McCain Camp Tells NYT: Lay Off Cindy, Find Obama's "Dealer"

Wow, the McCain campaign really hated that New York Times profile of Cindy McCain.

OK, Cindy did come off as slightly vapid and, well, weird -- especially the Princess Diana obsession.

But the reaction from the Republican presidential candidate's camp would make you think that Times reporters Jodi Kantor and David M. Halbfinger portrayed John McCain's second wife as Evita.

Freaked out by references to Cindy McCain's well-documented history of drug abuse, the McCain campaign's lawyer, John Dowd, griped in a pre-publication letter to the editor of The Times: "You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father."

That's just a taste of the ugliness.

Here is the latest release from the "high-road" campaign of John McCain, as well as Dowd's letter, which may be the most remarkable document from a campaign that has not lacked for excessive tactics and statements:

All: Please see statement by McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb on the New York Times' unprecedented trash report about Mrs. Cindy McCain.

Also, please see below a Facebook message that its author NYT reporter Jodi Kantor sent to a 16 year-old schoolmate of the McCains' daughter, Bridget, trolling for information on Mrs. McCain, as well as an October 1 letter to NYT Managing Editor Bill Keller by Mrs. McCain's attorney questioning the sourcing and reporting of this story.

"Today the New York Times launched yet another in a series of vicious attacks on Senator John McCain, this time targeting not the candidate, but his wife Cindy. Under the guise of a 'profile' piece, the New York Times fails to cover any new ground or provide any discernible value to the reader other than to portray Mrs. McCain in the worst possible light. Though Mrs. McCain's battle with drug addiction and even her miscarriages are again reported, the paper entirely ignores a life devoted to family and charity work in the most impoverished and violent corners of the world -- except when a detail can be quibbled with so as to imply some kind of deceit.

This campaign made every effort to share personal accounts of Mrs. McCain's good works with the paper, but apparently they were deemed unfit for publication in the New York Times. This is gutter journalism at its worst -- an unprecedented attack on a presidential candidate's spouse.

"In order to assemble this barrage of petty and personal attacks, the New York Times employed tactics that are obviously unprofessional and almost certainly unethical. This campaign has obtained a copy of an email sent by New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor to a 16-year-old girl and friend of Bridget McCain, the youngest of the McCain children. Ms. Kantor sought to dupe the unsuspecting minor by soliciting 'advice' on how best to approach the story, as if a top-flight investigative reporter at the New York Times would need the assistance of an underage girl in writing a hit piece.

"The New York Times has stooped lower than this campaign ever imagined possible in an attempt to discredit a woman whose only apparent sin is being married to the man that would oppose that paper's preferred candidate, Barack Obama, in his quest for the Presidency. It is a black mark on the record of a paper that was once widely respected, but is now little more than a propaganda organ for the Democratic party. The New York Times has accused John McCain of running a dishonorable campaign, but today it is plain to see where the real dishonor lies." --McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb

###

See below for: 1.) Facebook message by New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor to a 16 year-old schoolmate of John and Cindy McCain's daughter, Bridget, trolling for information on Mrs. McCain; 2.) October 1, 2008 letter by Mrs. McCain's attorney, John Dowd, to NYT Managing Editor Bill Keller

###

1.) Jodi Kantor

Add as Friend

September 29 at 7:21pm

Report Message

I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.

Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you can give me.

Jodi Kantor Political correspondent New York Times kantor@nytimes.com 212 556 4596

###

2.)

John M. Dowd

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

October 1, 2008

Dear Mr. Keller:

I represent Cindy McCain. I write to appeal to your sense of fairness, balance and decency in deciding whether to publish another story about her. I do this well knowing your obvious bias for Barack Obama and your obvios bias hositility to John McCain. I ask you to put your biases and agendas aside.

I understand that Cindy is in the public eye, but you have already profiled her extensively (Jennifer Steinhauer reported), written about her financial situation (including an editorial on her tax returns) and about her role at Hensley and Company.

I am advised that you assigned two of your top investigative reporters who have spent an extensive amount of time in Arizona and around the country investigating Cindy's life including her charity, her addiction and her marriage to Senator McCain. None of these subjects are news.

I am also advised that your reporters are speaking to Tom Gosinski and her cousin Jamie Clark, neither of whom are reliable or credible sources. Mr. Gosinski has been publicly exposed as a liar and blackmailer on the subject of Cindy McCain. Jamie Clark has very serious drug and stability issues and has failed in a number of attempts to blackmail Cindy. She is simply not credible.

In 1994, Mr. Gosinski drafted a civil complaint for damages claiming, among other things, that Cindy had defamed him with prospective employers after he was discharged from AVMT. Those allegations were utterly false. He was unable to produce any prospective employers and Cindy had not discussed his deficiencies as an employee with anyone outside of AVMT. Indeed, his termination was demonstrated to be appropriate and when he was let go, Cindy gave him severance pay. When confronted with this evidence, his lawyer resigned. Gosinski never filed the complaint in Court and could produce no evidence to support any of its allegations. He attempted to have Cindy pay him $250,000 in exchange for not filing the complaint. Cindy refused and made his attempt to extort her public.

Thereafter, he amended his complaint to allege that Cindy asked him to commit perjury in the adoption proceed involving Bridget McCain. The notes of Cindy's counsel and the official transcript of the adoption proceedings clearly demonstrate that Gosinski's was never asked to lie and did not falsely testify in the proceeding. His allegation was an utter fabrication. Gosinski further alleged that Cindy used his name to obtain pain killers for her own personal use. The records of AVMT show that Dr. Max Johnson, licensed by the DEA to order drugs, directed the use of employee names on the prescriptions. The drugs obtained using Mr. Gosinski's name were used and donated on an AVMT trip to El Salvador. They were not used by Cindy.

These allegations and efforts to hurt Cindy have been a matter of public record for sixteen years. Cindy has been quite open and frank about her issues for all these years. Any further attempts to harass and injure her based on the information from Gosinski and Clark will be met with an appropriate response. While she may be in the public eye, she is not public property nor the property of the press to abuse and defame.

It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here.

I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would investigate and publish. I know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking some your own medicine is in order here.

I ask you to let Cindy McCain carry on in her usual understated, selfless and dignified way. The fabrications and lies of blackmailers are not fit to print in any newspaper but particularly not in The New York Times.

Sincerely,

John M. Dowd

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

What should we make of all this? There's been a lot of talk about the prospect that the McCain team might be preparing to launch a "charm offensive" in order to modify the campaign's angry "Hey, you kids, get off of my lawn" image. Americans would be advised against wasting too much time anticipating that shift in tactics.

After a campaign hits the "find-our-opponent's-dealer" stage, there remain few options for classing things up.

Comments (40)

1. History of addition??!?

   ROFLMAO

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 7:38pm

2. Speaking of Obama and drugs,

   Can we get some agreement from the Obama-Reid-Pelosi trifecta that drugs should be legalized?

   Why should the drug companies get all the profit for creating addicts?

   Posted by bleedingheart at 10/19/2008 @ 7:46pm

3. Original post: Freaked out by references to Cindy McCain's well-documented history of drug abuse and addition,

   I'm NOT crazy I tell you...

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 7:49pm

4. blah blah blah blah....

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2008 @ 7:59pm

5. The deeply disgusting page-one New York Times profile of Cindy McCain should not be dismissed too quickly. It tells us nothing we didn't know about Cindy McCain or the Times. Still, consider that the Times assigned two reporters (Jodi Kantor and David Halbfinger) to the profile. We know that Kantor trolled Facebook for trash among schoolmates of the McCains' 16-year-old daughter. That must be some kind of a first for the Times, burrowing somewhere under the National Enquirer for journalistic practices.

   To what end, one might well ask. Apparently for for hot stuff like this:

   [Mrs. McCain] can be imprecise: she has repeatedly called herself an only child, for instance, even though she has two half-siblings, and has provided varying details about a 1994 mercy mission to Rwanda.

   There is much more hot stuff along this line, but you have to read all the way to the end of the story for these bombshells:

   In interviews, some of Mrs. McCain's statements seem questionable. She often tells of how she moved to California, leaving her children behind, for four months in 2004 to recover from a stroke that left her unable to walk or speak. But news reports from the time indicate she had few discernible impediments. She gave interviews four days afterward, attended a baseball game with her husband and a reporter several weeks later, and spoke at a Tempe, Ariz., Chamber of Commerce event. "One month out, I feel wonderful," she told the audience. The McCain campaign declined to resolve the discrepancy.

   Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2008 @ 8:13pm

6. Hey Dex. Re: Poison dream I had one o' those once. I woke up literally shivering, believing I'd been poisoned. One of those It's only a dream salvation's, for sure.

   blah blah sums it up, by golly you brtcha (sic)

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:13pm

7. For those who thought the New York Times couldn't sink any lower, check out today's hit piece on Cindy McCain. The real target, of course, is her husband, and the Times takes every opportunity to dredge up their favorite anti-McCain talking points, while painting an unflattering personal picture of the candidate.

   Still, what is shocking about the piece is the tone it takes toward Cindy McCain. I don't think I've ever seen a Presidential candidate's spouse treated so negatively or so unfairly. It's a safe bet that the National Enquirer wouldn't have run this article; only the Times is this committed to putting politics above news judgment or basic fairness.

   The lead reporter on the story, Jodi Kantor, went trolling for trash among schoolmates of the McCains' 16-year-old daughter, Bridget. Here is the email Kantor sent via Facebook to another kid at Bridget's school:

   I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.

   Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.

   Thanks so much for any help you can give me.

   Jodi Kantor Political correspon

   Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2008 @ 8:15pm

8. odi Kantor Political correspondent New York Times kantor@nytimes.com

   Kantor's fishing came up empty; she couldn't find a single parent willing or able to contribute dirt on John or Cindy McCain. A single sentence sums up the fruit of Kantor's "research" among Xavier kids and their parents:

   Some of Mr. McCain's Washington friends say they have barely met Mrs. McCain, while fellow mothers at their children's schools say they have little sense of her husband.

   Now there's a shock! I'm sure if you interviewed the mothers of kids who have gone to school with my son or daughters, most of them would say they have "little sense" of me. But the Times apparently didn't want its Facebook trolling to go completely to waste.

   It's a typically disgusting production from a news organization that long ago forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.

   Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2008 @ 8:16pm

9. Hey, any of you neocons that love to post so much on this site. I'm a-talkin' to YEW. You ever pony up to this site? You know, feed the kitty? Ante up? Put your money where your mouth is? Support The Nation financially?

   I love my Nation

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:28pm

10. Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:28pm

    Why should I? There's plenty of kool-aid money floating around. Check out Obama's $150 million contributions last month (money he's spending prodigiously after reneging on his promise to take public money).

    You folks can support your delusions with your own money, or, as in KVH's case, your trust fund money. You can consider my posts to be my contribution, like that of a psychiatrist attempting to bring people back to sanity as charity work.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2008 @ 8:38pm

11. Remember that Obama stated emphatically that family is "off limits!" I remain neutral about the Times story about Cindy McCain, however, until the McCain campaign stops the lies in the "Robocalls," a part of me feels that this is simply equal treatment.(but not lies.) Obama addressed the Ayers link in the debates. That should have ended it. But it didn't. No one is going on and on about the Keating situation or G. Gordon Liddy and other shady dealings about McCain's contacts. The issues facing us are more important. Yet, the lies continue in the calls. Another point, Palin and McCain seem to be unaware of the incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric that the continue to use in unsurfacing dark and ugly bigotry and hate in our country. They minimize the seriousness. That is despicable. As to Cindy McCain, I reflect on the disdain that she demonstrated as she attacked Obama for not supporting the troops by his not voting for a bill, the same bill that John McCain failed to vote for also. Of course, the ice princess didn't mention that. Maybe that is some of what kindled anger towards her. Is this all getting crazier or what?

    Posted by susijakarhu at 10/19/2008 @ 8:45pm

12. Ha! I'LL send you MY bill! ROFLMAO

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:45pm

13. Sheesh, what a cheapskate.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:59pm

14. The pressure of managing so many illegals to keep up so many houses?

    Or could it be hubby?

    Posted by winyahn at 10/19/2008 @ 9:29pm

15. Wow, a community oprganizer wants to change the world! Spare me. 8 yrs ago some obscure governor also pledged to turn Washington upside down and what'd happened? all wrackage everywhere.

    ---------

    Barack Obama vows to 'change the world' Barack Obama has vowed that he will "change the world" even as he urged his supporters to guard against complacency.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 10/19/2008 @ 10:19pm

16. lvliberty-You sling slime while complaining about others slinging slime.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/19/2008 @ 10:22pm

17. I am going to try the phone number at the end of the Ayers "robocall. (202 863-8500) and ask them why, if even the ever fluid Wikipedia got the facts straight on this one, they can't.

    From Wikipedia: On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Bill Ayers's blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"[26][27]

    BTW most of us who knew even one of the 55,000 brave and honorable men and women who died for nothing in that foul little "police action" wish we had done more to stop it.

    Posted by eggman at 10/19/2008 @ 10:23pm

18. Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/19/2008 @ 8:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    perhaps its some kind of common jungian archetype thing...

    mine was actually set in a military base in some kind of post apocalyptic setting and the poison was administerd by an evil base doctor who was an agent of the ancient green evil and i was a fighter pilot fighting evil flying robots from the arctic - it was cool! i miss dreams like that...

    but yeah, scary...lol!

    i suppose we should all beware the koolaid we swill...

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2008 @ 11:07pm

19. Pontificus, I consider your contributions about the same as my drunk uncle who comes over on Thanksgiving, gets drunk, sits in the corner, mutters to himself, and occasionally eats a fly or two. Mildly amusing, but pretty sad. But all the same, thanks for showing up.

    Posted by onthehelm at 10/20/2008 @ 12:36am

20. Interesting:

    rightwingers lie shamelessly about Obama and his record yet when NYT reports the TRUTH about Cindy everybody is suddenly upset.

    i thought the piece was very sad. a story of neglect of Cindy by her husband, leading her into depression and drug abuse. If McCain does this to his own wife - what is he going to do to the country?

    Posted by yaldabaoth at 10/20/2008 @ 12:56am

21. The left always...

    The left always...

    The left always...

    The left always...

    whispers in PontiRioLVGrit's ear

    odd, in that 'The left' originates in their temporal lobes

    just cuz there're paranoids everywhere doesn't mean green liberal socialist leprechaun's don't exist

    Posted by winyahn at 10/20/2008 @ 12:58am

22. At least he paid for it.

    Posted by jazzence at 10/20/2008 @ 01:06am

23. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/19/2008 @ 10:13pm

    Larry, are you disputing any of the facts in the article? If so, which ones? If not, then just where are you coming from here? You and your right wing fellow travelers lie about others with the ease with which the rest of us breathe. You support mindless, baseless character assassination. Cindy McCain has flat-out lied at campaign appearances about Barack Obama, while her husband and his running mate have, at the bare minimum, acquiesced with their silence in calls for Obama's actual assassination. Your side has for forty years resided in filth, and cycle after cycle has sunk ever lower into the slime. So, of course, Larry, you guys are victims, right?

    Posted by jmusolino at 10/20/2008 @ 02:32am

24. But it should be no surprise. The left always cries foul even while looking for a fresh handful of of the slime they stand in to sling at others. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/19/2008 @ 10:13pm

    More proof of your dislike of anyone on the left and your thoughts of superiority of anyone on the right. You are a sad sad man. You can't even think for yourself. You are a victim of group think. Should try growing up a little and learning to have your own thoughts instead of clinging to a prefab message given to you by your party.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 06:56am

25. So, of course, Larry, you guys are victims, right? Posted by jmusolino at 10/20/2008 @ 02:32am

    Because to Larry only the things the left does are wrong. Anything his party does is justifiable.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 06:58am

26. So, of course, Larry, you guys are victims, right? Posted by jmusolino at 10/20/2008 @ 02:32am

    For instance Republican operatives spreading rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim is justifiable. Saying Obama pals around with terrorists is justifiable. Allowing someone at one of your rallys to shout "kill him" without even saying anything is justifiable. However, if Obama doesn't defend McCain from attacks then Obama is a terrible terrible man. Obama and all liberals are terrible if the NYT's simply reports the facts about Cindy's past. It's not like they were lying. They weren't making anything up. Everything they said was true.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 07:03am

27. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/19/2008 @ 10:13pm

    Life must be so hard for a "conservative". I mean with having the largest media conglomerate promoting your agenda, dozens of billionaries and thousands of Christian soldiers, how can you possibly withstand the onslaught from the pro-big business New York Times(who favor your elective wars war but are wrong on the social issues) or the likes of insignificant left publications like the People's Weekly World (cause nothing is scarier than a paper with a circulation of less than 10,000 with ideas you completely don't agree with).

    And since media bias seems to be a "conservative" talking point these days. Maybe you should check out Fair.org, or better yet, try to put together a cogent argument about how the so-called "liberalism" of journalists is a more powerful influence than the advertisers that write their checks or the management that approves their stories?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 09:14am

28. lvliberty-You sling slime while complaining about others slinging slime. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/19/2008 @ 10:22pm

    One man's slime is another pig's lipstick

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/20/2008 @ 09:38am

29. McCain's camp should be careful what they wish for. Perhaps a closer look into "Johnny Boy's" background would be entertaining. Rolling Stone article anyone?

    Posted by Truthman at 10/20/2008 @ 12:01pm

30. THE AUTHOR IS A COMPLETE LIAR. The McCain camp DID NOT suggest that the NYT should go find Obama's drug dealer. In fact, the McCain camp said exactly the opposite. Did the author even read his own article?

    Cindy McCain's lawyer likened the NYT investigation into Cindy McCain's past to tracking down the person who used to supply Obama with drugs. Her lawyer then wrote: "I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would investigate and publish."

    In other words, the investigation into certain aspects of Cindy McCain's past, much like tracking down Obama's former drug dealer, SHOULD NOT be done.

    Mr. Nichols, you are a liar and should be ashamed of yourself.

    Posted by GBGB at 10/20/2008 @ 1:33pm

31. ROFL LMAO Search for a dealer from 30yrs ago..... ROFL LMAO Chances are he/she is either dead/in jail/no longer dealing........ I am sure this dealer is just raising his/her hand going 'here I am here I am', NOT............

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 10/20/2008 @ 3:44pm

32. "one man's slime is another pig's lipstick"

    funniest damn thing I've read all day.

    thanks, PAX!

    Posted by maddox at 10/20/2008 @ 10:42pm

33. That all right pontificus you can post here! But, you realize no one who supports the Nation takes ignorance like yours seriously??? We have heard all your stupidity before and will continue to ignore it. After all we know you right wingers are mentally ill from all the brainwashing you have received over the years! So you aren't responsible for your illness! Only your pundits who lie to you constantly.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:34am

34. Maybe the Times should publish the nasty statement McCain made to Cindy after she teased him about his hair. ‘At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c ** t.' It would elicit sympathy for poor Cindy! It does seem pretty low to use such subterfuge as Facebook to generate material. There is plenty about Cindy to not like, and she is really scary when she adopts the righteous indignation face regarding how terrible it was for Obama to vote against troop funding when her husband did the same thing. This is the GOP double standard of do what I say, not what I do.

    Posted by waters at 10/21/2008 @ 12:41pm

35. Hey people, what's so terrible about Evita? This is just a reminder that a fair and balanced history of the Peron era available in US bookstores still seems to be the music of the future. Fred

    Posted by ffeldman at 10/21/2008 @ 1:41pm

36. Sincerely John M. Dowd of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

    Protector of the Keating 5 you're a skilled and knowledgeable attorney, in this there's not doubt. Yet leaving your post to argue public trash makes no sense sir. I can't believe someone with assets well over the quarter-billion mark would give an ants ass about a few belligerent republican comments, and especially because they mimic tactics used by her husband own campaign?

    Paul Michaels BMF LLP

    Posted by paulandthenation at 10/21/2008 @ 2:17pm

37. The double standards of the McCain-Palin campaign are almost legendary. The rightwing noise machine was relentless in its attacks on Michelle Obama for her "I'm proud of my country for the first time" comment, which was surely taken out of context.

    There's almost no reporting by the "liberal media" on the Alaskan Independence Party, of which Todd Palin was a member until 2002 (I believe that's the year), and to which Sarah Palin sent a videotaped message during a recent convention.

    Where is the outrage from the Palin supporting "patriots" over the hatred expressed toward the US by the founder and members of AIP?

    But it's fine, I suppose, to air Rev. Wright's speeches over and over again, to connect Obama to a "washed out old terrorist" (now a respected professor who sits on committees with Republicans), and to question the "true American" patriotism of anyone who doesn't happen to live in a small town in the south or midwest.

    Yes, families probably should be off limits, but the McCain campaign has not kept Obama's religion, wife, preacher, or other irrelevent associates out of their crosshairs. The rabble-rousing of Palin, and to a lesser degree, McCain at their rallies is despicable. The innuendos, whisper campaigns, robocalls, and outright lies have convinced many poorly informed voters that Obama is a Black Nationalist, Communist, Muslim, unpatriotic terrorist with ties to Saddam. And the McCain camp is indignant about truthful references to Cindy?

    Amazing.

    Blatant Republican hypocrisy is nothing new, but it may have reached new heights during this election.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/21/2008 @ 2:34pm

38. I can hardly blame the McCain camp. Obama didn't like any focus on Michelle. Should there be a different standard for Cindy? The idea that you slam the wife of a candidate while throwing softballs to the CANDIDATE is repulsive to most Americans despite what the NATION thinks. There are some issues that just beg a rational response. This political thuggery just does not help Obama craft a softer image. You aren't helping Obama in any way.

    Posted by DLazarian at 10/21/2008 @ 2:39pm

39. DLazarian, I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. But perhaps it would be better to point out that those close to McCain are not perfect either, which would put it all in context. The nastiness of the McCain campaign, and the degree to which uninformed voters are buying into the "terrorist," "Muslim," "radical," "unpatriotic" garbage about Obama, a little perspective might be necessary.

    This is not tit for tat, it's a comparison of the foibles and past errors of the ones throwing the mud with the ones receiving it. McCain and Palin are mudslingers, and it should be noted that they, their own families, and their associates are far from perfect.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/21/2008 @ 3:03pm

40. Its funny when everyone gets offended and serious when a news organization goes after the republicans (ie McCain and his wife) but its fair game to go after Obama and his wife? In my world fair is fair. If McCain cant play by the same rules as everyone else then 1. that is being an elitest and 2 he should just take his ball and go home and stop bitching. I found it interesting that McCain barely had the balls to bring up the Bill Ayers pseudo controversey at the last debate and then said that Ayers is an old washed up terrorist. The the next day keeps yapping about the connection between Ayers and Obama. The thing that I have been noticing lately is that the American populace has been pretty much brain washed into thinking that terrorists only come from the middle east (ie arab's), which is false and for McCain and Palin to keep bringing this up is inciting people to commit violent acts which I believe is an arrestable offence.

    Posted by jloughry1976 at 10/21/2008 @ 3:23pm