If the NY Times wanted to do a story on McCain's long history with lobbists, their would have not been much of a stir about their ethics. Of course, it would have also received little notice. This is why they wrapped what might very well be a substantive, albeit boring story about his dealings with lobbyists over the years, with an lasivious unsubstantiated story about a rumoured affair. Joining these two stories might have been a very clever way to sell a boring story, but it was also devious, unethical and unfair. The Times used to be a venerable institution, now it is just the NY Post without the wild headlines and grainy pictures.

I am supporting Senator Obama for President, but I still feel the NY Times did it's readers a diservice by using these sleasy tactics to sell a few newspapers. It's not going to change the way I vote, but it will change where I go for all the news that's fit to print.

the article had little that was lascivious, or even purported to be so. The 'crime' that McCain was accused of was that of having a tin ear when it comes to judging how his behavior looks from an ethical perspective.

I think that's an accusation that has some weight. And McCain's reaction confirmed that weight. For a crusader against special interests to defend himself with "everything I did was legal," or "I have many friends who are lobbyists," or some variation of "Hey, that's the way business is done in Washington." belies a sense of the necessity of aligning appearance with intention.

The Times said that McCain's view of himself as a moral man gets in the way of his behaving in a way that others would expect a moral man to behave.

I don't think that's either slanderous or premature.

Everyone skipped the bits about 'lobbyist influence' and only remember the 'romantic affair'. This is about as bad as claiming "Obama is a Muslim".

Really - the story was about unfettered Lobbyist ACCESS . . .

It wasn't the "Boink", it was the "OINK" . . .

I like that. Nice eight word summary of the point.