It is not about adultery
"I assume that most people who have committed a sexual indiscretion will try to cover it up," says the very sensible Gideon Rachman. And then, in "Adultery, honesty and the presidential election", he adds one of the best observations yet about l'affaire McCain:
"Anyway, I think it is much harder to be honest as a politician than as a spouse. The nature of their trade sooner or later forces most politicians into lying — on an almost daily basis. It doesn't mean they are bad people. It is just that they are constantly asked questions that it would be foolish to give a straight answer to. Have you thought about sacking X? Have you been conducting secret discussions with country Y? As a politician, you will inevitably have to lie."
The irony here, of course, is that Rachman is part of the vulture industry that feasts on the cadavers of politicians by outing their "duplicity" when all hacks know very well that "As a politician, you will inevitably have to lie." And, as Rachman commentator Lisa-Helene Lawson notes in response to the post, " Oh dont be ridiculous...it was a poorly written article...and to run it front page and center...unbelieveably stupid...this has nothing to do with 'blaming the messenger'... NYT has egg on their face...I love journalism, my father was one of the best...this article was a journalistic embarrassment..." Jeff Jarvis asks: What is the Times thinking? and Clark Hoyt tries to tell us. Rainy Day repeats its opinion: This is not about adultery or John McCain.
