Is the NYT implying that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist?

If it's a timing thing, it sure is shitty.

This story will be old, old news by November, and it broke too late to help Huck or Romney.

The Times may have done McSame a favor by releasing it now, when it hurts him the least.

More than the (possible) sex, it shows McSame to be a hypocrite for railing against influence peddlers while hopping into bed with them on the down-low. That's the damaging part.

 

How do you figure that undermines the point? They knew about it before the primaries, and held it until he had the nomination.

 

Millions of Americans are waking up this morning and saying, Well, it looks like John's not so old after all.

 

Hey, at least it came out now. Maybe some conservatives will have to mention Tony Rezko to the New York Times and see what they do about it regarding Obama.

 

Yes, the fact that they endorsed Clinton instead of Obama is merely a tactic to increase sympathy for Obama.

 

Have absolutely no idea if this is true or not. If it is, though, that would explain the timing.

 

It undermines the point that they wrote this story immediately after McCain emerged as the front runner simply to smear him.

If memory serves, in Nov. and Dec. he was still far, far from being the favorite to win the nomination.

EDIT: Re-reading your post if you're saying they ran the story -- not started working on it, but ran the story -- because he's the front runner...well, yeah.

You think they're going to run a front-page profile on Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson?

 

So when does the Times piece on Huma Abedin come out?

 

: When they get sources on the record talking about it. And nutso internet sites and the voices in your head don't count as sources.

Also, make sure you post the latest chain e-mail you get about Hillary, just for kicks.

 

We need some more dough for all of the intellectual pretzels being twisted here.

A lot more.

 

The timing is all about the NYT's ego.

They didn't want the National Review article coming out (A) questioning their manhood, and (B) scooping them on their own story.

Plus, apparently you had a Times reporter doing battle with editors-- pushing to run the story since last fall.

 

And if they release it in November or December, it nukes his campaign, thus assuring the nomination of the unelectable Romney or Huckabee and thus, a Democratic victory in 08. Look, there's not a "good" time for stories like these to come out. Let's shitcan the conspiracy theories about the timing.