I bet this nation would really get somewhere if we could just weed out the superfluous ragging and blind patriotism. There is no innocent party. The Dems DROPPED THE A-BOMB back in the day in what was perhaps the most gruesome and random act of inhumanity ever carried out.... and the GOP have become nothing more than an organized mob who enlists the patriotic rage of the disenfranchised to fuel a military complex that it uses to carry out resource conquests that enrich the BIG backers of their party. BOTH parties have been guilty... but at this point in time, the GOP are at an all time low. I would NOT trust ANYONE from that party for another 2 decades at best. That party MUST change. It has become an extreme right-wing tool who approach international invasions (aka "war") as casually (and recklessly) as one might approach a bar fight. STAY AWAY FROM THE GOP! Maybe in a decade or two... but right now THEY ARE POISON!

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects." and this is what the GOP wants to elect? nothing but a Bush clone.

This what the Republicans moral and coservative and family values ? And they want this charecter to be their representative.
Ron Paul will represent the Republicans much better.

After Enron collapsed the executive assitants did a spread in playboy. If the lobbyists collapse will they do likewise? The funny thing about all these people lying isn't the fact they are lying but rather the fact the people that are being lied too are liars as well and are somehow indignant. I'm just naive I guess.

This story is the Obama campaign trying to get Mc Cain off his back, and warning him about future 'swift boat' attacks. Its done now as he and michelle have made some gaffs, and the last thing he needs is to fight both Clinton and Mc Cain on 2 fronts.

The republican media is doing everything it can to squash it. I suspect there should be a fresh new Rezko story up on fox soon.......

I would venture to guess that most people didn't even read the actual NY Times article.

New Yorker: I hate to differ with you about MIchelle Obama being "ALL THAT"!!!!!!! Mrs. Obama for supposedly being a well-educated woman has no "CLASS" at all.

First of all what kind of a FirstLady material would say about the other democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton) that if she wins the nomination she (Mrs; Obama) will not support her. Now there's a classy answer from a woman whom should try like her husband to keep the democratic party together.

Secondly, she has the nerve to tell the world that Hillary Clinton should clean up her house before she goes out into the world to run for office of the president of the United States.

Thirdly, she's only now proud to be an AMerican because her husband is running for president.

She is the most arrogant, self=indulging,cocky, bad-mouth candidate's wife that is running in this election for the title of First Lady.

Now some people are comparing Michelle to ...Jackie Kennedy!! I almost spit out my drink when I heard that. People are starting to gag at all this Obama worship. It will definitely backfire.

Yawn.

Now we know why the Times Endorsed
John McCain! They kept this sourceless
piece of gossip under wraps fully
intending to use it against McCain as it became clear that he would be the
Republican Nominee!
Obviously McCain and his wife have been scoring points against the Obamas this
week and the Times felt it had to do something to protect its Candidate,
even if it meant spreading a false unsourced story!
Do Conservatives need any other reason to support Jihn McCain then this vicious, bogus attack from the NY Times!

There's no question about John McCain's ethics, he simply doesn't have any.

"Bill Clinton kind of made this sort of stuff irrelevant for me. Did he or didn't he? Big deal. Sink a man on substance, not on rumor, innuendo and stale sensation. "
We've HAD IT with suspicion and gossip and rumor!! Find a better way to sell newspapers: tell the truth and report important and relative facts. Like where a candidate stands on helping the poor. Or making sure that every decent highschool student gets the chance to go to college. And whether he or she is truly for "right to life" or just "RIGHT TO BIRTH"!!!

Talking about the Keating Five scandal or Cindy McCain's drug addiction is silly. Its all out in the open. No one has denied it. I'm really sick of the self-righteous Obama'idiots. You're just lucky that the press has given Obama a total free pass this election cycle and the Far Right loonies hate McCain more than they hate borderline socialist unqualified empty suits like Obama. They (the right wing pundits) see Obama as Jimmy Carter - someone whose incompetence will lead to the second coming of Reagan. Anyway, this article is full of innuendo. No substantial facts. The NY Times should be ashamed of their shoddy journalism. But I shouldn't be surprised. The liberal press is just doing their little bit to ensure that Obama wins the Presidency this year. Sad.

Doesnt the timing of this "story" strike the readers as slightly bogus? The NYT held on to this for how long? are you kidding me? Any garbage printed against ANY candidate at this point is nothing more than opportunistic "journalism". Kudos on your "sources" NYT. All the news that are profittable to print.

How ironic that some on the far right are now the ones trying to claim the 'smear campaign' might be the machinations of the 'vast left-wing conspiracy'.

That statement from the McCain camp doesn't deny it the way Bubba tried to, and the woman in some of the other pictures I've seen looks a lot like a younger version of Cindy McCain. So not only is the woman seemingly his 'type', given McCain's history of affairs and favoratism, the circumstantial evidence in the Times article, and the way the story seems to have broke (before the primaries, from a former campaign insider who's probably now working for a competing campaign) - my gut says he probably did have an affair.

That being said, I'd still vote for him over Hillary if Hillary were to get the nomination. It just doesn't seem like affairs and insider favoratism are that unusual in politics for it to rule anybody out any more - it certainly doesn't make him any worse than the Clintons. Like it's not like he's ever held himself up as a 'values voters' guy the way David Vitter did - barf!

pereznj in miami, you are absolutely right. now that the media have managed to get obama past hillary, they're working on getting obama past mccain. i've lost all respect for all media. i think we should verify everything they tell us or not believe it. some stuff we can verify by looking to the source (congressional record, watching the debate ourselves rather than listening to them tell us what they say happened, etc.). if we can't verify it, we shouldn't believe it. and of course the timing is bogus - mccain took a couple of swipes at obama, plus obama and his wife put their feet in their mouths this week, so it's time to put out something negative about the opponent. what amazes me is that people don't see through the nonsense.

reaganfan and murphy, you are absolutely right. anything they can do to get obama elected they are willing to do. journalistic ethics are history.

Mccain is a hypocrite. He is the wrong man in the house. He is a bad choice for conservatives. Period.

As for the timing, it sounds like everybody suspects it favors another candidate - I'm surprised to hear Hillary supporters think it favors Barack, because my first thought was that the NYT was trying to release it now to help Hillary's poll numbers against a prospective McCain match-up which might affect Barack's electability advantage.

Conversely McCain supporters and Republicans in general aren't distinguishing between either Hillary or Obama supporters, they're just generally lashing out at all of us.

The only one nobody's pointing the finger at is Huckabee - isn't he the one with the most to gain out of all the remaining candidates? He's the 'values voters' guy, it's only the far-right who really cluck their tongue at affairs the unnamed source who was a FORMER McCain campaign staffer is possibly a CURRENT campaign staffer of another Republican, and it's do or die for his campaign.

Everybody knows the only way to stop an inevitable candidate is to bring them down with a 'major gaffe'. Hillary tried it with the 'plaigiarism' thingie - I think this affair scandal might be Huckabee's thingie. When the NYT dragged their heels on the article, maybe they released the info to a competing publication to speed up it's release?

It's not the affair (or not affair) that bugs me (even though its disgusting), but the continual use of lobbyists for personal favors, and the pandering to big business and Washington insiders. This guy says he learned something from the Keating5 deal, but evidently all he learned is to try to cover it up better. What's more, I think the bigger story has yet to be uncovered. Read up on how he passed legislation to force the Hopi-Navajo people off of their native lands, causing them great hardship, loss of income, livelihoods, culture and even life. Why? So big business mining could come in and steal their coal to light up the Las Vegas strip. Sickening. Just try the search engine for info and see what you come up with.

I suspect a "vast right-wing conspiracy" if that's not being too plagiaristic !

I'm supporting Obama but respect McCain. I read the whole article and didn't locate any real "news" in it. What the heck is going on at the NYT?? The only thing I noticed is when they said that both aides said: "Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately" Unless they can elaborate on that, this story is dribble.

The New York Times lower its' standards? Ridiculous!! The New York Times has no ethical standards...it is 'all the news that is fit to slant'.
The Times will not publish any negatives about The Annointed One (Obama), and no positives about a rival. They did it before, and shall do it again. All hail the Annointed One; the Times is waiting for Him to walk up the Potomac to assume His rightful position...

Proving yet again what a blatant liar McCain is, in the same mode and corruption of Bush. His lack of moral character has continued unabated since his role in Keating 5; he has just learned to obfuscate and dissemble his way around ripping the taxpayer off. Well, he has been caught again. This thug and tyrant can be seen coming from 200 miles away, if Americans would just open their eyes half way this time. Otherwise we are all doomed.

This starts to make Mike Huckabee look pretty attractive, doesn't it? At least no-one can accuse him of being a Washington insider. I rather like the idea of someone who reformed the economy, infrastructure and schools in a nearly all Democratic state. Then he left with an $800,000,000 surplus after starting with a deficit. In 10+ years he turned the old ways upside down, and didn't compromise his values to do it. Then he runs campaign on a shoestring budget that has the inside crowd so scared they are putting in an all-out effort to combat him.

What does this have to do with being president? It obviously didn't hurt Clinton and his reputation as a president. Reporting a rumor is not reporting, it's gossiping, especially when the hardest proof you can come up with is something that looked like a date. Show me more than a dinner date and i'll consider it possible.

Now my personal opinion; with Obama's gun control policy and Iraq policy it looks like the Dems have 2 women running for president.

I hate to read such NONSENSE....Face it, McCain is OLD and need to retire. For heaven sakes, the man is 71 years old. What can he do for this country except to continue what BUSH started. There is no way this man can run this country after what BUSH did to this country.
Obama is young, fresh, is WELL QUALIFIED, very educated and knows the global economy and changes that are happening to our world........ALL, please remember that this Presidential election will not only affect the 'Americans' but it will affect the whole world. McCain is unfit to talk to anyone except for BUSH, no foreign minister will receive him.....he is a fraud and a waste of time.

NONE of these candidates are clean!! But when it comes down to it, Obama is the best choice of the 3. Too bad ol' patriot Dr. Paul didn't make it :(

jo, you are absolutely right about the jackie o thing. what really gets me is how michelle tries to con people into seeing herself that way, like the pink suit (which she looked horrible in) and the pearls, etc. the obamas are trying to create a myth that they are the black jfk/jackie, but i was around for jfk and jackie. jfk certainly had his womanizing issues, but he was extremely knowledgeable and qualified, unlike obama. and jackie was elegant and dignified, words that will never apply to michelle. her crudeness is kept well hidden by the media, but will eventually come out, and it will be an embarrassment to the country if we are dumb enough to put these two in the white house. i won't be doing that - i'm a lifelong dem who will be voting repub for the first time in my life.

abiodun, doesn't including Clinton in that list undercut your point given that that claim wasn't false it was true?

Allegations involving sex rarely have direct evidence due to the inherent privacy of the act - it's almost always circumstantial or testimonial.

The fact that McCain didn't deny the claim in his statement tonight speaks volumes because he when given the opportunity to go on record denying it he didn't. The only reason one in that situation wouldn't deny the allegation would be if they fear the NYT has direct evidence of his relationship. Perhaps the campaign staffer was in charge of cleaning up the plane after its use and kept evidence of the affair in case they ever got into hot water . . .

Does anyone find it unusual that,in the response from McCain camp, there was no attempt to deny the truth of he allegations concerning the woman.

Oops, I forgot to add that's with reference to the affair. As for the financial improprieties - I'm going to wait and see what the financials are like before passing judgment because that part should be easy to track.

Somebody ought to come up with more concrete details on those pretty soon . . .

wow, Randle you must be my pychic twin - we typed the same thing at the same time. Yes I do think it was odd!

MR I didn't even need to scroll up to see what So Saddened said to know she's not an Obama supporter, she's a Hillary supporter.

And I'm an Obama supporter and I'm quite far right. If Obama was knocked out early, Mitt Romney would have been my second choice.

I find that Hillary (and her supporters) with their paranoid tendencies tend to not have very accurate reads on people . . .

Question for SamTheCat:
What makes you an Obama supporter? I'm curious about these Republicans for Obama. Especially given his incredibly liberal beliefs when it comes to the big three of the Republican party: Small government/market based solutions, Strong National Security, and Values Issues (e.g., Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay Marriage). Mitt Romney personifies all those things. Obama is the antithesis of those concepts.

Okay, sorry I take that back - that was rude.

I vote for policy as well, but the individual does matter to me because they have to display to me the ability to craft solutions which I believe stand a high chance of succeeding fairly well. That to me requires ability to handle complex reasoning and think out of the box. It also to me requires an ability to be flexible and work across the aisle.

Finally I have to feel reassured that whatever platform the candidate adopts it won't be to help one group at the expense of everybody else - it has to be universally beneficial. Romney had an much more fiscally conservative economic plan, but it would have stimulated the economy and given everybody tax breaks. Obama's plan does not hurt big businesses which are also looking out for their workers.

That being said, I do think YOU're the one who is misguided MR.

Murphy - I guess I answered your question? I'd just add:

One policy of Obama's which I like is that he's going to pass labor standards on China as part of the trade deal. Bill Clinton failed to include labor standards in his China trade deal which allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization. This failure to include labor standards is considered a susbstantial contributor to China's fast rise - it gave them a competitive advantage and our trade debt with them is growng by the tens of billions each year.

While economists have found that imposing tariffs will hurt both our economies, imposing labor standards will help level the playing field so that our workers will better able to compete and will increase the wages of Chinese workers by as much as 50% so that they will be able to buy more American goods as well.

That's just one platform of Obama's that I like - what is you like about Hillary, Murphy?

Now we understand why McCain was refraining from attacking Hillary.
He was afraid of Bill revilling their common games. Is this the kind of president and husband america want..NO.

Time for who ever knows about McCain and Iseman to come forward with pictures! Lets get this out right now!

Isn't Obama running on Hillary's platform?

Thanks for answering my question SamtheCat. For the record, I think Hillary is smart as hell but I wouldn't vote for her: Too many big government solutions. I'm STILL not sure who to support at this point because I'm a fiscal conservative (I think Romney was the best in that area) and a (somewhat) social liberal (e.g., I don't care if gays can get married). It sucks to be me. lol

Oh, I'd also add that for some odd reason Hillary supporters seem to be under the mistaken impression that universal healthcare means it's free. It's not free - mandating it means she's going to make everybody pay for their own instead of those without insurance sneaking into the emergency room to get treatment for free when they need it. It's basically redistributive, disproportionately affecting the lower class who were disproportionately using the emergency room in this manner. She was offering some subsidies, but based on the budget estimate very few were actually going to get free coverage.

The chief aspect of her plan which is similar to Obama's is that they would both make the government healthcare plan available to everybody, not just government employees, those on medicare and medicaid. Hence the non-profit government would be competing against the for-profit big-insurance which most experts agree will drive down costs and drive up quality.

Mandates are generally what causes most universal healthcare plans to fail - the plan in California just failed because of this. This would be an example of why I believe Obama is better able to formulate plans which stand a greater chance of passing.

One of Romney's plans to stimulate the economy would have been to rework Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, which I suspect are overbroad and therefore retarding economic growth. Nobody else had this idea, and it is very viable. Everybody would benefit from this.

PS I'm guessing those of you who don't see much in Barack probably haven't researched the candidates' platforms in much depth - perhaps it's not the Barack supporters who are the air-heads . . .

MR - what more can I say . . . if you're voting for Obama then we're on the same side.

Wheres Iseman at now?

JJ, I'm a girl but I would guess the men who vote for Obama are men who like a government who respects the man who is willing to give 100% to a job which is going to give 100% back to him, so that he can pay his mortgage and support his family with the dignity he deserves.

McCain's too busy worrying about Iraqis to care about empowering the American man to be the best he can be!

LOL; look at all the Republicans and Hillary supporters rushing to try and save there good names? Well if this happened im sure Iseman and McCain got something out of it!Doesnt Iseman look alot like McCains wife?

mr, i beg to differ. mccain is essentially a centrist with the same policies as hillary. he's having to do some catering to the base to get the repub nomination, but is not at all fascist. and the 100 years thing has been completely twisted and taken out of context. one thing i know is that a president has to have a clue how to do things to get us out of the mess in iraq. hillary has a clue. mccain has a clue. obama has no clue whatsoever. so, despite his words, he will be the least likely to get us out of there quickly and safely. and re making the vietnam stuff irrelevant, that is not the case. going to iraq, like going to vietnam, was a disastrously stupid decision. but the issue now is getting out. the vietnam protests were about getting us out. and mccain can and will get us out, despite the rhetoric. as a practical matter, a democrat will have a much harder time accomplishing that, because we democrats have a reputation as "doves" to use the old word, and that greatly increases the pressure on dem politicians to prove they're not weak. obama would have that problem. hillary wouldn't have that problem, because she has established a reputation as a tough cookie. mccain obviously wouldn't have that problem. and, by the way, voting for obama, who would never have come this far if not for the color of his skin, would make the civil rights stuff irrelevant. remember, mlk spoke of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. obama has been pushed forward based on the color of his skin, not the content of his character, the antithesis of the civil rights movement.

It is really beginning to make alot of sense now. The NYT is no fly-by-night periodical; I find their info to be accurate and respectable. I'm glad to see that someone had the courage to freely discuss the "Keating Five" scandal. Also, the fact of McCain's involvement in the lobbying the bank regulators for the failed savings and loan program scandal. McPain's response is, no surprise, "drudging up old skeletons".....Well, McPain, if you do the crime, you do the time...no matter how long ago. McPain scares me.

mr, i give up. if you read what i wrote, you would see that i said it was a disastrous mistake to go into iraq and that the 100 year thing has been twisted. now you call me names (which i have observed to be a prime tactic of obama supporters). i suggest you do some research. but i have no time to spend arguing with those who respond with "how dare you" and "shame on you" types of comments. as my comments clearly illustrate, i've got a few years on me, and that means there are only so many left. i intend to use them wisely. bye.

I totally agree with sosaddened on Obama's meteoric rise. It's the most egregious abuse of affirmative action in the nation's history and largely driven by the warm fuzzies he gives the whities (e.g., See how PROGRESSIVE I am? I voted for a BLACK MAN! A black man that doesn't get up in my face and make me feel bad about my nation's history of heinous racial policies.) Obama is an EXTREMELY bright and capable man but there is no way in the world he would be on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world if he was white. No way. Not with his wildly liberal political leanings. Not with a mere 2 year Senate record and a slim record of true achievement. Not with his outrageously naive and foolish ideas when it comes to foreign policy. And the fact that the media has REFUSED to properly vet this guy AUTOMATICALLY makes him unqualified to be commander and chief in my opinion. Imagine a president that we cannot scrutinize or criticize without being accused of being racists. It's outrageous.
I just pray Obama ends up being everything the Obama supporters believe he is because he probable WILL be our president.

Wasn't it Bush Jr and Karl Rove that spread the rumor in 2000 that McCain had a secret illegitimate black child...and ruined McCain's chances in the presidential race? And NOW all you Republicans (who I'm sure voted for the Worst President Ever) are saying THIS is unfair? You people are so hypocritical and phony it makes America PUKE.

I totally agree with Murphy with regard to Obama. Nice guy. Extremely intelligent. Lots of charisma, but lacking in experience. I give him alot of credit for trying tho. But, I too feel that he does alot of "warm and fuzzy feeling" speeches. Alot of planned fixes without actual knowledge of the processes involved doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Altho, if I have to chose between Obama and McPain, my vote is with Obama. McPain is a warmonger.

Does anyone really believe that any of the dysfunctional hype being pushed here has a shred of argumentative validity to it? That's American politics for you: We cast votes based on some newspaper blather, then turn the final decision over to the supreme court. Whatever happened to objective news reporting?

""I've never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters in Detroit" AP

When a senator tells me that he has NEVER done anyone a favor he is a liar! McCain is a liar because everyone in the world knows he has done people favors! He obviously has done favors...and apparently others have reciprocated!

Anyone who use the words "never" and "all" are generally not telling the truth!

My only comment to this is...KEATING FIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the GOP's raw deal. The Main Stream Media is just waiting to hammer this guy and figuatively beat him to a pulp in the press until November. The premature burial of the POW issue, and 34 alleged propaganda tapes will come out, divorcing his newly paralyzed wife to marry the Navy nurse, all sorts of things before November. Forget November, who knows if he'll make it to September in Minnesota. This guy might as well be a cardboard stooge to throw tomatoes at for the Main Stream Media. It's gonna get ugly.

I think this is just too ironic and funny for words. The Republicans have been savoring the Obama/Clinton fight, thinking that they are going to end up with a cakwalk into the WH. Now, they have a morally questionable candidate with skeletons beginning to drop out of the closet. The conservatives were really taken for a ride this time! Haha

Sapphira Kelly - I hope you are right. McPain would just be another Bush, JR., only worse (if that's possible??).

Kind of makes you loose pride in our political system.... Oh wait the McCains are all pride all the time..

John McCain = TITANIC

I could care less about this article. What I care about is John McCain going after Obama about public financing of the upcoming presidential election.

If he was really concerned about setting a new standard for this election plus a precedent for future ones, he would choose to discuss this tactfully away from the campaign circuit.

His choices however, show he is more concerned with trying to scoring political points than to achieve a worthwhile objective. Strikes of old-time politics and I am dismayed that a man I used to admire is stooping to these tactics.

It's O'k to write a story that a candidate might have had a affair 10 year ago and their evidence is that some aids thought he was getting to close to a women but have no proof ,,, he also fired these aids last summer but that wouldn't have anything to do with the story. The NYT holds on to the story for 3 months but that doesn't bother these people on the blog that NYT are trying to be Kingmakers. But a story about a candidate being addicted to drugs while in college, how dare anyone mention that, it's someone's private life.

He should shut his mouth now on. I will love to hear what his wife will say.

Another example of the betrayal of the very escence of who we are as human.
Bill, McCain......same

The story here may be the timing of the story. I'm not big on conspiracy theories but something strange is going on.

First we have a Democratic President that leaves office with a sky high approval rating. His wife runs for president years later and she is potrayed as a crook and corrupt...even though she had been cleared based on investigations that cost millions years ago....totally slanted coverage. Then the ex-president who changed the face of America with his dedication to civil rights is portrayed as a bigot by making comparisons that have already been commonly used in the press.

Then we have a the Republican candidate that is involved in campaign finance reform who is brought down by the rather interesting, but denied by both parties, charges.

Are we finally going to see the Rezco scandal in the media? Because due to the timing (over a year late) it really looks like someone was sitting on that until the other stuff hatched. This is the most effective use of media that I have ever seen if the goal was to get Obama elected.

Ya know, I read this story and got I got absolutly nothing from it.

Another family values Republican exposed as a cheating fraud. When will the Christian right ever get smart?