What she said (UPDATED)

She being Sue from InnerDorothy, a self described liberal from north of the border:

I think the New York Times really sunk about as low as you can go today. Really, did they think that no one would notice that this story was conveniently released just as McCain was tying up the Republican nomination? From my (mostly) objective perspective north of the border, the New York Times looks like a joke in all of this.

By all accounts, the McCain people have reams of evidence showing that there was no inappropriate favouring of particular lobbyists. It looks to me like the Times picked on the wrong guy. He's a veteran who did some hard time in a p.o.w. camp for his country and a national newspaper thanks him by making up a bunch of nonsense and calling it journalism.

Puhleeze.

The Old Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.  Hasn't been for some time now.

Predictable yet sad.

UPDATE: From Michelle:

I pointed out this quote from Bill Keller last December. In light of the NYT’s McCain rehash, I thought you’d appreciate reading it again. Remember, put your beverages down first:

…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a preconceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.

Guffaw.

Comments

[scrapiron]

Actually the story had been on hold until needed. It was needed now to cover up the full blown 'Nazi' speach given by Obama and the communist BS spouted by his wife this week. They weren't able to cover it up any other way than to get a republican on the front page, even with a BS story from years ago. The NYSlimes are slime but they're democrat slime.