I could not resist to the envy to write about the so-called John McCain’s scandal and the article written and published in the last Thursday New York Times issue. What the article revealed is that Senator John McCain would have lobbied for the client of a lobbyist, with whom, in addition, he would have had a romantic relationship.
I was struck by the article itself for many reasons. Firstly, the article looks like a recollection of John McCain’s dubious past as an elected representative. Secondly, the article is based upon information that the journalist seems to be unable to prove. Indeed, as for his so-called involvement in the Keating Five scandal, McCain never got sentenced, but just reprimanded for poor judgment. As for the pretended romantic relation he would have had with a lobbyist, both John McCain and Vicki Iseman said they never had such a relation. Thirdly and mainly, the article raises the question of its own purpose; what is the relevance of such an article at a time in the campaign where McCain’s nomination seems to be established and where the Democratic nomination has never been so uncertain.
As far as I am concerned, I think that the article brings us back to the New York Times’ endorsements. The newspaper has endorsed Hillary R. Clinton and John McCain. It is first surprising that the New York Times seeks to confound a candidate it has endorsed. I also wonder whether the newspaper is not looking to modify its choice. Indeed, who really benefits from this accusation? If it probably undermines McCain’s integrity, it does not benefit to his challenger, Mike Huckabee, who is now far behind him. Yet, the beneficiary might be among the democratic candidates. Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is certainly Obama who is going to enjoy the New York Times’ denunciation. Indeed, he is the one who is the youngest in politics and the one who embodies the change with practices perpetuated by the previous generation of politicians to which belongs Hillary Clinton. With this article, the New York Times has endorsed Barack Obama.
I was struck by the article itself for many reasons. Firstly, the article looks like a recollection of John McCain’s dubious past as an elected representative. Secondly, the article is based upon information that the journalist seems to be unable to prove. Indeed, as for his so-called involvement in the Keating Five scandal, McCain never got sentenced, but just reprimanded for poor judgment. As for the pretended romantic relation he would have had with a lobbyist, both John McCain and Vicki Iseman said they never had such a relation. Thirdly and mainly, the article raises the question of its own purpose; what is the relevance of such an article at a time in the campaign where McCain’s nomination seems to be established and where the Democratic nomination has never been so uncertain.
As far as I am concerned, I think that the article brings us back to the New York Times’ endorsements. The newspaper has endorsed Hillary R. Clinton and John McCain. It is first surprising that the New York Times seeks to confound a candidate it has endorsed. I also wonder whether the newspaper is not looking to modify its choice. Indeed, who really benefits from this accusation? If it probably undermines McCain’s integrity, it does not benefit to his challenger, Mike Huckabee, who is now far behind him. Yet, the beneficiary might be among the democratic candidates. Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is certainly Obama who is going to enjoy the New York Times’ denunciation. Indeed, he is the one who is the youngest in politics and the one who embodies the change with practices perpetuated by the previous generation of politicians to which belongs Hillary Clinton. With this article, the New York Times has endorsed Barack Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment