McCain and the Media

Top Republicans are absolutely apoplectic over new reports that John McCain had an ethically inappropriate (possibly romantic) relationship with a lobbyist, accepted favors from corporations while criticizing the practice, and ran an Orwellian-branded soft money operation, "The Reform Institute," to advance his career and political cronies while railing against soft money.

But the G.O.P. elites aren't mad that McCain did any of those things. They're upset that the media is covering it. In fact, the rage is so intense that many of McCain's harshest Republican critics are rallying around the ethically challenged Senator. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder cites reactions from arch-conservatives like The American Spectator, The National Review and Commentary, and explains:

The Times story may have succeeded in accomplishing what politics itself could not: unifying the conservative base around McCain by way of their visceral disgust with the New York Times and its lib-ber-ral politics.

Conservative elites do relish attacking The Times, and their default reaction to bad news is to attack the messenger, whether it's Joe Wilson or a newspaper. But The Times editorial staff endorsed McCain, and its news staff held the story for months while McCain trailed in the primaries -- when it would have done the maximum damage. And the paper has repeatedly delayed stories under pressure from the Right Wing machine, including bombshells about Bin Laden and spying, as Cenk Uyger writes today:

The McCain campaign threatened and intimidated them as the Bush team has done on countless occasions and they gave in until someone else was about to release the story. The only thing worse than being bullied by Republicans is getting scooped by your competitors. The story here isn't that the NYT is trying to hurt conservatives, it's the exact opposite -- they're afraid of them. On every occasion that they have had a major story like this, they have held it after being badgered by Republicans. They only print the stories when there are no other options left and the story is about to get printed elsewhere anyway.

So attacking The Times makes no sense, even by the low conspiracy standards of the conservative echo chamber. But more consequentially, this ploy will not cut much ice with the rank and file conservative base. Put aside the G.O.P. establishment in Washington, and you won't find Times-hatred animating much McCain enthusiasm. Active Republicans still back Mike Huckabee because they can't stomach John McCain. This week's news won't help -- no matter who you hear it from.

--

Full disclosure: I frequently appear as a guest on Cenk Uyger's Air America show.

Update: The New Republic has posted a long article by Gabriel Sherman about the story behind the story. First, a detailed view of the McCain-NYT battle:

From the outset, the Times reporters encountered stiff resistance from the McCain camp. [Reporters] learned that McCain had personally retained Bill Clinton's former attorney Bob Bennett to defend himself against the Times' questioning. At the same time, two McCain campaign advisers, Mark Salter and Charlie Black, vigorously pressed the Times reporters to drop the matter. And in early December, McCain himself called Keller to deny the allegations on the record. In early December, according to sources with knowledge of the events, [The Times] requested a meeting with Bennett to arrange access to the senator and to discuss why the Republican presidential candidate had sought out a criminal lawyer in the first place...

...news of the Times' unpublished investigation burst into public view when Matt Drudge posted an anonymously sourced item on the Drudge Report. "MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY," the headline proclaimed; the story hinted around the core of the allegations and focused on Keller's decision to hold the piece. "Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday," the item said, quoting unnamed sources, "but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election." Immediately, the media pounced on the budding scandal. "If John McCain has hired Bob Bennett as his lawyer," one commentator said on Fox News, "that's a big--you don't hire Bob Bennett to knock down a press story. You hire Bob Bennett because you have serious legal issues somehow." On MSNBC, Pat Buchanan speculated that the Times newsroom was the source of the leak. "They've been rebuffed and rebuffed on this story, and they say we've had it, and they go around then and Drudge pops it just like he popped the Monica Lewinsky story first."

Then, despite some solid research, Sherman concludes by missing the entire point:

This morning, after the piece ran, and as TNR's article was about to be posted, Keller finally responded to repeated requests for interviews. In an e-mail, he defended the substance, and the timing, of the story. "Our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats." Important as the story may indeed turn out to be, it may have provided the Times' critics with a few caveats too many.

These right wing "critics" don't need caveats, let alone facts; they attack the messenger viciously whether it's a newspaper or the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq. And if further reporting did reveal factual problems with The Times story, that would be intrinsically bad, not because it strengthens the critics' complaints.

Comments (39)

1. The story would have had greater impact if it was aired BEFORE Florida's primary.

   The fact that the NYT held the story just shows that they are standing by their endorsement of McCain as the Republican who will do the most push AIPAC's agenda.

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 12:58pm

2. 2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

   We had James Risen, the writer of the first two stories on our show back in 2005 and he admitted that they held the Bin Laden story until after the 2004 election because the New York Times didn't want to "get caught up in the politics of it."

   Ah, The New York Timids......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 1:05pm

3. 2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/21/2008 @ 1:05pm

   That's interesting considering that McCain insists that Pakistan is an ally. Oh well, more facts after-the-fact. I love how the American media keeps Americans informed. No wonder print/tv media is losing ground to the internet. Atleast there I can find opposing points of view.

   Posted by k330k at 02/21/2008 @ 1:14pm

4. I watched one of McCain's spokesmen on CNN this morning, and he just went on and on and on about how the NYT is the "most liberal large newspaper in American." Nevermind that Bill Kristol, that freethinking progressive liberal, is now on staff there. Nevermind that the editors supported the invasion of Iraq, gave Bush a pass on more issues than are possible to list here, and kept this story under wraps until McCain had the nomination locked up.

   Polls still show McCain as hard to beat by either of the leading Democratic candidates. It's unbelievable that this old warmongering, flipflopping, economically ignorant, wooden speaker has a chance of a snowball in hell of becoming the "Leader of the Free World."

   Could it be that, once again, the Democrats snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory? Wouldn't it be nice to think otherwise?

   Although sleeze, deception, and being morally challenged are hallmarks of the Republican party, they get away with this more often than not because of the so-called liberal media. Ever since Reagan, I've noticed that the media ignore egregious acts by Republicans and have a great big old trashing extravaganza when the perpetrator is a Democrat. Liberal media - HAH.

   Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/21/2008 @ 1:20pm

5. 'Fraid this "McCain-Hot Babe Lobbyist" thing just doesn't have legs. He's doing "the right things" to gut it...Blame the Media...but do a full "Ask me anything" press conference. Next will be a "60 Minutes" show and Mrs. Mac doing her "I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by her man" moment....and it's over before April.

   BTW...

   "Full disclosure: I frequently appear as a guest on Cenk Uyger's Air America show."----Posted by Ari Melber at 02/21/2008 @ 12:54pm

   Young Turks aren't on the air anymore, Mr Melber.

   Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 1:28pm

6. I wonder why their subscribtion and revenues are dropping faster than Hillary...must be the unbiased positions they take on "news" and politics...

   Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 1:16pm

   but everybody knows hillary will be the nominee, right JM?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 1:29pm

7. wonder why their subscribtion and revenues are dropping faster than Hillary...must be the unbiased positions they take on "news" and politics...

   Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 1:16pm

   Oh, you mean kind of like Faux news, The Wallstreet Journal and the Clear Channel Network?

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/21/2008 @ 1:38pm

8. osted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 1:16pm

   Haha this from a group who's MSM representative media is Fox news. Yeah fair and balanced my ass.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 1:43pm

9. Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 1:16pm

   Oh an by the way I would kinda like to know if everything McCain has been trumpeting about not accepting money is a load of Bullshit. Considering you republicans tried to IMPEACH Clinton for a blowjob I think it's ok if someone goes after McCain for completely lying about not accepting money.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 1:46pm

10. "Attention all NYT staff members.....we're proud to have Mr. Dan Rather as a part of our team here at the Times."

    Posted by Sliver at 02/21/2008 @ 1:58pm

11. In other words, investigating whether McCain did corrupt deals with a lobbyist is fair; investigating whether McCain did or not sleep with the lobbyist is rotten and that is nobody's business at all.

    Posted by ZERO 02/21/2008 @ 1:18pm

    Zero, Once again I agree with you on the premise that it's nobody's business as far as whether or not the man has an affair etc. But, he is calling himself a values, religious, conservative. You know, God, country, sex with only your wife, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and big gas guzzling Chevrolets.

    The type of conservative he's trying to make himself out to be to get votes is the type that would go on witch hunts after democrats for doing the same thing. Now I know, Bush and Rove already raked McCain over the coals in South Carolina back in 2000 about an illigitimate child from a black lady that turned out to be his adopted child. As Bush would say, Mission Accomplished. Bush took South Carolina because of that type of conservative values voter. That was complete crap, but nobody cried foul then. Why are they all up in arms about this?!

    What goes around comes around. Not everyone fits into this nice perfect church going, family values box that the conservatives have painted themselves into. Romney didn't fit because he's Mormon. Guiliana didn't fit because he's been married and divorced more times than Elizabeth Taylor. Huckabee fits, but the only people who wish to see him nominated are only the baptist crowd. Kind of a narrow minded party.

    It's quite funny to see that as of late the people crossing the line have all been conservatives. The congressman from Florida chasing after page boys, the senator from Idaho chasing undercover male detectives in the men's room, the hammer and his group of thugs while in congress and the list goes on and on and on and on.

    For a party of people having zero tolerance for crossing the line, ie breaking the law, these folks don't have a problem with crossing the line themselves. It's just those damn librals who can't cross the line.

    I can't see how the rethugs can get one vote from the complete hypocracy they've shown over the last few years. One would think that these faith and values voters would have run most of them out of office, but evidently, it's all the libral media's fault and the librals of this country that caused all of the problems in the first place. It's all Clinton's fault.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/21/2008 @ 2:00pm

12. OK, Here's a summary of another McCain scandal:

    So, tying it all together:

    1. The 14th Amendment and matching regulations limit citizenship to natural born and naturalized.

    2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

    3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

    4. Therefore 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.

    5. Therefore John McCain is a naturalized citizen.

    6. The Canal Zone was not part of the United States.

    7. Therefore John McCain was not born in the United States.

    8. Therefore John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.

    9. Therefore John McCain is not a natural born citizen.

    10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.

    11. THEREFORE John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.

    12. THEREFORE John McCain should be disqualified from running for President and should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots, and his past results should be disallowed.

    See the whole article at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain .html and judge for yourself. Citations included.

    Posted by Tannim at 02/21/2008 @ 2:08pm

13. Posted by TANNIM 02/21/2008 @ 2:08pm

    See, that would be great if amendments to the Constitution, or even the Constitution itself meant anything. It no longer does.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/21/2008 @ 2:12pm

14. Although I somewhat agree with ZERO's broad point and wish everything was not a game of gotcha, I see WOLF's as well. Republicans set the ground rules in the 80's and 90's regarding such personal flings. And they are largely the ones who, like McCain, play the "family values" card at every turn. Deal with it.

    And a typical response from the conservatives here - blame and label the messenger. Without even offering anything to counter the substance.

    Maasch - the thrust of this post went right over your head. The Enquirer might have run with this in Dec. without blinking. The Times sat on it due to the pressure they seemed to have received from McCain's camp. This timeline certainly does not seem to indicate that the Times' primary motivation was simply to cut McCain down.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2008 @ 2:13pm

15. Posted by TANNIM 02/21/2008 @ 2:08pm

    See, I knew it wouldn't be the "Telecom Lobbyist Babe"....they'd nail him on that "born in the Canal Zone" thing!

    LOL!....are you sure "muddythoughts.blogspot" doesn't link you to "portland.indymedia.org"...and that TANNIM isn't Hebrew for RESE?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 2:21pm

16. Posted by TANNIM 02/21/2008 @ 2:08pm

    The Constitution:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    see. mccain qualifies.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 2:24pm

17. hey! not fair! we repugnants can lie and cheat and scandal monger but not you schmuks!!!

    waaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

    awwwww....

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 2:34pm

18. but what if its the truth?

    can we schmuks tell the truth if its a scandal?????

    heehee haahaa!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 2:35pm

19. Rush said today....the NYT attack on McCain is aimed at `helping' McCain who it endorsed......that the NYT is setting the table for future `attacks' on Obama......both are now fair games!

    Standing in Left Field.....me say this publicity is not bad for McCain and even better for Clinton.....the allegation is gray enough and weak enough (at this point), Moderates & Indies who hated the whole Lewinski scandal, won't give a f*&k about this!

    We need all Media to keep this story alive for another week or two, longer than the plagerism or MLK stories.

    Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 3:22pm

20. Rush said today....---Posted by HAPPY 02/21/2008 @ 3:22pm

    That's "CAPTAIN Blowhard" to you, pal! [salon.com]

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 3:36pm

21. Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 3:36pm

    Credit for the above goes to FROSTY ZOOM.

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 3:36pm

22. yeah...when slick willy gets a schlobbin from an intern its THE MORAL CORRUPTION OF THE DEMONCRAT PARTY!!!!!

    but when captain viagra jets about the country on lobbyist's jets boffin' a younger clone of his younger replacement wife (and a harlot lobbyist)...

    THATS MY BOY! VIRILE AND POTENT!

    har har! ah the delicious wicked hypocrisy of con-tard reality!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:50pm

23. McCain has really got his pickle in the blender this time! He has always been a sanctimonious hypocrite. While he claims that he is above special interests, he does the dirty work for those interests. And he may have actually been in bed with the lobbyist. And just in time for his getting the nomination. Ya gotta love it! The halo is off John McCain now.

    Posted by philbq at 02/21/2008 @ 4:54pm

24. Maybe he took too much Viagra!!!

    Posted by philbq at 02/21/2008 @ 4:55pm

25. Beyond that, it may be EASY to take potshots at him over "values" via some sort of alleged affair but just because it can be done, does it mean that it should?

    Posted by ZERO 02/21/2008 @ 2:38pm

    Zero, I agree with you that McCain should be hammered for his stupid views on taxes, the military, and his being "conservative". But, the playing field hasn't been what I would call a level playing field.

    Point in case. They hammered the shit out of Kerry for being a war hero and quite a few idiots bought the story. Clinton was impeached for lying about a bj from an intern and that SOB McCain was one of the folks on the bandwagon yelling for Clinton's head on a platter.

    The situation has been that the rethugs hold the dems under a microscope and use their radio/television/newspaper networks to run the stories day and night and pound it into the heads of people who they wish to smear. But, if one of their own pulls something, why, those poor folks are being picked on.

    I don't like rubbing peoples' faces in anything, but the rethugs wrote the book on smearing people. Maybe they'll stop this crap if a few of their people get caught with their pants down and run through the ringer. Maybe then, the playfield will be level and the dems won't have to fight an uphill battle all of the time.

    The whole situation sucks, but it was Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and crew that raised the petty stakes game up to this point. They captured the White House, senate and house and pretty much ran this country like a dictatorship and stomped, smeared and destroyed anyone who got in their way. Ask Valerie Plame. Do I feel sorry for McCain, hell no.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm

26. Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm

    indeed - stay not the hand that bears the knife when slaying the wicked for the sake of silly notions like pity. the wicked have no pity on you. in fact, twist once or twice - you earned it...they deserve it...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:31pm

27. Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm

    indeed - stay not the hand that bears the knife when slaying the wicked for the sake of silly notions like pity. the wicked have no pity on you. in fact, twist once or twice - you earned it...they deserve it...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:31pm

28. but no need to say it twice - lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:32pm

29. Okay, I get it. We expect the party of baby-eating & welfare-for-the-rich to be hypocritical immoralists. No story there.

    But here's the part that I don't get: in 2000 the Pubs dumped McCain because Rove & the Bushies PROVED--not insinutated, but PROVED, mind you--that McCain was mentally unstable and there for unfit for POTUS.

    What happened in the intervening 8 years? Is McCain calmer & more rational now he's in his dotage? Why, pray tell, is he now going to be vaunted by the Pubs as the Savior of the Faith & Western Free Society?

    That is a logical peregrination that leaves me spinning. Are they counting, as usual, on the belief that the American public has the memory span of a gnat? (Not to cast aspersions on gnats, mind you--some of my best friends are gnats.)

    Also, where is that illegitimate black child that McCain was rumored by the Rove Machine to have fathered (as per the 2000 SC campaign)? Isn't that kid about ready to make application to college by now? What is McCain doing about donating to the kid's college fund?

    Posted by goyadad at 02/21/2008 @ 6:09pm

30. Posted by GOYADAD 02/21/2008 @ 6:09pm

    so far...keeping fingers crossed...looks like the average schlob has awakened to the nature of the rightwing bullshit machine as well as the true nature of the typical rightwinger...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 6:27pm

31. But here's the clincher. The Pubs think that if they tell a version of the truth, it's the same thing as telling the actual truth.

    Vide McCain's black baby. Rove reasoned: 1) the adopted child being a rather melanin non-challenged Bengali girl, well, this is a version of being "black" since you could not exactly call her "white." 2) Since conception is a blessing, and without conception can be no legitimate parentage, ergo McCain's parental relation to child was not according to nature & nature's God and thus "illegitimate." 3)McCain could not exactly deny being her "father," since by all legal documents of formal adoption he had had his name entered into the record as such.

    And VOILA! we have McCain "fathering an illegitimate black child." QED.

    Standard Pub logic. What? You got a problem with that? How? Where? It's the way all these last 7+ years have been run, and hey, you can't argue with results.

    Posted by goyadad at 02/21/2008 @ 6:54pm

32. Posted by GOYADAD 02/21/2008 @ 6:54pm |

    well of course! they ARE EFFIN EVIL!!! lol...

    reapin' and sowin'!

    and you know...although i don't approve of philandering...back sometime before, oh, the mid nineteys, i would have said "this sex stuff is not really relevent".

    but thanks to the repugnants, i think to myself...

    good for the goose? good for the gander!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 7:20pm

33. The Times has been suckered again. This is a plan by the McCain people to nail down the support of the multitudes of sin-drenched seniors. You go John! None of this abstinence only rhetoric for you. Fill the White House pool with ex Bond girls and retired mobbed-up bimbos. Get it right, guys. This tar brush of lobbyism is nonsense. It was all a cover for the real purpose: To recreate a new Camelot among the survivors.

    Posted by JFHill at 02/21/2008 @ 11:04pm

34. Gee, Mr. Melber, so the problem here is Republican's "attacking the messenger", huh? Except the central question in each of the stories in the conservative outlets is why no facts at all were presented to substantiate the story. Surely you will want to prove your point and detail for us all of the facts that the crazy conservatives just happened to miss. Excuse me for a moment while I go back to your article and read that list of...um....where was that list of facts again?

    The "Gray Lady" is increasingly the "Bag Lady" on the corner, yelling to no one in particular.

    Posted by ThatsFunny at 02/22/2008 @ 12:11am

35. As much as I loathe that irresponsible idiot, John McInsane, I can't get too excited about his campaign operatives "pressuring" (really just asking; what conceivable "pressure" could they possibly exert?) the New York Times not to run some story they'd quite naturally prefer not to see in print. Am I supposed to feel sorry for New York Times employees, no doubt pulling down six-figure salaries, who had to deal with the incomprehensible horror of having to field some phone calls asking them not to run a story? Oh dear me, what poor litle victims! Someone do please pour those poor dears a vermouth; their nerves are shot!

    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, where it takes something about one thousand times more unpleasant than that in order to generate any sympathy (my back is so fucked up from my last two jobs that I can now barely walk, but I have yet to see a dime in any benefits, despite being unemployed for over two years, but I'm supposed to be concerned that some members of the privileged class actually had to delete a few emails from the McInsane campaign? Those are the kind of problems you want to have!), if the people who work for the New York Times are such miserable, worthless cowards that they are afraid of people who can't do them any harm anyway (what are the McInsane/RNC people going to do? Withhold their press releases from the New York Times?), then they should resign their positions, and for that matter, perhaps consider never leaving their homes again (the world is a terrifying place for people with such delicate sensibilities, after all). What's the next NYT-related blog post going to look like? "New York Times Editors Terrified of Puppies?"

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/22/2008 @ 12:27am

36. Was John McInsane born in the Panama Canal Zone per se, or was he born on a U.S. military installation located within the Panama Canal Zone? Because if he was born on a U.S. military base (which is probably where the hospital in question was located), I believe that would confer "natural born" citizenship status upon him. I don't really know whether he was born on an actual military base or not; I'm just asking.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/22/2008 @ 12:40am

37. Could someone please provide me with the names and addresses of those NYT employees who allowed themselves to be "pressured" into suppressing their story on John McInsane? I'm going to write them a letter and tell them that if they don't each send me the sum of $50,000 that I won't like them anymore. Should work like a charm!

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/22/2008 @ 12:44am

38. McCain took a little too much Viagra. And he got his pickle caught in a blender. He is such a phony! Even now, he currently surrounds himself with lobbyists (see today's piece in the Wash. Post). Whether he was porking his young slim lobbyist companion (I think he was) is irrelevant. The question is/was he assisting moneyed interests who donated to his campaign? And the answer is YES. So the halo is definately off Slick Johnny Mac. It's about time.

    Posted by philbq at 02/22/2008 @ 09:18am

39. Christopher Hitchens 14 January, 2008. Salon.com

    '...What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues." ..'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/25/2008 @ 12:48pm