Vicki Iseman Scandal!

First, a few words about McCain’s rebuttal to the now infamous Times Piece.

He said, “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or made a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization.”

He also responded, “No” when asked if he had ever had a romantic relationship with Vicki.

These statements do not address what seems to me to be the central question – did he ever have any sexual contact with her.

“Romantic” is a slippery word. “Betraying the public trust” is equally slippery.  I know that he was addressing the concern that he behaved unethically in giving her companies special treatment.  But that’s less my concern, only because I think that McCain is at least intellectually in the right place about the power of lobbyists.  These statements leave possibilities open, even when they seem to deny “wrongdoing”.  These aren’t quite as good as Bill Clinton’s ontological query, but still.

My personal take on this is that the Times was in an incredibly tight spot with a very juicy story.  They ran a very, very tame article which suggested way more than it said.

The most “damning” part of the article was that “aides” had been concerned that the relationship had gone too far, and that they had confronted McCain and Iseman about it. On more than one occasion – which suggests to me that it was 100% misperception on the part of the “aides”.

But I think that Barack Obama needs to handle this very carefully – this right here is the politics of division, and he obviously benefits from it.  (Why do all of his opponents just fade away???)  So be careful Barack – now is not the time for a “you’re likable enough” joke.

Keep it positive, and let the NYtimes take the heat for playing gutterball.  (not that I’m sure that they are – but I’m reserving judgment till I know more…)

What do you think?  Did McCain leave himself a “way out” so that he wasn’t quite contradicting himself?


1 Response to “Vicki Iseman Scandal!”

  1. 1 sebastion bach February 21, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Did he say anything under oath? I don’t think anybody’s going to try to analyze and deconstruct in that vague, squishy-ass statement.

    She looks way better in that Times photo than she does in the other image of her (the one from her bio) that’s been circulating on blogs. Maybe she does fall into some sort of flilf category for somebody (NOT me) — but only if the “F” and the “L” stand for “Female Lobbyist.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: