Useful only for outhouses and fish stores.

From Judy Miller to Bill Kristol, Its lost the privilege of being taken seriously.

Sorry GOPrs and your apologists but you reap what you muhfukin sow. Let her problems be a warning to the others.

Once again, you do us a great service, Mr. Greenwald.

There is a spiral of ever-increasing incivility and cruelty in this society. Probing for dirt in Cindy McCain's life has nothing to do with the huge problems the country faces. Why aren't these reporters out asking about governmental corruption and abuse of power?

Does the long, grueling and abusive presidential campaign provide psychic justification for the President who abuses power in office?

A case of - we did all this digging to see if there was anything relevant; found nothing; but had to write a story anyway.

...and so if you addressed the issue I'm bring up, then consider this posting null and void.

I do sincerely applaud your ability to defend the privacy of Cindy McCain at this late date, based only on ethical principle. I am not so noble, and I could write a very lenghty post on the fates I wish would befall her.

However. Wouldn't you agree that Cindy McCain has thrust herself into the spotlight? She is an agent of the McCain campaign as surely as any other paid vessel (her remarks about Obama sending cold whatever's up her spine), and her riches and connections have been crucial to the rise of John McCain. Her business also seems to unduly benefit from her relationship. I can't speak to the article, since i haven't read it.

But what I am disagreeing is the idea that she has a right to privacy. John Edwards may no longer be running for office, but for ill or better Cindy McCain is running a de facto campaign to be first lady. In that position, she is sure to benefit her own business interests. What she has been subjected to is rather light compared to the lies and innuendo circulated about Obama and his family (and no, I am not in homage of Obama, but I do want him to win).

Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama should be subjected to a certain degree of scrutiny. If they've said crazy things on the campaign trail, that would be noteworthy.

But when is rummaging around in their personal lives appropriate? Cindy McCain was an addict, and she unsurprisingly did some stupid things to support that addiction. That information has been public for a long time. Does this have the slightest bearing on how John McCain would govern? No. Beyond

puerile tabloid titillation, that information is irrelevant.

Does it make it to deadline? Will people read it? That seems to be about the limit, as far as I can tell. Yes Glenn, you're right, this isn't the way it should be done. To quote, "but I don’t give a f$^% who they screwin’ in private

I wanna know who they screwin’ in public."

That space and energy would have been better spent exploring the policies of the candidates, or even why, or why not, they're not suited for the job. Unless Cindy McCain has strong influences that actually matter, that might shape the policies of her husband, I don't really care.

The Times and McInsain have many things in common now don't they? Most of all they once stood tall and proud now they have sunk lower and lower into to the wingnut world of slimy muck.

"Who cares ... [if Cindy McCain] was caught stealing drugs from her nonprofit organization to feed her addiction to painkillers,"

Well, actually I do and a lot of other people do. The United States is in an endless hugely destructive war against its own people, over 1% of whom languish in jail. And the most common sort of victim is an African-American man who simply consensually sold someone else marijuana, a drug with far less harm potential than almost any other drug taken for pleasure.

We absolutely know for sure that if Mrs. Obama had a drug conviction on her record, a victimless crime, her family would not be on the national stage. Why does Mrs. McCain get a pass when she stole the drugs she illegally consumed from a charity?

Glenn's forte is comparing the reality of our public discourse against a John Mills model of truth searching. He is well served in this endeavor by his legal training.

In legal terms this post asks why evidence from Cindy McCain's personal life should be presented to the jury. Given that it just has been, and by the foremost authority among the established and reputable media, he asks whether there are any standards left regarding the private lives of political figures.

There probably aren't, but it isn't the media who are responsible for this. Consider a case the NYTimes could make to justify this admission of evidence. They could argue that McCain offered justified his choice of running mate by pointing to her purportedly excellent performance as a Christian mother (Down syndrome baby, son in military, moose dressing, hockey mom-ing, ridiculously named but numerous progeny.)

In doing this, the Times could argue, McCain opened the door to evidence from his own half of the ticket to establish whether or not the McCains can also boast exemplary Christian mother-and-wifehood. That the Times did not bother to argue for the admissibility of this evidence is merely evidence that all politicians routinely offer attestations of family character.

Until politicians are willing to offer themselves as political leaders but not family role models, the press must investigate their personal and family lives.

articles like this clearly have an audience, even among the supposedly hyper-intellectual and uber-liberal NY Times readers (which, of course, most are not). And, of course, there's no lack of "journalists" who like writing them, because they're easy, make headlines, fit in with today's issues-free personalized brand of "journalism", and usually help one's career along. It's really a symbiotic thing--peddlers of journalistic crap for consumers of journalistic crap.

I honestly could care less about Cindy McCain's private life. It's none of my business, has little to no bearing on the issues that matter today, or on her husband's qualification to be president, and is pretty much a waste of my and any thinking person's time. If you're into this stuff, then there's clearly something wrong with you, especially these days, with all the real problems we face. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who do "care" about this stuff, as opposed to things that actually matter, and they make publishing this profitable.

It's all part, I think, of the sad state of our culture these days, where despite all that's going on, so many people still don't know or care much about the major issues of the day, and find it easier, and more comforting, to waste their time reading this nonsense, or watching moronic "reality" shows about bachelors and houses and jungle races--i.e. anything that doesn't ask one to think, because thinking is hard, and hard is bad.

When--and how--did we become so stupid, and infantile?