No, no, no. The NYTimes hinted at a public scandle influence of lobbyist to hint at a private scandal an affair. They had no evidence of either but after the Clinton era, they must have a public scandal for the private scandal to matter.
They would say this thing about Obama is merely a private matter and has no public scandal implications. Personally, I see the guy as a Clinton plant, but who knows.
They might say that about gay blowjobbery but they can't say that about crack smoking.