The New York Times should henceforth only be in toilet stalls. This removes all previous doubt.

mccain is a big whiney cry baby is this all hes got in this election is to bash obama i agree someone said we need details mccain not constant obama bashing the more you bash him the more it backfires mccain your not gonna win!!!! obama08

OpEd is a place to express opinions, not for lecturing people. No matter how badly the McCain piece is written, which I don't see that way, McCain is entitled to his opinions. I actually found McCain's piece honest and straightforward -- this is what he really believes in. You can disagree with his opinions, but at least he has his own opinions and has the right to express them.

Did I just hear Mccain say, "The Iraq/Pakistan border..... HILLARIOUS... They don't even border each other….and he wants to be my president... I DON'T THINK SO.. Way too many gaffes…

Just wait till they turn on Obama. Lets see how you feel about the MSM then.

I see the Rush Dumbo's are still very much alive. Well, the Obamamaniacs are here to stay, and you guys can continue spreading your lies about President Obama as long as you like.. It didn't work for the Hill - Billy and it won't work for the Dumbo's. We will finally have an intelligent looking and intelligent speaking (let alone perfectly groomed and just breathtaking) president. I want to be the first to say, "Hello Mr. President (Obama)!!!!

About time the MSM stopped repeating Republican propaganda without question.

After eight years of it...America is sick of the endless GOP lies and spin.

If George W McCain can provide ideas that do more than just repeat the same old failed policies of Bush Junior, then maybe he deserves more than to be ignored.

As it is, he's just an empty suit shouting at the wind.

As a writer and former editor, I can understand the Times' position. It isn't too often than a text (even an op ed) gets accepted on the first go around. Rewrites are incredibly common. Most major papers and journals only accept between 15% - 20% of the texts submitted.

Additionally, we don't know from this article what McCain's piece contained. It may have been well written, or it may have been very poorly written.

Also - if you read the Times' request that his piece "mirror" Obama's, it seems like they are more asking McCain to address some key issues. I'm sure he could address the issue of a time table by explaining why he doesn't think there should be one.

I'd love to see what McCain's team submitted to get a better idea of this scuffle. We can conjecture all we'd like, but that will get us nowhere.

I'm sure that Mccains op-ed was just an article bashing Obama's plans for Iraq without stating any of his own, or what he feels is necessary for "victory". It was rejected because the NYT wants more from a presidential candidate then just an outright attack.

I simply do not trust anyone who is a republican. I have seen over the decades how republicans think, and who they cater to. As much as I do not want to side with the extreme left and believe I am much more of a moderate, I completely fear the present day republican mind set.

We desperately need a very new direction in this country, and it is very obvious that republicans like everything just they way it is, and only cater to middle and lower classes in an attempt to sway votes. I hav eyet to hear anything come from any republicans lips in regards to bringing back strength to the middle class.

In a republicans mindset it is not "We the People", it is obvioously "We the Corporatins" , or "We the Welathy"

The republican mindset is purely one of screw the little guy, and it has been for quite some time. Even though they try to spin it differently.

The polls are tied for a reason and one of them is people are really getting sick of the media pushing Obama down their throats.

It speaks volumes that the media thinks Obama needs so much help.

President McCain - get use to it.

David. Sure they do. you can tell by the moveon.org ads they run. Nice try.

From McCain's piece - I don't see how this is less a proposal than Obama's 16 month plan.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Sorry - I just now say that Amy supplied McCain's text.

I have to agree, still, with the Times' position. It isn't a very well put together article. It seems to leave out important explanation and critical analysis that is important.-

Caroline like Fox News isn't the prostitute news network of the Republican party.

Justin and David,

Read futher up. A poster named "amy" reprinted the entire rejected McCain op-ed piece. And you are correct. It bashing Obama with no substance whatsoever.

Daryl,

Nice try, but the democrat party wants to run your whole life.

The republicans believe people can do for themselves.

You guys don't get it and never will. That's why you lose time after time and will lost again in November. The only reason you picked up some seats in 2006 is because they were conservative democrats.

Keep continuing to misread the American people and we will keep winning. Thanks!

Good job Nat! You're doing just as I recommended. Keep repeating to yourself over and over what you WANT to happen and you will eventually believe it in your gut.

Baby steps, Baby steps.

The New York Times is beginning to look like a cheap news paper totally oblivious of all journalistic principles. Who do they think they are? To let Obama write an essay justifying his flip-flop few days before on the Iraq issue and trying to provide political cover to him. And refusing to let John McCain, the presumptive republican nominee to argue the case Obama made.

It seems New York times is one step away from practising yellow journalism.

McCain's op-ed piece was as unspecific as most of his policies are (if you can keep track of where he stands on an issue at any given moment). The New York Times is encouraging his campaign to resubmit something of substance. If McCain and company can manage to do that, I would expect the paper to print the piece.