« The Many (Funny) Faces of John McCain | Main | Obama Roasts McCain at the Alfred Smith Foundation Dinner »

New York Times on Cindy McCain

The fact-challenged right is calling today's New York Times article about Cindy McCain a "hit piece" -- and in the process not bothering to link to the article -- because if you read the article you'll see that it is actually quite favorable towards Cindy and highlights her accomplishments. Here's the link, see for yourself.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.2/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (13)

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The NYT article puts Cindy in a favorable light, but the right wing talking point email this morning has the right bloggers desperate for you to not see the article, so they lie to you about it instead, and they don't even provide a link? They're regurgitating the talking point and not letting you decide for yourself? Amazing...

helen sabin:

Cindy MCCain is one of the most generous women around. Could you see the shelfish Nancy Pilosi adopting a child? Giving millions to charities? Or Hilliary and Bill and Michelle and Obama gving millions to charity? HARDLY!!

Sarah Palin gave more in donations than Obama and Biden!!

Also - while folks are having a hard time putting food on the table, Obama has already booked a fancy hotel with champagne, caviar and lobster for his celebration dinner - oh yeah - he really cares for the poor doesn't he? Reminds me of Marie Antoinette - Let them eat cake!

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

We've got a lot to celebrate, Helen. It's been a long time since decent Americans occupied the White House - 8 years as a matter of fact - and our country is embarking on a new path of peace and prosperity for ALL Americans, not just those with 7 houses and $100 million dollar wives...

Jack Howard:

Wow: I took you at your word. That was of course a hit piece...it was so painful to read, I kept wincing. Look at the hate notes your post generated: "$100 wives..."


I voted Obama in the primaries (and saw how the press favored him over Clinton)...and though I am undecided about who to vote for, the unreasoning hate I see toward the Republicans should not be so blinding--and the selective understanding (allowing you to say the article was "complimenary") makes me nervous about voting Obama. Do birds of a feather--hate gulls-- flock together?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The article listed Cindy McCain's many fine features. It wasn't derogatory at all.

If a blog post I wrote "makes you nervous about voting for Obama" you're clearly an idiot, and will end up voting for John McCain along with the rest of the idiots anyway.

David Hiersekorn:

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills. The article is not favorable at all. For every accomplishment or honor they cite, they claim that there is a hidden scandal or that she somehow hasn't been truthful about the event.

At best, the article paints her as someone caught on the outside desparately struggling for acceptance and willing to do anything to help her husband win the election.

The final sentence of the article suggests that the congressional wives would be forced to accept her if McCain wins.

You are just flat wrong.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Well, you guys keep repeating how unfair the article is - but the bloggers won't link to it -- and none of you are providing any quotes or cites from the article to back up the "unfair" claim, so let me provide some quotes which I think demonstrate that the article is balanced...

"She would walk on broken glass barefoot if it required her to do so in this campaign," said Matt Salmon, a former Arizona congressman who knows the couple.

Wow, pretty impressive.

First, though, the McCains must win. Mrs. McCain has traveled by her husband's side on the campaign trail and helped reorganize the campaign after it floundered in 2007. When The New York Times reported last winter that Mr. McCain's staffers had urged him to stay away from a female lobbyist during his first presidential run, Mrs. McCain stood by her husband at a news conference and defended his honor.

She stands by her guy - impressive.

Mrs. McCain busied herself with the American Voluntary Medical Team, a charity she founded to supply medical equipment and expertise to some of the neediest places on earth, like Micronesia, Vietnam and Kuwait in the weeks after the Persian Gulf war.

When Mrs. McCain visited Bangladesh after a cyclone, she stopped at an orphanage founded by Mother Teresa, who was not, as the campaign has said, present for the visit. Mrs. McCain returned with two baby girls; Mr. Gullet later adopted one, and Mrs. McCain informed her husband on landing that they would adopt the other.

See?

Steve Smith:

Is the New York Times SICK????????

Don't you realize your destroying America's from the inside out. We don't need articles that are hurtful to the presidential candidates families. It should be hands-off the McCain, Obama, Biden and the Palin families.
Don't we have any standards of decence in the media today???

Anna Brinks:

Of course it is a hit piece disguised as objective reporting. The only "positives" are the blind (obviously illogical per NYT) devotion to her husband. And everything is "tempered" with something nasty: She adopted a girl from Mother Teresa orphanage, but Mother Teresa was not there despite what campaign said, she went to Congo to help Rwandan refugees but it was after the genocide ended, she sent native plants to McCain but they all died, etc, etc. No opportunity is missed to inject some attack: her mother said to a local jeweler: "John doesn't have a lot of money, so find something in the $5,000 area," -- see how rich and out of touch they are?

Why not take a look at the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_mccain and see everything the article didn't mention: she worked for a year as a special education teacher with children with Down syndrome and other disabilities -- do you know many heiresses doing this? The American Voluntary Medical Team that she founded did amazing work in Vietnam (before normalization!), Kuwait, etc. Just look it up!

Of course they do not mention what Cindy said Michelle Obama's infamous "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country." (In case you don't know, which you probably don't if you just read NYT, Cindy said "I am proud of my country. I don't know about you--if you heard those words earlier--I am very proud of my country.") But why bring this up? It might cast a shadow on saintly Michelle, and who needs this?

Beautiful piece, in the grand Jayson Blair tradition! Give them a Pulitzer!

Mike Broderick:

Well, at worst one might say that the article is fair and balanced in the tradition of Fox news. Of course, it isn't. It's fair and balanced in the sense of "fair and balanced" that I grew up with before the republican propaganda machine destroyed traditional notions of meaning and honesty. Some of Mrs. McCain's personal troubles reported in the article had the effect of making me more sympathetic toward her than I have been. But I suppose that's a democratic trait; republicans would read the same thing and assume condemnation because such experiences/behavior are worthy of spite in their holier-than-thou minds. That the article as a whole is not unsympathetic and is clearly protagonistic is summed up in the last few sentences.
This whole "liberal media bias" ploy is really tiresome. But if you say it enough, and have huge media access to do so, people will start to believe it. Just strange, isn't it, that with such bias, the liberal media, despite its purported power and the implied sinister agenda behind it, has not convinced the body politic that there is no such liberal bias.

Tom Karras:

It easy to establish that the NYT article, as usual, is a negative hit piece, and not,as Ward claims "actually quite favorable". Just ask a conservative who has read it.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

And yet.. we still don't have one single example of this "supposed negativity"....?

Read it yourself - don't take my word or anyone else's word on it- see for yourself.

mike:

OPne phrase comes to mind when I read every "positive" line that others have listed here. Do you guys know what a "back handed Compliment " is? REad the NYT areticle....that's it.

A backhanded compliment or left-handed compliment or asteism is an insult disguised as a compliment. It is generally used to belittle or condescend, or often one uses a backhanded compliment when one wants to insult someone in a subtle way - Wikipedia


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.