Walking on Eggshells

I seriously doubt that reporters don't recognize McCain's conservatism, even if it is in doubt by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the gang. But they surely appreciate having the chance to question him for hours every day.

It seems like every liberal woman who comes out for Obama feels the need to explain it to the sisterhood. Here's Naomi Wolf:

"If I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else. Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision."

Newspapers, you may have noticed, are always touting polls about politician. But Captain Ed picks up on a less-than-flattering poll about a newspaper,

"The New York Times marks another milestone on its journey to National Enquirer status. The Gray Lady's smear piece on John McCain got 66% of Rasmussen respondents believing that the paper deliberately trying to kneecap the Republican frontrunner. Only 22% think that the paper had clean motives in publishing the unsubstantiated gossip:

"The Times recently became enmeshed in controversy over an article published concerning John McCain. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the nation's likely voters say they have followed that story at least somewhat closely.

"Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain's chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.

"Let's take a look at the crosstabs. Among age groups, a majority in each demographic believe that the NYT deliberately set out to damage McCain's reputation. The youngest give Bill Keller and company the most credit, with 34% believing that the Times was just reporting the news, as opposed to 53% who believed that the paper aimed to smear McCain. No other age demographic has more than 23% who believe that the Times operated with pure motives, and two-thirds across all other ages believe that they acted out of malice.

"It doesn't get better in the other demographics, either. Whites, blacks, and 'others' all strongly believe that Keller and his reporters acted maliciously. Sixty-nine percent of independents joined 40% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans in that belief. Only self-professed liberals believe that the Times used sound news judgment in running the piece; conservatives and moderates overwhelmingly blame bias and malice."

By the way, the non-sexual parts of that NYT story involved McCain asking the FCC to make a decision one way or the other for broadcaster Bud Paxson, one of Vicki Iseman's clients. But Forbes concludes that McCain didn't do much on the big-picture issues:

"During the six-year-long fight that followed, McCain never wavered from his opposition to the legislation Paxson pushed, which would have diverted those billions into his company's coffers and away from the U.S. Treasury. Whether McCain did any other, smaller favors for Paxson is a question that will draw new attention as the campaign heats up. But, at least on the issue of most consequence, the two strong-willed men were implacable foes."

Finally, Washington has a new investigation to worry about, or as the New York Post puts it, "ROCKET PROBE BLASTING OFF":

"Roger Clemens ' life has officially gone from ERA and RBI to DNA and the FBI.

"The FBI announced yesterday it has begun to investigate the 45-year-old former Yankees star for perjury. The announcement came one day after the leaders of a congressional committee wrote a referral to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation."

Now that's hardball.