The Revisionist

Bill Kristol, in the print edition of this morning's New York Times:

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on "Meet the Press" that "the Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. ... What they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."

That's pretty astonishing, since there seems to be absolutely no basis for the charge. But the fact that Obama's people made this suggestion means they know McCain outperformed him.

News story in today's New York Times, print and online editions:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Senator John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California ...

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book "The Purpose Driven Life."

Bill Kristol's desperate last-minute attempt to salvage some shred of dignity by rewriting his column for the online edition of this morning's New York TImes:

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on "Meet the Press" that "the Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. ... What they're putting out privately is that McCain ... may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."

There's no evidence that McCain had any such advantage. But the fact that Obama's people made this suggestion means they know McCain outperformed him.

The only indication that the column has been revised: a small note in teensy tiny light grey type at the bottom of the page which inform us that "a version of this article appeared in print on August 18, 2008, on page A19 of the New York edition."

(Cross-posted from This Modern World.)

Comments

[STParker]

I read the original column. He cites Andrea Mitchell's agreeing with him as evidence confirming that he is not biased.

ANDREA MITCHELL!

[anon004]

Well, Bill Kristol's record remains untarnished. He is WRONG AGAIN. You don't even have to read the questions to get 25% right on a multiple choice test. How can anyone be that stupid? You have to really, really try, I guess.

[returnofthejedi]

I had a feeling something was a little strange about how that whole thing was set up. It just seemed like a sey up for Mcain to try to gain some sort of advantage. He didn't gain any sort of advantage, and both of the candidates merely said things that most people following the campaigns have already heard or read.