Well, maybe it’s just a bit of paranoia.<\/p>\n
First, as soon as he became the nominee of the party, they ran their story about his “affair”<\/a> which turned to be nothing.<\/p>\n Then Friday, they got bent all out of shape over the interview he gave in regards to the talks McCain had with Kerry back in 2004. The video and transcript is at Politico<\/a>. It turns out that the reporter was just plain rude, and the New York Times is fixated on stuff that happened a longtime ago and usually is a molehill. This time they want all to remember he has a famous temper (which makes him unstable, apparently).<\/p>\n Now this morning they run an article that asks why no one<\/a> is asking him about his melanoma problems back eight years ago with a headline like this; “On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain\u2019s Bout With Melanoma” – so he might die right after we elect him is their point, I suppose.<\/p>\n Maybe it’s just me, but I’m getting the impression that maybe John McCain isn’t the New York Times’ choice for President in November. I wonder when they’re going to run an article on Hillary’s 35 years of experience, or on Obama’s land deals?<\/p>\n Updated:<\/strong> Bloodthirsty Liberal<\/a> reminds me that the NY Times endorsed McCain<\/a> so they must support his candidacy. Turns out, it’s just me after all.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"