By Far the Most Mind-numbingly Amazing Presidential Election Season Ever!

As if it were not merely exciting enough having a non-caucasian man and a woman, married to a former U.S. president, head to head for the Democratic nomination, the New York Times scandalously alluded to Republican front-runner, John McCain, having had an affair with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. The article created an uproar after being published on Thursday, releasing a wave of television, radio, and blogger commentary and debate.

Gawker.com offered a very sarcastic angle to the story, in essence, down-playing all of the commotion caused by it.
"John McCain may or may not have bonked a lobbyist, is definitely a liar, but most importantly to McCain camp, the Times is a liberal no-good paper."
They were obviously making a jab at McCain but not defending the media either, so their stance maintained neutrality.

A significant amount of bloggers exuded their distaste for the New York Times within their entries this weekend.

A blog titled Live Breathe and Die, represents one extreme end of the spectrum, asserting that the media's bias is unmistakably present in every portrayal of the presidential candidates. The writer also concludes that the Times story was completely false, saying it was "part of a larger strategy and The Times knew that it was worth taking a little heat in the process."

The New York Post referred to it as a "drive-by shooting masquerading as a newspaper story," in an editorial piece on their Web site. The author claims that the Times story was primarily based on speculation and lacked the essential structure. "This piece has no legs on which to stand."

Yet another criticism of the publication came from Washingtonhotlist.com. Centering his focus on the content of the story, the blogger states that he was in shock when he "realized that one of the world's most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper." He explained, however, that he was not in shock to find the blatant liberal bias of the paper.

On a more political note, a blog titled Wake Up America explored the idea that the story only helped McCain's campaign.
"A big part of the defense of McCain has to come from the fact that this article appears to be inaccurate and totally false."
The author attributes his lack of support for McCain to his politically conservative views and says that many people with views similar to his were not in favor of McCain either. However, since the Times story, support has begun to shift in his favor.
"Conservatives in general may also jump to his side to defend him based on the fact that they are tired of bias of the media."

My own opinion of this is meager, floating into the abyss of old news with all the others, but I think this is all political nonsense, inherent of election season. I don't think the Times piece was written well or with warrant. It does not make an accusation of an affair boldly, but just sort of throws it out there, leaving the readers unsure of whether or not it is true. The media often digs for dark secrets among candidates, and Bill Clinton is sheer proof that no side is safe from endless scrutiny. I think, ultimately, it will all be a distant memory in no time because McCain does not seem to be too distressed from all of this, as he adamantly denies having an affair with Iseman. If anyone's reputation is suffering, it's the New York Times... but they'll be okay too.