The McCain campaign just sent an email to their list trying to fundraise off the New York Times’ reporting of McCain’s inappropriate relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. It included this passage:

Objective observers are viewing this article exactly as they should – as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican frontrunner. Sean Hannity said, after reading the article three times, “It was so full of innuendo and so lacking of fact, and so involved in smear, I came to the conclusion that the goal here was to bring up a 20-year-old scandal.” Washington attorney Bob Bennett, who was the Democrat counsel during the Keating investigation, said, “This is a real hit job.” Joe Scarborough called the allegations “outrageous.” Even pundit Alan Colmes — not known for his conservative leanings — concludes “this is a non-story.” [Emphasis added]

Bob Bennett is neither objective nor an observer. He is the criminal lawyer McCain retained to beat back the Times story last December. He met with Times reporters Stephen Labaton, Jim Rutenberg, and Marilyn Thompson in an effort to dissuade them from publishing this story and to answer questions about McCain’s relationship with Iseman. Last night, Bennett was the primary McCain surrogate on news networks attacking the Times’ reporting and defending McCain.

I do not know of a single definition of the words “objective” or “observer” that fits Bob Bennett’s role in this case. He is a paid partisan who has proactively been a part of this story since December. The McCain campaign’s description of Bennett is laughable.

…The McCain email also falsely describes MoveOn.org as a “soft money PAC.” They’re actually a hard money PAC and they disclose the source of every donation over $200. You’d think McCain campaign would know the difference between soft and hard money, as his campaign finance legislation had something to do with how these entities handle disclosure.