I think NYT’s view is that McCain should talked more about his plan rather than using the editorial to simply attack Obama
Sounded like he attacked Obama's position, not Obama. How else do you debate?
Period.
no the NYT's view is that surrender is a plan, winning is not
The NY Times view is a lie. Please don’t tell me you believe it.
their rejection is based upon the fact that most of the editorial’s content is a criticism of Obama rather than talking about what he would do.
I would like to take this as an opp to rip the NYT, but it sounds like a revised piece focused more on his plans as opposed to just a rebuttal would be accepted.
Ahh so candidates need to seek NYTs approval before having an opinion?
This is about the bias of NYT and nothing else.
He is at fault then for not communicating clearly his directive as an editor and with such a hot political potato and he having a previous career with the Clinton administration, he is an idiot if he meant otherwise. I think at best he was purposely ambiguous and at worse he said exactly what he means. Truth be told either way he is a horrible editor of others' content-- look at where it got him and the paper.
McCain's content will be out there for even more to see now and the NYT gets yet another stain. The man is a louse.
Obama used his editorial to attack McCain and Bush.
Interesting, You dont dance to Hussain’s tune, you dont get what you want.
Which candidate do either of you support for president at this point in time?
You “think that NYT’s view is....”
Well but sensible people don’t care about NYT’s view and want a fair campaign where the candidates can criticize each other and specifically WHERE McCAIN CAN CRITICIZE OUSbama EVEN IF the liberal “””BIBLE”””,the NYT,don’t like it.
Defeating ouBSAMA in November would be a great defeat for the MSM.They deserve it