Wednesday, February 20, 2008

McCain Ohhhh La La!

The New York Times's revelation about McCain and the "lady lobbyist" raises a number of questions.

One: Who leaked this?

Two: Why now?

Three: Where's the beef?

Four: If extramarital sex is relevant for Bill, why not for John?

One. My guess is that the campaign leaked it to get it out, over, and done with before the November election. Either that or, hedging my bets, this is a slimeball hurled via the NYT by the hardcore conservatives who hate McCain, and is intended to put Huckabee in the driver's seat. A bit late, that. And I'm not aware that the NYT carries water for the Far Right.

Oh my, the intrigue, the intrigue!

Two. Why now? Because better now than later.

Three. It will be interesting to see where the evidence is. Now the monkey is on the NYT's back to show the proof.

Four: Well, it won't be. We know that. Plagiarism for Obama is not what plagiarism was for Joe Biden. Avoiding Vietman service was not for W what it was for Bill. We in America have amazingly elastic standards. It all depends on who you are, what you spend, and where you spend it. There were rumors, you might recall, that 41 had a mistress, but that was well and truly quashed. My sense is that what gets quashed has to do as much with perceptions of "aristocracy" as with perceptions of "clout," not that the two don't co-vary significantly--meaning that aristocrisy virtually always has clout, and nouveau does not. Ergo, Clinton is fair game and 42 is not fair game.

I think we will speedily see the Powers That Be coalesce to ensure that this, too, will pass. You will notice that Monica and Bill and Whitewater and Hillary have not "passed."

There is a Five. It is, what will Cindy do now? If she gets her panties in a bunch, there goes John's money. Bummer!