***********************************************

HIS LETTER GOT REJECTED. TOO MUCH COMPLAINING NOT ENOUGH SOLUTION.

HAHA…HARDI…HAR…HAR….

SEND IT TO FOX THEY WOULD GALDLY BROADCAST IT.

STOP THE MADNESS. VOTE OBAMA.

Furthermore it is completely inappropriate for McCain to be given a soapbox for Iraq considering that:

1. Today on Good Morning America he said that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.

2. At a fundraiser McCain leaked details of Obama's Iraq trip. Here are the militaries guidelines:

"Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC."

So basically the New York Times is saying you can have your own opinion, as long as it is theirs.

I have lost all respect for the NYT, I think they are biased, have an agenda, and should be called the Obama Press Corps.

I happen to be an Obama supporter, but have been rethinking this as I find he is being made into a messiah-like figure by the media, and that scares me. Did anyone see the cover of Time? He looks like he was superimposed over the image of Jesus.

I will never buy or read a NYT owned product. I hope all their advertisers bail out too.

Oh wow… I just read the Op-ed. At first, I was going to blast the Times but now I understand. Why would they print an op-ed that merely attacks but does not elucidate? McCain needs better campaign handlers.

Why are people outraged that the NY Times isn't publishing every Op-Ed that it receives? The Times has repeatedly published tons of op-eds thoughout this election season from right leaning sources that often disagree with its left-leaning point of view. If it didn't meet their criteria, so be it. It's the op-ed section, not the news portion, anyhow.

Additionally, this story will probably cause the op-ed to get more readers than if it'd been accepted and printed by the Times as is. I'm sure that the McCain campaign has already spread it all around and that other right-leaning publications will be publishing it to show "how fair they can be" compared with the Times.

I am a Dem. But I will not even consider working or voting for BO. Stop blaming the Repub. for what the Dem haven't done in the past two years they have been in control. BO is not cabable of leading this country.. God Bless America and all of our troops if BO becomes President. He is a sheep in wolves clothing…..

The NY Times is the front for the vast left wing conspiracy.

so McBush flunked his written test??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good for the NYT's.

What exactly is Mccains strategy other than just shooting down everything Obama says? Since he's behind, you'd think he'd focus on his stance on the issues. I lose respect for mccain on a daily basis. I didn't think the US could do worse than bush, but I see the potential of doing so with Mccain.

could mccain just cut and past bush's plans, because they are identical???

After reading McCain's rejected piece, I can see all too well why he's achieved the nickname McSame. Only the NeoCons and warmongers like McCain continue to believe that the Iraq war can be "won" in the same sense that previous wars have been won. The Iraq war was lost the moment it started because it was a preemptive invasion. There is no way to reverse world opinion of America's suddenly naked imperialism by destroying Iraq through violence. Just for once, I'd like to see McCain or anyone prove that the terrorism has been weakened by the Iraq war. Of course, this proof will never come. You can defeat a nation or an army with war. You cannot defeat a method—terrorism—through war. It's impossible, by definition. Anyone who mocks the idea of exploring the root causes of terrorism like McCain lives with their head in the sand. Obama appears, at least, willing to consider that there may have been triggers caused by America's international policies that have read to the rise of terrorism.

It's amazing how many people who posted here are happy that the NYT refused McCain's op-ed. They feel that only Obama's comments are worthy. Wow! Isn't that what's done in communist countries like Cuba and China, and dictatorships like Venezuela, Zimbawe? Those posters are all for "free speech" as long as it's theirs! What a bunch of hypocritical morons! As for the NYT, it's par for the course; that "newspaper" lost all its credibility a long time ago! (Even see their stock worth and readership numbers? Pathetic!)

The "Times" is so notoriously biased it is disgraceful…….
It is hard to believe any political rhetoric that comes out of it.
Never do we get both sides from it. Really disappointing.

Thanks NYTimes for seeing McCain for who he really is. A copy-cat…

Let's see….the New York Times…..has Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson offered anything new to the New York times in the last 20 years……why should the NYT start enforcing a "editorial" guideline now?

Why are some people so surprised that the NYT or any other paper just might endorse Obama. Historically, all papers, at one time or another, will endorse a candidate. It has nothing to do with journalism. It's just the way it is and I'm sure, very soon, the NYT will come out with their endorsment of Obama. And as far as I'm concerned, that is wonderful.

Ah, so it is up to the NYT to determine what "new" means. I guess those who have not heard what McCain has to say should just be smarter.

"It would be great if McCain would just say what we want him to."

This from the same crowd who will complain bitterly that the protesters at the national conventions are kept too far from the politicians. By NYT logic, we've already heard what code pink and move on have said, so why do we need to let them say it again?

In other words, they were not going to publish lies. I love it! Mccain your judgement sucks. Look where all that so called 'experience' has gotten you, your desperate and copy catting Obama on everything now. We don't need you in the white house. And he is still stuck on IRaq. Incredible!
GOODNESS man, Iraq is old news and has been old news since we invaded them for no good reason. Get a clue Mccain.

NY Times as liberal as always. I'm not surprised.

These comment postings on CNN have turned into nothing more than a name calling forum of John McCain, instead of discussing the actual issue; does the NY Times have a right to censor one candidate over the other. Calling one candidate names it childish and unproductive. Lets grow up and discuss the issues.

I have yet to hear Pelosi and the rest of the democraps announce they want a fairnesss doctrine instituted for News Papers and Media. any libs care to answer wht that would be?

Typical White Person

I am white and have served my country for over 15 years and there is nothing typical of you and the majority white pop. You will see that in Nov.

The rag that is called the New York Times is not even worthy of being used as toilet paper. It lost all credibility and integrity years ago. This includes all of their coverage, be it politics, science, the arts, etc. It's amazing how irrelevant it has become.

This paper is the biggest piece of crap in "journalism". Obama can write whatever he chooses, but McCain has to revise based of what some snot-nosed Liberal editor wants to hear? Don't think so.

As a veteran, this paper is a continual disgrace and national security threat to this country. They, time and time again, reveal national security secrets for a headline, that is ALL they care about. It is the same wiener Harry Reid, Shumer and Polosi politics that makes Americas tired of the so called public servants that are out there. They play "GOTCHA!" and the Nation suffers.

SHAME ON YOU New York Times! You lost the country's respect a very long, long time ago.

McCain 08′

Won't be voting for McCain anytime soon, but I have to admit the NY Times is showing true colors. They've always been left bent. Another example of how liberal media won't stop until they've help get rid of any of the moral values this country has.

Old guard politics and repetitious political rheortic isn't cutting the mustard. The New York Times wants McCain to present "tie down conditions" on his conclusion to the war in Iraq. It is not only the American people who want our troops out, the the Bush back Iraqi Prime Minister also wants US withdrawl. Old saying, why are we staying where we are not wanted?

Typical of the NY Times.

We don't agree with what you have to say, so we won't publish you.

But, if you want to be just like our savior, Obama, then we will be happy to publish you.

F the NY Times. Liberal propaganda.

**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

What do you expect?

Mccain was a D student.
Obama graduated number 1 at Harvard Law.

They should give Mccan credit for spelling his name right.

**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

The NY Times is right on this one. When they were wrong I called them out too. YOU CAN NOT SIMPLY ATTACK ANOTHER PERSON'S POLICY WITHOUT LAYING OUT YOUR OWN STRATEGY. Mccain go ahead and take obama's lead just like you have with his Afghanistan plan for more troops.

New York Times has rights to publish anything they want. This is a free country. They can endorse Obama if they think appropriate. Everyone knows New York Times supports liberal candidates while Wall Street Journal supports conservatives.

Sen.McCain is quite dishonest and misleading in most of his utterances. He claims" I know how to win wars". Which war did he win?
His surrogate Joe Lieberman says"Obama can now tour Iraq because of the safety brought on by the "surge". How did McCain and his favorite Sancho Panza(Joe) tour Iraq before the "surge".
It is high time these bluffs got called.

How's it smell up there Libs? You've all got your heads buried so far up your rear, it's pathetic (say hi to the mainstream media while you're up there too.) Why is it anytime anybody calls out the messiah for something he said or his wife said, that it's an attack. If you actually read McCains Op Ed - it's not an attack piece. You pseudo intellictuals make me sick. It's no small wonder that the New York Times is going down the tubes - there's just not enough of dimwitted losers out there to read that biased tripe to keep it in business. I can't wait to see the look on all of your socialist faces when your Messiah gets his butt kicked at the voting booths. A lot of the morons who favor him in the polls will not even bother to vote.

How can you call it media bias? This is an editorial letter. Sen. Obama was talking about his plan with some criticism of Sen McCain, while McCain is just writing to complaint about it, making it a propaganda. There is a big difference between the letters.

And I am being objective about the subject.

Senator McCain needs to be an adult about this and let us know that he is capable of discussing his plans with us, the people who actually vote. Besides, I remember back in the Iowa Caucus, he mentioned that the people do not like negative campaigning… wow, how fast he forgot about that.

For all the whiners that claim that the Times is wrong for rejecting McCain's editorial, and showing some kind of bias - take your predictable and tired Conservative Outrage back to the good old "fair and balanced" Fox News.

Amercians view themselves as the smartest folks on the planet. Yet, they want to elect the second dumbest person into the top office, McCain. We might as well re-elect Bush for his third term. Atleast we would have someone who can think to some level; and not just behave as an attack dog.

Its probally was full of spelling errors because he says he realy does not know much about computers and thought spell check was a Warlock term.

i find it intresting that since the war got started Obama position has been that same. The GOP Brow beat him for only being there once. he goes again with the same message and is already ahead of the game in years. the Iraq Gvomnt' agrees with him. And the GOP still find a reason to brow beat him…why? Cause he once again beat them?

"I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner prematurely"

Didn't John McCain say last week that the surge was a "success" (as opposed to "is succeeding").Altough there has been improvement in Iraq, far be it to say the goal of the surge, creating a completely stable environment where political reconcilation can be achieved, has been obtained.

Today he was just saying that "he knows what Iraqis want"

Im voting for Barrack Obama because Im sick of the Republicans treating me like im stupid (i.e; Let me tell you want you should think). I had enough of this for the last 8 years.

It was an opinion, he should be able to write whatever he likes. He should have every right to have it published. The NY times should change their name to the obama times. Maybe now there will be no argument about bias and how the left have no time for anyone's opinion other than their own. That's very clear and reading some of these idiotic responses, they are just preaching to the choir.

Gee, what a shock. "The Treason Times" blocking out freedom of speech from a Republican, even if he is as liberal as their candidate. For all of you Fox News bashers out there, you might want to think again as to where the true bias in media really exists. It's in the "mainstream media", and here is the living proof.

All the Repugs can do is go negative. Not this week, John Boy!

Obama 08′

it's not too much to ask for a candidate to write a short essay that concerns itself with NEWSWORTHY policy debate rather than attacks and overused political talking points. Obama's piece had details and new information, McCain's lacks both and is not worth a page in the NYT.

From "An American" (?) - Get over yourself, McCain, and start telling us exactly what you plan on doing. From where I sit, your only plan is telling us what you think is wrong with Obama's plan.

I would like to hear details…even the SLIGHTEST detail of any sort from Obama…not just more, overplayed, worn-out rhetoric about hope, change, blah, blah, blah…..

Obama has NO DETAILS because he has NO PLAN …..just rhetoric and catch-phrases.

More people will end up reading this piece on the Drudge report than if the NYT had published it.

So much for free speech. I guess it's either the New York Times version or not at all!

Hey McCain, you want to be a “change I can believe in”, then tell me why I should vote for you instead of why I should NOT vote for Obama!

I am stunned that those who support Obama would not want balance in this election…and its coverage. And I say this is a Democrat who does not support McCain or any other Republican.

But now I remember: that is exactly what you COUNTED on during the Primary, in order to get Obama nominated. No dissidence, right? *With us or against us.* Boy, does that sound familiar.

You are all beginning to scare me a bit…

I am so tired of all the media hipe over Obama. They are not giving McCain same coverage so he can articulate his veiws. I must say even if I wanted to vote for Obama I would not because the media is so unfair…maybe I just need to watch FOX.

As a regular reader of the New York Times I think McCain shouldn't be censored and nor do I think he should have to self-censor himself as Mr. Shipley is obviously suggesting. Everyone knows the New York Times supports Obama. I'm fine with that and read the newspaper because of it's front-page reporting and not it's editorial page. Nonetheless, if it wants to be a part of the Obama campaign it should register with the Federal Election Committee and be subject to campaign finance laws. Even though it's a newspaper run by a corporation if it wants to give free advertising to a candidate that candidate should report it's value as a gift. In my view, the gift from the New York Times to Obama is probably worth several million dollars in which case several election laws were probably violated and the Times should be investigated for that.

Typical Republican 'editorial'… try to tear down the other person and their plans, reject facts, spin-doctor anything you don't like, and again, reject facts, without providing any of your own. No wonder McClone is such a horrible candidate… he comes from a horrible party.

Can't say I'm comfortable with the NY Times giving Obama an open forum and rejecting McCain. As with all Elections, this is very important and all americans should pay attention and become as informed as possible.

Additionally; I find many of these comments that readers posted very disheartening. When did we become such a hateful country? I'm not a fan of this President, but he is our leader and we're all Americans….like it or not.

The New York Times has clearly revealed its bias in this presidential campaign, as if there was any question before. I am a Democrat, but also a recovering journalist. Such blatant disregard of the need for balance on its editorial pages reflects poorly on those at the NY Times who still advocate for fair and balanced coverage of political campaigns.

Using McCain's logic: Start a war of choice. Endure thousands of deaths. Spend billions of dollars. Start a surge. Lose more lives. Spend billions more. And somehow we have succeeded. Yes, we have succeeded in cleaning up the mess we never should have started. How many times can you win a war? Remember Mission Accomplished?

Ok 2 things:
First - An editor has the right to print or not print whatever he or she chooses. It's the reason there is such a job, to filter out erronious, or otherwise fluff articles.

Second - If all McCain was going to do was gripe about Obama and not offer a concrete plan for our troops, the Iraq war, or the on-going conflict in Afghanistan than there really was no point to printing the article anyway since it probably didn't offer any insight other than more personal attacks. At least Obama has made points and is developing strategies, and puts forth these strategies for the public to review, where all McCain has spouted is the same ol' "stay the course."

New York Times editor, I solute you!

Those who defend this decision obviously care not about integrity in journalism or intelligent debate.

Liberals and conservatives are ruining this country. Their fanaticism has caused what should be sober minded persons in areas which used to be respected for integrity and fairmindedness, into bastions of hypocrisy.

No more can any liberal or conservative claim to be superior to the other. They are all the same.

mccain doesnt sell news.he distracts from it with bs.

All major media outlets should demand to know what McCain's definition of "Victory in Iraq" is. They have been letting the current administration slide for so long without demanding a definition from them.

McCain claims we are already victorious.

"Mission Accomplished" was declared years ago.

Yet, he thinks we need to keep fighting in Iraq?

Republicans have a very vague notion of what "victory" is, and it seems to change from day to day.

Maybe McSame wants to write about the Iraq Pakistan border? He not only has the same policies as Bush (well sometimes now that the Bush admin seems to be following Obama's lead), but he has as much knowledge as Bush as well

Just like when he refused to try and escape - AS IT WAS HIS DUTY TO DO - McCain is showing his cowardly side by attacking someone else instead of coming up with a plan of his own and defending THAT.

If McCains editorial is anything like his dry, boring speeches I would not print them either.

It is ok for that useless Obama to have freedom of speech but not Mc Cain. It is quite obvious the media wants to have Obama elected. What a tragedy for America!! If Obama gets more expereince than maybe so.

Finally, someone holding McCain to task! I wanted to vote for McCain, but I don't know where he stands, or if he even knows where he stands! Age doesn't have anything to do with it, he simply has no idea what he is talking about! His campaign and surrogates have to constantly whisper in his ear to REMIND him of previous statements he has made. I watch his town halls to have an open mind about this election, but all he does is attack Obama's plan, w/o giving specifics about HIS plans. I need a president that offers solutions whether they will work or not, and who listens to and calls upon the American people to work with him to restore this great nation. I am not hearing that from McCain, and I don't think I ever will, that's why as a long time Republican, I will be voting for a Democrat this November. My conscience simply won't allow me to sit back and watch McCain start WW3!!

OBAMA '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm an Obama supporter, and we all know the New York Times has a liberal slant, but this is out of line.

They should be presenting both candidates' viewpoints in an equal and unbiased manner.

Mike, Syracuse, NY:

Actually, it's not an abuse of the First Amendment. That amendment protects against GOVERNMENT infringement of a citizen's rights guaranteed under that amendment. The New York Times is a private business that has the right to decide what it does and does not print. Just like "Fox Noise" has the right to decide what it reports and, most unfortunately, how it reports. The bottom line is McCain needs to have his feet held to the fire. He needs to provide what he feels is a solution. It doesn't do him much good to just throw stones at Obama when he has offered nothing substantive on his part.

How journalism plays politics is wrong, just print what you need to from both candidated, if it were Obama saying the same thing would you print it, I bet you would. It doesn,t matter weather you print McCain's script or not, he will be the next President, all the American people are not crazy.

Does this surprise anyone at all? The New York Times……..the Left Wing Radical Arm of CNN News rejecting an editorial by Senator McCain? These folks have just announced to the WORLD that they are the Most Biased and Unfair, Media outlet in business. AND WHO CARES? HOW CLOSET RADICAL OF THE NEW YORK TIMES AND A MIRROR IMAGE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE NEW KNOW IT ALL OF THE MID EAST. How pitiful and how sad of the NYT. Fire the Editor.

McCain strategy is put more troops in the area while have no idea how long it'll take to work or if it'll work so he can't put timetables on it. Heaven forbid he makes a prediction of how long it would take. Being held captive for 5 years does not make you President worthy. He tried killing himself while being a POW. McCain can't even put together a plan good enough for the New York Times, how sad.

CNN, please help the morons who see media bias in this understand the difference between the news sections of the papers and the editorials. A quick primer on the difference might help them understand why what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell them differs from what the actual reporters report, as well as why the NY Times can be unbiased in its reporting, but take sides on in its editorial sections.

Thanks.

Iraq/Pakistan border..Yes Sir, McCain ! Please prepare an Agenda to hunt Osama and Al Qaeda there and to be there for 100 years !!!

Like I said, complaints about the Times being "biased" because they won't allow a candidate to bash another one.

Obama wrote an article that was consistent with the paper's policy on what they will publish from a political candidate. McCain doesn't, just criticizes and offers nothing about his plans or policies, and gets turned down. He is also told that they will publish McCain's article when it conforms to the paper's policy. I respect the Times more and McCain less.

Abby, FatCheck: McCain's mistake about the Iraq/Pakistan border is similar to Obama's suggestion that he would talk to the President of Canada about NAFTA… Do you really believe the candidates do not know those facts?… come on, le'ts focus on the issues…

NYT: How dare you criticize our candidate. Please re-write your article to be less critical of our nominee!

Is anyone surprised?

Wall Street has downgraded the Big Three networks from
"news" to "paparazzi."

They have lost their status as serious news.

patriotroom.com has the article

Have any of you ever watched Fox news channel? It's about time somebody reacted to the republican attack dogs.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS???????

The NY Times has the right to reject material but it's utterly ridiculous to suggest to someone like John McCain what he should say! Forget about objective reporting, they are making a mockery out of journalism. I am a registered Democrat but I find this particularly appaling and it's media acts like this NY Times spectacle that sway me in the direction of McCain!

What a joke, wake up America, Obama is not the president and needs to stop being treated as such. What a joke this whole election has become all because people want to PUT Obama in as president, the news media, Fox is excluded, but people like CNN are nothing more but a lovefest for Obama. I came to visit my sister in Georgia this week, you think that qualifies me to have experience on foreign policies considering I don't live in Georgia and btw no one paid for my trip..

Lovely…just lovely. The NYT will print a speech by one candidate, but when a rebuttal editorial is submitted, NYT wants to control it's content. So much for unbiased reporting. I'm so sick of the "journalism" and "news" that we receive any more that it makes me sick our citizens died for the right to free press….for us only to end up with garbage like the NYT.

Mike from Syracuse said,
"Amazing. The NY Times trying to tell a Presidential candidate what to say. Did it tell Obama what he had to say? This is media bias at it's worse. This is an abuse of the First Amendment."

They didn't have to tell Obama what to say, he wrote an editorial that expressed his views on substantial political issues, he didn't simply resort to bashing his opponent.

How is this media bias!? The Times are trying to facilitate an honest discussion on relevant issues, that should be important to anyone no matter who you support.

An abuse of the First Amendment!? Really? How? McCain can say whatever he wants, that doesn't mean the Times are obligated to publish it.

This is whats wrong with all the media. All they want to do is cover "Pretty Boy" Obama. It isnt fair!

Oh well I am sure the American people will see through him in the end!

McCain/Nobama 2008

The New York Times……………………unbiased?

NY Times, where's your demands on Obama? How many residual troops will he leave in Iraq, and for how long? CNN estimated it could be 30,000-50,000. How long will we be in Afghanistan? What's your timetable for that? What's your definition of victory there? This is an absolute outrage, and just shows the media bias that McCain is fighting.

Since when did page Editor David Shipley become the voice of what gets to be printed in a country where freedom of speech is paramount to an election, not to mention daily life?

Who cares if the media is tiring of tools and tactics used in an election… the media shouldn't be directing political opinion, the media is resource for disseminating information… ALL information and opinions, whether the page editor agrees with it or not!

Even though I will never vote for McWar, this was a bad move by the NYT. Obama's piece attacked McCain- can we really expect McCain not to attack Obama?

All the news we want to print.

The New York Times' job is to publish "the news" or (on the OpEd pages) individuals' views re: "the news".

I read the Obama OpEd piece… and there was nothing in it that he hasn't already been spouting during the campaign. By definition, it was NOT "the news". Therefore… it was (and rightly so for an OpEd piece), just somebody's opinion on "the news". Period. That's all it was.

So… what's their problem with publishing somebody else's opinion on "the news"?

The problem is obvious. The New York Times, it's editors and editorial staff, is and will be supporting the candidacy of Barak Obama for President of the United States… and will throw all it's significant resources behind that candidacy.

No dfferent than Fox News in the other direction.

Not surprising… but still very disappointing.

Monday, July 21, 2008:

"The Nevada Republican Party canceled its state convention for lack of interest. A quorum is 675 and only 300 people signed up. The delegates to the national convention will be chosen in a conference call."

Quoted from electoral-vote.com

How could one say NY Times is in bed with Obama (Voter, Omaha NE) ? This is the same paper that had the "satire" cover page correct? NYTimes know that no one want to hear McSame say the same old thing …. or throw mud at Obama … since Bush is changing his policies towards the same way Obama has suggested McSane doesn't know what to do hehehehehe it is sad but one thing about McBush he won't fail without a Good CRY!

Obama 08

<>????
Can anyone translate this elitist phraseology in ordinary people language???

Fair is fair!!! This is just what I expected from the NY Times. They are just like the rest of the media. So Biased. Wake up people. We the people have a right to our choices too. You get Obama….. You'll be sorry!

So biased!

It seems like McCain's article was all negative, without offering his own policy proposals. I hope he revises his article to show more of what he would do, and then the NYT will print it.

…wait…I'm a little confused. But Didn't McFlightSuit say last week that we won in Iraq? Did something happen over the weekend to where we are back at sqaure one? tisk…tisk…amature hour at camp Mccain…

And the media bias CONTINUES

God help this country!!!!!!!!

RIGHT ON NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE WERE TIRED OF MCcain B/S TALK ABOUT REAL ISSUE NOT CRITICISM.THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUFFERING REAL ISSUE AND WE WANT REAL ISSUE TO SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS.

It's looking like Obama will set the standard and McSame will react, attack, then check his facts. It does seems lately that McSame has been carrying out a smear campaign. I think it's because he realizes he's going to lose the election slowly but surely.

Some are questioning the amount of coverage Obama is receiving during his trips to Iraq, Iran and the other Countries, wasn’t this what McSain constantly bullied and slandered Obama about during the primaries and every chance he gets at the Town Hall meetings were he speaks.

Now that Obama has excepted McSane constantly bullied and slandered arguments by traveling to these countries, McSane now realize that Obama’s has taken away his so called negative leverage. His bulling and toting has back fired and he can’t fool the voters anymore during his speeches, is now upset with the New York Time.

The New York Times has asked him to submit an article they would approve, within that article request the New York Times stated the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate”, this is now said to be a demand by the New York Times.

Watch out McSane and camp you’re showing a sign of desperation. Is this being considered a demand because the New York Times is asking for an article with a degree of honesty?

Obama 08

I am glad the New York Times refuses to be a mouth piece for the worst candidate in history. All he can do is attack Obama, while having no ideas of his own. He takes credit for the surge like it was his idea. I think military people a little higher up would make those decisions. Don't you think? His campaign has had nothing but parrots out all weekend saying the exact same thing. It's really getting old.(No pun intended) McSame is really getting desperate and it will only get worse. Negative, Negative…that 's all he has.

Retired Marine, is that all you can do. Pick on people's name like some middle school kid !! ridiculous..Did you forget to bring back something from your previous war zone..like your lobes perhaps.

Is Senator Obama really saying anything new himself? Almost everyone in the democratic side had said the same thing about Iraq. Only those closely tied to the administration is contradicting it.

The difference is Obama appears to say it better - deliver it better.

That is unacceptable. The media has been brain washed.

Well, there has been no better example of biased journalism. Give nobama free press and reject it for McCain. And for you nobama idiots posting, you'd have more credibility if you'd learn to spell.

This is yet another example of McCain trying to win this election based on his POW status. He has not real plan other then to keep the current Bush plan, instead of telling us what he plans to do he wants to bash Obama.

Come on, John McCain writing. You mean, he had someone write for him. So we missed someone else's words, not John let-me-stand-closer-to-you-Bush McSame.

It's about time the media called out McCain.

Does anybody know what his position on ANYTHING is?

We just know that he doesn't like any of Obama's positions.

That is bologne. The media has been brain washed. God help us!

McCain's op-ed piece isn't news at all, but a forum for McCain's attacks. Those kinds of tactics worked against him in the 2000 election and he's hoping they will work for him this year. I believe that people this time will be checking facts and listening to the candidates put forth their agendas before deciding, not relying on attack ads. The problem with McCain's new strategy is that he isn't putting out as much as he is attacking. He talks more about Obama than the Obama campaign. I get confused about his message because he devotes so much of his "ad" time to his opponent. He couldn't even go on late night tv, have a few laughs and go home without critizing Obama. Give it a rest for at least 20 minutes! If the American public elects on the basis of attack ads like we've done for the last two elections, then we get what we deserve.

What does the time table for withdrawl by the Iraqi government do to McCains 100 year war plans?

Who reads the NY Times anyway. They are trying to increase readership by generating controversy.. Gee… now I must go read McCain's article to see what he has to say about Nobama. Vote for Ron Paul.
McCain attacked Nobama because everyone already knows McCain's Iraq policy.. Stay in Iraq for 99 years. He said it clearly. How much clearer can he get? His choice is to have a base like we do in Korea and Germany and Okinawa.. To ensure stability in that part of the world. And have control over the oil and Iran.

I support Obama, but even I have to say that this is ridiculously shameless bias from NYT

The McCain, this is not FIX News, take your attacks eleswhere and present some real solutions instead of more of the same!

(NUMEROUS COMMENTS SUBMITTED, PLEASE POST FOR ONCE)

McCain never had anything positive to offer the American people, just baseless criticism. That's why The Times rejected his hate speech.

who wants to hear mccain's constant railing? Gives us something to think about, not just how Obama is wrong…

I learned a long time ago in very hard places and situations that "Flashy" was not always better than "Boring."
Obama

McCain criticized the tactic and troop levels from the start. Never has he suggested 'more of the same." The "surge" worked because of sound troop levels and tactics.

The US will get the president and congress it deserves.

If John McCain had his way, we'd still be fighting in Vietnam.

Does McCain not realize that victory has to include the Iraqis standing up for themselves and not being dependent on the US?

If now–at the time of the lowest level of violence since the beginning of the war–is not the time to test the the capacity of the Iraqis to secure their own counrty, then when will be the time?

Judgement day is coming if people don't hop off the Obama marketing bandwagon and realize what he is and how his policies will destroy the fabric of American life.

Vote for security in November - Vote McCain.

I'm a firm Obama supporter, and a regular reader of the New York Times. I also think the Times should have printed McCain's article, which I just read. Yes it's biased and unbalanced and yes McCain has bungled his facts. But it is the Times's job to print a major political figure's opinion, and then let the readers decide if they agree or not. Isn't that what an op-ed page is for? After all, they print Bill Krystal's column ever week, and he is just as far right, and often as wrong and out of context, as McCain.

Obama wrote an article spelling out his positions on Iraq, and Afghanistan. McCain was supposed to do the same, but he instead wrote and article of critical of Obama's positions ,without spelling out his own positions.

Is like if this was a job interview, and you are asked to describe your self. And you say nothing about your self, but talk only of how much better you are than the last person interviewed.

The Times also were within their rights to request details about McCain's plans. Problem is, he doesn't have one.

Did McCain actually write the piece himself or did his staff… that's what I want to know. I read the piece, it was garbage and provided nothing new. It wasn't even a good rebuttal. McCain keeps talking about supposedly winning in IRAQ and I keep wondering 'Winning' What? When we know McCain's mission, maybe then we could know how it was winnable.

Yes, Senator McCain, I would like to hear what your plans are for Iraq. Instead of just criticizing Senator Obama, I would like to hear what you consider a win in Iraq to be, and how long your propose to keep us there. I would seriously like to know what your plans are. Good for the NY Times for not wanting to just run an attack piece on Obama.

McCain doesn't get it–and never will!

Believe it or not to those crying media bias, the New York Times doesn't have to publish anything that a prominent person rights. If you read their opinion page there are smart, nuanced editorials from the right and the left all the time. So, no, they aren't wrong to demand that if McCain wants to be in this forum he has to discuss things on that level.

There are plenty of outlets for simplistic, right v. left negativity, congrats to the New York Times for trying to demand a deeper discussion of the issues…

Just send it to that hateful Bill Oreily and that nasty Hannity, those two have a hugh hatred for Obama till they can't see straight. LOL I don't watch these idiots but I have seen enough to know they are so bitter I have no idea how they stay on the air. OMG hannity is still talking about rev wright, get a life idiot.

Obama

If I understand well, the NY suggests to McCain to stop whining and to propose his own proposals, rather than unsubstantiated criticisms???
What is wrong with that??
He should follow this advice ASAP, maybe this could give him some credibility.

Are liberals becoming defenders of freedom of speech only if it mirrors their speech?

Don't worry John, Sean Hannity will publish it, the whole thing. He wants every American to vote for you, and makes it very clear on his show. So he'll read it on the air, tonight. Just don't expect non Republicans to hear it, we won't because Fox Noise is bias.

If I were McCain I would feel slighted, and tell the NY T to go scratch and I would resubmit to another source. The editor liked the obama format more so he requests tha McCain follow obama's lead, not very smart MR editor.

McCain sounds bitter and desperate. I love how the republicans refer to a "time horizon" which is B.S. because they're too prideful to just accept the fate of a "time table". The Bush administration and McCain need to see that more respect is given to those who admit their mistakes and change their paths to a better course.

Here! Here! for the Editor of the NY Times. I am so tired of hearing the candidates complain about what another candidate is or isn't doing. I want to hear what each candidate stands for on their own and then make my own decision. It is so sad to see politicians doing this at the local and national level. Do they really have no respect for our intelligence or is it that they just don't know the answers and are avoiding the subject !

LOL, I am glad that they rejected his op-ed. Maybe is he wrote about what he would do instead of attacking attacking attacking. We know that you do not agree, but why?

Jesus, I love that liberal rag. Not just the NY Times, but every media outlet - print, TV, internet - and their daily felating of Obama. Obama has carte blanche to do and say whatever. John McCain is held to a different standard. Incredible.

The US and the media better hope that their Golden Boy can lead the country….

It wasn't because they couldn't read his longhand letter….really.

They just couldn't get past all the manure left by the Pony Express horse.

He really should take some lessons for the computer and email.

The Times made a good call. McSame's letter was probably almost completely factually false, anyway. Can McSame remember how to write? He's pretty old and haggardly. If McSame wants to respond to Obama's letter by attacking him, let him pay for airtime. Spend all that money, McSame!!!

YES WE WILL TAKE BACK THIS COUNTRY!!!
Obama '08

No surprise here. The NY Times is the most biased tabloid in America.

My goodness — the politics, the rhetoric of the war on terror in Iraq. I hope when Obama returns from the Middle East he will tell the American people that despite the FAILED policies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, we are winning the war in Iraq, but not because of the Washington politicians; we are winning because of our troops. God bless our troops. It is their resolve, fortitude, stamina, brillance and excellent training that we are winning in Iraq. Our troops were sent to the Middle East without a game plan. They worked out a game plan as the war progressed. This is why America is such a great nation right now. And, we can have an even greater nation with Obama as our President. The ordinary people, not the Washington insiders, are bringing home victory for America. I am very displeased with our nation and its policies, but I so love the American people. Obama has led the way for the people to take back control of this nation. No to the Clintons. No to the Bushs. Yes to the People! Hurry on November. Obama '08

McBush said Iraq is a success but yet he said there are upcoming Al-Qaeda attacks in Iraq, so how do you measure success?? This guy is confusing himself on the whole thing, and now the GOP and Bush mafia are calling a timetable, time "horizon". These guys are really insane. What American is stupid enough to believe this?

Now McSame is scrambling since Obama set foot in the middle east. After McSame said if was safe to walk around in Baghdad market with a bullet proof vest and helicopters flying over.

Does he really think we are that stupid???

I have no idea of what McCain's platform is, unless it's to attack Obama until he concedes. He must have learned that strategy in 'Nam

McCain does not want to clearly out line his position at this time as he does not want his plans, if he has any, to be critique by any one else. He just wants to talk about his own war experiences, smile, and give the impression that he has wisdom. Now McCain states: “victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables."

Obama has stated in clear terms that we should have a time line, but always qualified the time line based on the situation as it progresses. Obama inspires my confidence to do what is right in Iraq. He has not changed his position on Iraq, but I am Ok if he does, as long as he makes informed decisions at each critical junction and is always honest with the American people.

It would be easier for all of us if the NY Times just came out and said they were a paper that supported the Democrat party and left wing political ideology.

This way any aditional loss of readership could be blamed on the Replicans, like everything else.

New York Times basically just called McCain an idiot.

Interesting………..if we don't like what you have to say, we won't print it.

No bias here!

No worries though as paid readership falls I suspect Wacko Barako will bail them out to keep the media reporting fair.

I'm impressed with the NY Times and their steadfastness in being balanced. I've seen some comments claiming that this is biased reporting, but you really have to look at the facts.

Obama submitted a piece that gave his stance on Iraq and how to deal with the problem. Did it take a few potshots at McCain? Sure. Of course it did. It was a critique as well as a suggestion.

McCain's article was nothing other than slander. Biased reporting would be allowing that trash to be published. Asking McCain to stop being a baby and write what his plans are isn't bias; it's only fair.

Maybe the NYT is afraid McCain will write something idiotic like.. oh i don't know.. the IRAQ PAKISTAN BORDER?!!!?

McWeasel is nothing more than a tired old man, whining about not being treated fairly by the media and the NY Times. Learn to write an op-ed piece that is NOT FoxNews' concept of fair & balance, and maybe the world will take McWeasel seriously when he parts his mealy-mouth to discredit the next president of the United State.

President Barack Obama

How sweeeeeeeeeet!

McCAin = old man yells at clouds.

Obama 08

I think McCain needs to learn that Obama gets more cover time because he is more interesting

Wow–this was interesting. I may subscribe or check out the New York Times. McCain blusters about the other guy, but never says anything himself other than bomb bomb bomb. Great to see some backbone.

another blatant example of the media glorifying obama. i and many others agree that the media bias in obama's favor is absolutely nauseating. never has the media been so determined to influence an election. this behavior is completely disgusting.

Wasn't John McCain part of the Keaton Five ( the '80s loan and saving failure). Where countless american lost they life savings. So believe him when he say he knows nothing about the ecomony. By the way, CNN, still waiting on the story about how McCain didn't know that Iraq and Pakistan DO NOT SHARE A BORDER.

The Times is in Obama's back pocket….as are the rest of the MSM. Simply a shame that the American people are being so lead by media. Obama will have the economy in a depression….and oh ya - let's not forget that the nomination campaign was to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. NOW - oops, they will be going to Afghanistan. Do not count on seeing any of the troops in Iraq anytime soon!!! So the General Election campaign promise will be - "oh forget what I said during the nomination process - things are different now"…no they aren't - he has just gotten a bit more knowledge. Naiive and inexperience at it's best! Wonder how much the Times plans on making if Obama is elected?

Again and again McCain has nothing to say for himself except to attempt to bring down Obama.
We will listen to McCain's plans but are sick of his negative ramblings. The "kitchen sick: mentality did not work for Clinton and it is not working for McCain either.
You need to try something else John. Can't you see by now that what you are doing is not working?

This is what the media SHOULD BE DOING …

require both candidates to present and defend their own plans as a precondition for getting published.

Sounds like Obama did this ALREADY with his 1st submission …

I've tired of politicians like McCain consuming the public airwaves and the constitutionally empowered FREE PRESS with their negative views of their opponent without saying why they deserve our votes.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS you need to follow suit.

Editor David Shipley is biased. He should have not accepted Obamas editorial page too. We have seeen the major tv networks swinging in that direction. What's wrong with this election. People should know that this election is between kenyan Anchor Baby and All American Baby; Between liberal and moderate. go figure!

This is why newspapers are floundering … they think they know more than their readers … why not let the readers decide if McCain's article is worthwhile? And the truth is, Iraq is not ready for us to leave yet … what happens in their next elections will be very important to stability in the Middle East.

Maybe the NYT is afraid McCain will write something idiotic like.. oh i don't know.. the BORDER IRAQ PAKISTAN BORDER?!!!?

Who's the king of attack and fear-mongering? None other than Lee Atwater's protoge, Karl Rove. So it's no wonder McCain's piece is not full of substance, but rather full of attacks on Obama.

John McCain has Karl Rove as an advisor; if McCain gets elected, there is no doubt we will have four more years of Bush, because it's been Rove (and Cheney and Norquist and Rumsfeld) who've been running the country from the get-go.

McSame won't define what success would be because he and the neo-cons want to stay in Iraq forever with mutiple bases to protect our interests, ie. OIL. He said it himself "… go to war for oil" My freinds, our troops are diying and being physically and psychologically maimed -not because of 911-for oil. For oil companinies and corporations. We,ve heard enough from this blow-hard.

How can McCain continue insisting on fighting where the people say "no?" It's incredible! There are just so many ways to say, "No thank you. We don't want your help anymore."

Mike form Syracuse,

The point is that there are certain criteria worth publishing and some that is not. McCain offers nothing of relevance except for a free opportunity to lay into Obama. That is not editorial stuff.

They did the right thing and give McCain a second try. Hopefully he has some depth in his character to come back and enlighten us how he will be different that Bush and save this country with not knowing much about the economy.

It's not an "editorial." An editorial is collective opinion of members of an editorial board. It's a column.

Because he will "Veto Every Beer that come to his table…. lol according to his words. I can't believe that, and thats someone who wants to e our president. NO WAY !!!

Shipley had advised the McCain campaign that “the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

FINALLY!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,

"that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."

What position? He has no position. He has no plan for 'victory' in Iraq. And he does not have a clue about Afganistan ('the Iraq/pakistan border" John McCain") Why cant who ever writes these news pieces add in those facts.

Can somebody in the media please call McCain on just one of his incoherrent statements. It would have been great for the United States if someone had done this about bush in 2000. Instead the majority of Americans had to wait until after he was elected that Bush cannot speak in complete sentences or make any sense even when he does finish (the childrens do learn- Bush)!

The NYTimes stance does not surprise me due to their extreme left-wing positions. But, it appears that they are now trying to manipulate what the subscribers read and that is very bad for journalism. They should be taken to court!

Funny how McCain has become exactly what the Democrats were accused of during the early years of the Bush presidency - a tired, bitter relic with no other use or purpose than to attack their opponents while contributing no new ideas or solutions to the problems and issues of our country.

That's pretty disgusting. And shame on some of the Obama supporters here who don't mind blantant violations of the First Amendment if it helps out their guy.

Man, McCain is insane. You think you can write propaganda and just hand it to a major newspaper? The Times was correct on calling this Bozo on it.

You can't win an election by smearing your opponent with lies this time. The American people are sick of it, and we will not be distracted into thinking the GOP wants to be honorable after all these years.

Hey John, buy a clue–this is America, not China.

McBush doesn't know how to use the computer, so he probably never got a chance to read Obama's article. McCain is NOT fit to be President, period.

Obama called it right.
mr McCains judgement is impaired. you can't vanilla coat it..
it is what it is. terrible losses in lives and money.

Obama 08

Wasn't John McCain part of the Keaton Five ( the '80s loan and saving failure). Where countless american lost they life savings. So believe him when he say he knows nothing about the ecomony.

By showing such a bias favorable to Obama, the NYT has lost some of the respect of its readers. Hwo do they dare to say "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.” The newspaper should let McCain write, what'd help America to understand how he works and then decide.

Bloggers claim CNN is biased and they print nonimportant stuff, and now the media is stepping up asking McCain to print intelligent, detailed and fact based information in his article and the Jim says they favor Obama.

Just like I thought a bunch of dummies.

I guess it was fine for the Times to print op-ed's from Arafat and Hamas amonst others, but McCain no way. They are a nothing but a left wing rag.

Completely unabashed bias by the NYT. Their refusal to allow Senator McCain to rebutt the accussations and remarks of Senator Obama proves beyond the shadow of doubt what I have said all along…the media is promoting and protecting Senator Obama to the detriment of our democracy. They, having chosen to publish Senator Obama's op-ed peice, should be forced to publish Senator McCain's.

I don't care what party or person you support for any office - this is not how things are to be done in America. Anyone supporting the NYT's behavior in this matter should be soundly ashamed of themselves.