Many on the right will use the Times rejection of McCain's article as further evidence their candidate is being persecuted by a liberal press. I doubt, however, many will argue the piece was well written or even worthy of publication. McCain's article was published in the Drudge Report (linked above); it's really nothing more than a hit piece on Obama and just regurgitated campaign rhetoric. Unlike Obama's op-ed the week before, McCain's article offered no insight into the Senator's concept of victory in Iraq or how to acheive it. By contrast, Obama's article was to the point and covered new ground.
Even the Times of London, a conservative paper in the UK, sided with the NY Times editorial boards decision:
Well,
political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very
boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I
required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier
before I ran them.
Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.
McCain's
piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about
Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly
what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it
was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.
The New York Times was right to reject the piece. Senator McCain needs to remember he's running for the presidency of the United States, not a city council seat. He needs to bring some game if he wants to be taken seriously.
Comments