Jude 2

Found this. This is the New York Times Article

I'm not a McCain fan at all but I wondered how long it would take the NY Times to do something like this..

McCain's response on USA Today.

It started with Matt Drudge. See this

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8614.html

No, it did not start with Drudge. The article says he only heard the NYT was preparing this story in December.

Oh, yeah. You're right. Just testing your reading comprehension skills.

It's strange they would run a story implying an affair sourced from "several" (how many is that anyway?) anonymous sources. They really should have put the story in file 13 rather than sitting on it if they had nothing better than that. It does make me wonder if it would have had any impact on the nomination if they had come out with it in December.

As a reporter, I've never ever been allowed to do the "sources say" or "an unnamed source said" trick. And I've tried.

As a reporter, I've never ever been allowed to do the "sources say" or "an unnamed source said" trick. And I've tried.

That's what I was thinking. My high school and college newspaper advisor would have failed me for showing up with that kind of thing. And to think the Times was always held up as The Standard for the class to look to.

Maybe the story is just a ploy to pull the republican party together, under McCain.

WindSong wrote:Maybe the story is just a ploy to pull the republican party together, under McCain.

I don't really think the New York Times is interested in pulling the Republican party together.

Ms Iseman has issued a complete and absolute denial.

This was just a warning shot over the deck to show what the future holds for McCain. A political history that long is going to come home to roost.

Obama has no such history and again.. CHANGE is going to ring even louder.

Huck should not get out yet.

I'm just a little confused as to why they endorsed him while they were sitting on this . . .