The New York Times' campaign against Republican nominee John McCain is getting into full swing, but it has a certain wistful quality. Like this headline: "On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain’s Bout With Melanoma." If only the voters cared more about melanoma!

Of course, it's hard for even the New York Times to produce a long article without mentioning some facts. So the paper has to admit:

The final pathology analysis showed no evidence of spread of the melanoma. *** Mr. McCain’s prognosis for the recurrence of melanoma can be gauged only by talking to experts not connected with his case. Those experts say his prospects appear favorable. *** No spread has been detected in the three or four dermatologic checkups Mr. McCain has undergone each year since 2000, stress tests show no evidence of heart disease, and “his doctors consider him in very good health...."

So there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. No wonder there are "few mentions of McCain's bout with melanoma on the campaign trail." Still, the Times complains that, having made an unprecedented disclosure of his physical and psychological records in 1999, "this time around, Mr. McCain has yet to make his full medical records or his physicians available to reporters." Meanwhile, have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama released their medical records? I'm not sure either has. Bill Clinton never did release his records, either during his campaigns or while he was President. I don't recall the Times howling with indignation about that.

The Times presumably will keep trying until it finds an issue that gets some traction.

To comment on this post, go here.

Posted by John at 7:12 PM  |    |