Media Salivate Over Edwards' Affair; Shrug Shoulders Over McCain's Alleged Infidelity

I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's
human nature. But it's important to keep in mind that John
Edwards didn't even come close to winning the nomination and
this is just another sleazy tabloid story with absolutely no
serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the
prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have
finally found their hook: it's because he lied to the press
about his sex life. How could he???

(Lying to the press about the anthrax killers and WMD in Iraq,
well, not a problem.)

Let's assume that the rules now say that denying an affair to
the press is a cardinal offense that merits endless bloviating
about dishonesty from a bunch of hypocritical celebrities who
protect their "sources" when they lie about torture
and war. Fine. But this guy actually may very well be
president and they took his word for it: 


I'm very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It's not
true. And I'll be glad to respond to any questions you might
have.


QUESTION: Senator, did you ever have any meeting with any of
your staffers in which they would have intervened to ask you
not to see Vicki Iseman or to be concerned about appearances
of being too close to a lobbyist?


MCCAIN: No.


QUESTION: No meeting ever occurred?


MCCAIN: No.


QUESTION: No staffer was ever concerned about a possible
romantic relationship?


MCCAIN: If they were, they didn't communicate that to me.


QUESTION: Did you ever have such relationship?


MCCAIN: No.


QUESTION: Senator, can you describe your relationship with
Vicki Iseman?


MCCAIN: Friends. Seen her on occasions, particularly at
receptions and fund-raisers and appearances before the
committee. I have many friends in Washington who represent
various interests and those who don't, and I consider her a
friend.


QUESTION: But do you feel like, in terms of your relationship
with lobbyists in general, you were closer to her than with
others?


MCCAIN: No, no.


I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging
from the firemen to the police to senior citizens to various
interests, particularly before my committee. And I had
meetings with hundreds of them and various interests. And that
was my job to do, to get their input.


And, obviously, people who represent interests are fine.
That's their constitutional right. The question is is whether
do they have access or unwarranted influence. And certainly,
no one ever has in my conduct of my public life and the
conduct of my legislative agenda.


QUESTION: Senator?


MCCAIN: Yes, sir?


QUESTION: Did John Weaver, who is one of your former top aides
-- is quoted on the record saying that he had a conversation
with her saying -- basically telling her to butt out.


Do you not know of that conversation? Do you know why John
Weaver would go on the record describing such a conversation?


MCCAIN: I did not and I don't know anything about it.

Many people, especially in the press, jumped to defend McCain
against the evil New York Times on that one and there has been
no follow up. But considering how everyone is excusing the
flogging of this Edwards story on the basis of the fact that
he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the country's best
interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the
women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after
he's president? Why surely the press will be as honor bound to
obsess over it as they were about Clinton and now Edwards,
right? It's not about the sex -- it's about the lying,
remember? (They've been saying on a loop that John Edwards was
a breath away from the presidency, after all and he got about
four delegates.)

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/94445/media_salivate_over_edwards'_affair%3B_shrug_shoulders_over_mccain's_alleged_infidelity/