Consider reader Wade’s response:

Yep, Obama’s article wasn’t directed at anyone and just outlined his oh-so-well defined plan- 16 month withdrawl, “carefully”-so much detail! I am reeling with all the information. What a god of politics.

That’s why Obama said “unlike Senator McCain” multiple times in his article, practically demanding a response. Then McCain mentions Obama, and it is “about Obama” and not about his position, which he also discusses in his article.

I can’t believe anyone would bend over so far backwards to support the NYT’s clearly biased rejection of McCain’s article.

Do you really think you would support the NYT if they had rejected Obama’s article?
Posted by: Wade | 21 Jul 2008 18:58:54

Or, the comment by Nomad:

There’s a big difference between the two examples. The British press is much more partisan, no one there pretends to be an impartial referee.

In the U.S., the NY Timesand the rest of the print media do aspire to that particular conceit. As a result, when they do something like this they open themselves to criticism that they favor one side.

U.S. journalism has been moving towards the British model for a long time now as public confidence in the referee claims of papers like the Times erodes – but we’re still nowhere near the same level of outlet polarization. The Times just moved us another step closer today.
Posted by: Nomad | 21 Jul 2008 19:12:16

Or, by Mark:
I am flabbergasted by your sense that Obama’s piece “pretty much avoided point scoring.” It opened with Obama’s favorite ‘point’: “Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began.” And it ended, “for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges.” In between, it hit each and every “point” in the orthodox anti-war litany. The NYT should not have run Obama’s press release. Having chosen to do so, it should also have run McCain’s response.
Posted by: Mark G@lliher | 21 Jul 2008 20:08:24

At memeorandum, the top story is of course the McCain editorial fiasco. But right next on the list is this doozy- From Rasmussen Reports:

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win

That particular headline was on the minds of readers of London Times (Yes Daniel F., we in US think of it as the London Times, and NYT as the Times).

Including reader Jim Miller who wrote:

According to Rasmussen, just one in four Americans believe that journalists are trying to be fair in this campaign. With the help of the New York Times, and journalists like Daniel Finkelstein, I think we can get that down to one in eight by the election.
It will be hard to get it down to single digits, but with your help, even that may be possible. (Incidentally, you should mention the past Clinton ties of the man who made the decision.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | 21 Jul 2008 23:02:17

That last line is interesting. Just about every Bill Clinton acolyte has gravitated to the new and hopeful winner. Everyone except James Carville the unofficial Judas-Watchkeeper. At last count 300 advisors were involved in the team that put out the ‘winning’ op-ed piece.  Wow, with that kind of brain power Times may get to vote again, and soon.

PS: Philip Klein at the American Spectator does get it,

comparing it to Obama’s column, I see no qualitative difference. Yes, the McCain column is a political document that doesn’t have many specifics, but the same can be said for Obama. To the extent that Obama does have some specifics — a 16-month timetable — that’s a result of the a policy disagreement. It isn’t evidence that somehow Obama article was more thorough or original.