Where The New York Times sees an editorial scolding, the McCain campaign sees an opportunity.
At issue is an editorial, which appeared yesterday on The Times blog "The Board," accusing the McCain campaign of "starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford."
McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb just sent out this statement, attacking The Times as hysterically pro-Obama:
"If the shareholders of the New York Times ever wonder why the paper’s ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper’s editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate. This campaign has never engaged in ‘racially tinged attacks,’ and the Obama campaign conceded as much yesterday in a statement clarifying that "Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue."
That the Times made this allegation in a blog post rather than running it on the editorial page indicates that they either knew the charge was bogus or they didn’t have the nerve to make their case in full view of the public. But in their new role as bloggers, the paper’s editors seem to have all the intelligence and reason of the average Daily Kos diarist sitting at home in his mother’s basement and ranting into the ether between games of dungeons and dragons. They also have about as much care for the facts–the "board" has already been forced to append a correction."