Two Statements, Contradictory
EmailNew York Times executive editor Bill Keller: "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, 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. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."
Alcalde & Fay (Vicki Iseman’s lobbying firm) president Kevin Fay: "The allegations and malicious innuendo reported by the New York Times yesterday are completely and utterly false. Alcalde & Fay’s relationship with Senator McCain has been professional, appropriate and consistent with his legislative, jurisdictional and constituent duties. The story is based upon the fantasies of a disgruntled former campaign employee and is without foundation or merit. Ms. Iseman is a hard working professional whose 18 year career has been exemplary and she has our full support. It is beneath the dignity of a quality newspaper to participate in such a campaign of character assassination."
- jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Wait. I bet more comes out…it’s not over.
Posted by: barfly | February 21, 2008, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
Mr. Obama, please explain your preemptive strike against John McCain. Everyone knows you are behind the smear.
Are you trying to throw some mud at your arch rival BEFORE your dirty laundry is exposed at Mr. Rezko’s trial next week?
Thank goodness we are going to get the goods on you before the election.
Posted by: Mary Miles | February 21, 2008, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
More dirty politics!! If you believe this one, than you might as well believe Obama is a Muslim extremist.
I would believe in Mad Magazine before I believe the NY Times.
Let’s get back to the serious issues facing our country.
Posted by: Pee Vee, Long Island | February 21, 2008, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
Umm, Mary Miles, this story has been around since last year. Your claim that Obama started this is just ludicrous. It reeks of the Republican party if anything. It’s their Standard Operating Procedure. It’s my guess they hoped to leak it last year to get McCain out of the race because the conservative base wasn’t behind him. But the NYT pulled a fast one and held the story until now when he is the presumptive nominee.
Posted by: DJShay | February 21, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
I hate to say it, but the only beneficiary of this would be someone in Senator Obama’s position. More interesting is the fact that this was released after both Senator and Mrs. McCain made indirect reference to some recent flippant remarks coming out of the Obama camp regarding pride in this nation.
The NYT’s explanation of the release of this story fails to meet any plausible standards. Could per chance there have been some quid pro quo regarding the release of this information – with the growing list of those in the media whom have shown a complete disregard for traditional journalistic standards, instead choosing to show their unabashed support of Senator Obama’s candidacy, this theory that has been put forth is not entirely unrealistic.
Clearly Senator Obama, whether indirectly involved or not, should make a clear and strong statement that such poor examples of journalism have no place in the American political process. That is the real kind of CHANGE we need and deserve.
Posted by: Concerned | February 21, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
NY Times is trying to help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
All current polls have shown that Hillary will be defeated by Sen. Mc Cain and Sen. Barack Obama will defeat Sen. Mc Cain in general election. Those poll results have made many supporter leaving Hillary’s Camp.
Next step, NY Times and its comrades, in new polls after this scandal, will show that Hillary could defeat Mc Cain as Barack.
Too dirty!
Posted by: Kim | February 21, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
The story is crap, pure and simple.
Time to sell the rest of the NYT stock. Can’t sue the paper but at some point the advertisers and subscribers will dry up.
Posted by: flyover | February 21, 2008, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
As far as I can tell, neither Bill nor Hillary own any stock in the NY Times. They did own stock in News Corp.(that maybe the confussion on some posters part). News Corp. is not the NY Times, but does include Fox News. Besides, the Clinton’s would have to be at least a 5% shareholder to have any kind of direct influence on NYT management. Camel needs to either furnish evidence to support his/her statement or at least do some research before commenting on the story. NYT is a very reliable source of news and personally, I believe it. Just to point out a fact, Bill Clinton also denied his affair, yet we all know it was true.
Posted by: M. H. | February 21, 2008, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Ok, I really do not think Hilary is behind this, she has nothing to gain at this point attacking McCain. The obvious culprit is Obama, that the NYT supported.
So Obama please stop playing dirty tricks and lies!
Posted by: spock | February 21, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
DJShay – first of all the Republicans do not stoop to this level, and secondly if they wanted to release something like this there are plenty of other news orgs.
Posted by: spock | February 21, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
“It is beneath the dignity of a quality newspaper to participate in such a campaign of character assassination.”
It has been a long time, since the NYT was a quality newspaper.
Posted by: Mike | February 21, 2008, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
People, people,
This one is really quite simple.
In short, most of you have all got it completely backwards. The New York Times could not have used better timing to release this article if John McCain had been the editor.
For the other candidates, the release of such an article may have spelled trouble, but not for John McCain and certainly not at this juncture of the campaign.
To the point, John McCain has lobbyists that he is friends with just as every Senator and Representative in Congress does. Back in December of 2007, Matt Drudge of the New York Times alluded to the potential of problems with an Iseman lobbying connection, but that was where the story ended.
So, the New York Times could have published the story over two months ago, prior to the caucuses and primaries where John McCain had some serious competition for the Republican nomination. Instead, the New York Times ENDORSED John McCain!
Perhaps it could be that the New York Times is playing this story out for they can get, but I doubt it. Or, maybe the story is being released at a time when Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama are in each other’s death grips until the battle royale in August.
But, a more feasible explanation is a simple case of timing. Other party competition has bowed out, and the Republican nomination is a given for McCain. So, why not let Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama continue to beat on each other until August. Whoever wins the Democratic nod will be easy prey in November.
The whole thing is quite amusing, but I bet that Mitt and Rudy are’t laughing.
Game, set, match…McCain…
Posted by: Ken | February 21, 2008, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Spock-I tend to agree, but the problem with your statement is that the Times endorsed Clinton. Unless they took back thier endorsement over the last few weeks, since they have been giving her such bad press, since Obama is still for some unknown reason the media darling. But again with your point, in Obama’s past campaign in Illinois, the same attacts and paperwork would start to appear inflicting harm against his republican opponent.
Posted by: Cindy Lee | February 21, 2008, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
Can someone tell me why Obama claims to have bipartsianship and some republicans are voting for him. For one he has not crossed party lines since coming to Washington, he has a very liberal voting record. I thought republicans were loyal. I just don’t know why people are voting for this empty suit. And I don’t see the bipartisanship he so claims. You have to do something in congress first don’t you before you can make this claim.
Posted by: Puzzled | February 21, 2008, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm
Somebody out there —– Did Senitor Obama serve in the armed services.? If so what branch and how long.
Posted by: jackmackmax | February 21, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
No-he never served in the armed forces.
Posted by: Dee | February 22, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm