Again, the problem here seems to be that no new headway is made on the narrative. All of the facts and alleged maneuvers have been previously reported. But it does at least serve to create discussion on the progressive blogs, which may gin up traffic for the NYT website and generate cable news chatter.
Matthew Yglesias calls the piece a "service," but one paragraph concedes:
I think it's pretty clear that McCain's been less-than-totally honest about this stuff, but beyond that, what's the point? I'm not really sure what the point is, myself.
Most conservative bloggers are dismissing the story, or ignoring it altogether. Hugh Hewitt, who initially opposed McCain's candidacy, says:
What's amusing about this is that the New York Times thinks this matters to Republicans. John McCain is the GOP nominee, so all that matters is that both the Democrats and their entire party are committed to defeat in Iraq and retreat in the broader war. How much simpler can this choice be?
The Democratic National Committee is also up with a "McCain versus McCain" site focusing on perceived contradictions in McCain's record.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment