The Gray Lady turns yellowish

Let me just first acknowledge that I subscribe to two newspapers. Not that those are the only ones that I read, but they are (supposed to be...) on my doorstep every morning. The Chicago Sun-Times, with its cultivated populism gives me the local gossip. I balance my beloved Chicago rag with the generally venerable New York Times. This week, however, I have been distinctly disappointed with its campaign coverage.

First, the NYT reported Obama's "plagiarism" of his pal Gov. Deval Patrick's speech.

In fact, the senator had disclosed the provenience of those remarks previously, but not every time he appropriated them. Gov. Patrick backed up Barack. Personally, I blame Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod, who worked on Patrick's campaign, too. Axelrod should know better, though, being a former newsman and long-time politico.

Then, Sen. Clinton, feeling like she looked a bit petty for attacking Obama, said it was the NYT, not her campaign who exposed the so-called plagiarism. Which is, in a word, a lie(thanks, Mr. Skoglund, for the link).

A lie I would've liked to have read in the NYT. And, let me just offer that I prefer someone who borrows rhetoric instead of just making shit up. At least when were talking about, oh I donno...the leader of the free world?

But it gets worse. Today's front page insinuated the John McCain had a sordid, extra-marital affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.

First of all: ewwwww. Lobbyists are icky.

Second of all: you needed four reporters to write a muckraking story and you couldn't even get one untainted source to go on record about Iseman?

Third of all: at least four-fifths of the article was about his role in the Keating Five scandal. McCain did his political time for that already, and I'd hope anyone considering voting for him already knows about it. His participation in a decades-old scandal does not make him more likely to sleep with a skeletal blond living in Bud Paxson's pocket.

A NYT editor defended the article saying the information was "nailed down to the New York Times' satisfaction." Well, I'm glad someone's satisfied.

I, however, am not. And I will not be until the Gray Lady goes after her own with the same tenacity with which she is attacking the opposition. Hillary needs a minor miracle or serious political collusion to get the nomination at this point, NYT, and neither one should be coming from you.