The middle of the night New York Times bombshell reported about 2008 Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, and Vicki Iseman, has evoked shades of the former President Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex controversy during his term in office. I cannot help but recall a solemn-faced Bill wagging his finger in American's faces while he resolutely stated, "I did not have sex with that woman -- Miss Lewinsky."
And I guess my mind went blank and did not light up again until the picture appeared showing the two of them touching hands across an outdoor gathering of Clinton supporters, followed by the sound of "the other shoe dropping." After that, I stayed woke throughout the entire Congressional impeachment of then President William Jefferson Clinton. To this date, he and his wife and their surrogates have continued to deny there was any such impeachment.
Political news pundits are standing by McCain in the same way as they did Clinton. However, I keep hearing them add, "unless the New York Times . . . ." and "if the New York Times . . . ." followed by the words, "smear campaign." Who can we believe? It appears to me the New York Times reported and the radio and tv news pundits decided while, at the same time, decrying the nerve of the New York Times and their unnamed source(s) to allow their "scurrilous" report to get out after McCain has all but secured the Republican nomination, as expressed, in part, by Pat Buchanan in a tv interview on MSNBC (Thurs., February 21, 2008, 12:38 p.m. est.)
Could it be that the radio and tv news pundits must now actually become journalists and reporters that they hold themselves out to be? After all, their various national network news appearances are made under the guise of reporting the "news."
Come on New York Times, give us something. Go to video tape? Go to photos that haven't been photoshopped? Go to tape recordings? Go to named sources? How about telephone records? Eyewitness reports? Girlfriends? Guy friends? Anything to defend your own news report and reputation? Discerning skeptics want to know of which I am one. Meanwhile, the New York Times is standing by its story. We shall see.
