Some 24 hours after the New York Times posted the McCain story on its web site, here’s where I sense that things stand:
The story itself has plenty of smoke but absolutely no evidence of any fire. Both the Senator and the woman in question have denied the underlying allegations — that (a) they had a romantic relationship and (b) that he did favors for her as a lobbyist. Several others around the Senator have also issued similar, strong denials. No one — not a single source, named or unnamed — has come forward with a shred of evidence to show that their denials are wrong.
Under the circumstances — and given John McCain’s long and honorable record of serving his country — I believe that most Americans will more than give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless someone comes forward soon with something concrete, the Senator emerges from this unscathed with the general voting public.
Indeed, it is increasingly clear that among conservatives, this episode is actually serving to strengthen him. Look at the way his detractors like Rush Limbaugh rallied around him today. Many of them hate the Times, and even though they do not love McCain, the enemy of their enemy is now their friend.
McCain’s team has also been adroit at turning the Times itself into a growing issue. Personally, I think the criticisms of the Times that it intentionally sat on the story to protect McCain in the early primaries and then dumped it out on him now has no basis in fact — or at least any facts that we know so far. The Times, like most news organizations on controversial stories, has to work hard to make sure it has enough solid sourcing before it goes with the story. And when that is in hand, it goes. Note that in all the denials today of any fire, there wasn’t much of a denial about the smoke — the allegation from unnamed sources that some of his aides became convinced that there was an underlying story; the fact that John Weaver and the woman in question have both said there was a meeting to tell her to get lost actually lends a little credence to the idea that some aides were worried about appearances.
So, the Times did have something. It is a much harder question whether, given how little they had, they should have held the story altogether. I can imagine that was a very tough call within the newsroom — journalists do publish such smoky stories a lot (just ask the Clintons, who were pummeled by such stories, some from the Times). But it is also very understandable that the Senator and his team were outraged — if there is no evidence of any underlying story, doesn’t a story like this seem terribly unfair, even a smear, as they argued? This is where the world of journalism collides with the world of politics — each has its own values, its own culture, its own set of standards. Personally, if in the newsroom, I would have voted to spike the story unless and until something concrete appeared. But I also know that among many outstanding journalists, not just at the Times, the vote would have gone the other way.
For now, unless another shoe drops, John McCain goes forward with a more united base than he had 24 hours ago.
-David Gergen, 360° Contributor
| Cindy |
February 21st, 2008 8:00 pm ET David, I am just glad that everyone involved stepped up and shut this down from the get go. Cynthia, Covington, Ga. |
|
| Joseph Kowalski, North Huntingdon, PA |
February 21st, 2008 8:11 pm ET Senator McCain’s public record is not above reproach and he’s quite cable of violating his ethics when it suits him. As most people seem to forget, Senator McCain was criticized for questionable conduct by the Senate Ethics Committee for his participation in the Keating 5 scandal which resulted in the collapse of many Savings and Loan Companies across the country 20 years ago. Now his responses to the New York Times story sounds a lot like Bill Clinton’s responses at the beginning of his ethics breach. I’m withholding my opinion on whether McCain is guilty or not until more information becomes available. And this type of ethics breach really shouldn’t matter anyway. Just as with Clinton, the marital infidelity is a problem between the man and his wife. How the man handles the situation determines whether he is fit to be President. |
|
| Lorie Ann |
February 21st, 2008 8:20 pm ET Hi David, Lorie Ann, Buellton, Calif. |
|
| Rekha |
February 21st, 2008 8:27 pm ET Mr.Gergen, I wonder why the world of politics or the world of journalism are so pre-occupied by such allegations, such as the one against Mr.McCain. Looking forward to watching you on CNN. Rekha |
|
| mhansen |
February 21st, 2008 9:13 pm ET I don’t think it is so much about whether they had a close personal relationship, as to whether he provided special favors to her and her employers. That is where the issue lies - if that is the case, and I don’t think the NYT would have published that article without careful forethought of the ramifications, they must have more that has not been written. I think for all americans, whether Republican, Democrat or independent consider that a major issue when it comes to becoming President. I think this is not just about mudslinging or a “drive-by” attack on McCain. |
|
| TC |
February 21st, 2008 10:46 pm ET What I find troubling about the NYT article is that they, the NYT, just several weeks ago endorsed Senator McCain for President. Now explain to me how you can endorse John McCain for President knowing that you (the NYT) is working on this tory and have been doing so since December. Again this is the NYT. I feel maybe there was an agenda here to wait until Senator McCain won the Republican nomination and then drop this bombshell to destroy him. Not only that, there ins not one shed of evidence behind these allegations. Everyone they have quoted has said this didn’t happen. The only sources left are the unnamed ones which I am sure will remain nameless. |
|
| Dee Stevens |
February 22nd, 2008 11:49 am ET I found your commentary to be very honest and sincere. Sometimes when the newspaper media overshadows issues with sensation then the voters are not given a clear picture of each cadidates position on the pressing issues that affect the American people. It would be more productive for the media to print and broadcast each issue and the response of each Presidential Canditate and let the voter formulate their own opinions. Charisma vs. experience seems to be at the forefront and and that causes confusion in the electorate. When leadership should be based more on experience. Dee Stevens |
|
| Reality Check |
February 22nd, 2008 4:53 pm ET A sad commentary of the moral state of the country: that a president wanna-be is not held to the highest moral standards, as a role model for the citizens of this “good country”. Regardless of his status as a hero, right and wrong should apply regardless. It’s more than about infidelity, it’s about garnering favors for the wrong reasons. Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire. The media has chosen to turn and attack the messenger, NY Times. Why? |
|
| Frank |
February 26th, 2008 1:20 am ET Mr Gergen, You are the master and the most intellegent journalist analyst I have seen. Politicians could take a lesson from you. Amazing how you keep your analysis compatible with what you need to to keep your spot with CNN and yet maintain your credability by every once in a while coming up with smidgens of comments contrary to the normal CNN sentiments. Which analysis is the real David Gergen??? I suspect its the smidgens? |
|
| Jocelyn Cluver |
February 26th, 2008 6:00 pm ET David, I watch CNN because I respect Anderson. He goes where the stories are, something we saw often a generation ago, but his kind is rare now. I think journalism as a whole has lost something because these ideas are undervalued. Anyway, I watch the political analysts just to see what you say. No disrespect intended to any of the others there, but CNN would lose me as a viewer during these segments if they took you off the panel. Thanks for what you bring. It is unbiased. It is solid. It is insightful. Always . |
|
|
Comments have been closed for this article |
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper and the show’s correspondents and producers. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Thorny thicket of Bill and Hillary Clinton conflicts?
- Genetic testing
- The Shot: What is it?
- Knut feeling the credit crunch
- Voices of hope in the face of evil
- The straight scoop
- Just in time for the holidays…
- Extreme Challenges: The health of the economy, the health of all Americans
- Extreme Challenges: How Obama should fight al Qaeda and its allies
- Where the rubber meets the road - Automakers, welcome back to Congress
