Matt writes about my earlier post:
This strikes me as a pretty lazy equivalence. In a nation of 300 million people, I'm sure some people on the left have jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain, but just about every liberal I read has taken the time to note that the Times' sexual innuendos were a pretty inappropriate way to frame a news story.
Ben Smith also has a post about liberal blogs staying skeptical of the McCain article. Yes, many on the left have been healthily skeptical of the NYT coverage of McCain, but if you were reading the posts on some of the far-left blogs when the story broke, there was immediate glee at the chance to bash McCain. Still, I've been re-reading the coverage and it was fairer than I recalled. Also, in the ensuing hours and days the liberal blogs have gotten more skeptical, and they will continue to get more skeptical the longer it takes for real evidence on the sex scandal to surface (if it ever does). The Washington Post story today about lobbyists in McCain's campaign makes a much more legitimate point. The key graf:
By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.
This is a justifiable criticism since McCain is considered anti-lobbyist, and it will hurt him throughout the campaign, but the sex scandal, if real, would sink him. Arguing about lobbyists is somewhat academic; a sex scandal any voter can understand.