Remember how the New York Times went into high dudgeon in May when then-presumptive Republican nominee John McCain had not released his medical records in a timely enough fashion to please their editorial board?Â “No presidential candidate,” the old gray lady inveighed, “should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.”
Even though McCain did release 1,200 pages of those records, that wasn’t enough for the Times editors who wanted to be able to photocopy them, presumably so they could scan them and post them on the web. (Though they claim they just wanted to “ask other experts what the medical findings might imply.”)
Now, Obama’s “campaign has released only a single page of information about his health history” (via the Jewish Athena). In an editorial yesterday, the Times observes: “Senator Barack Obama has put out such meager information that voters have to take it largely on his campaign’s say-so that he is in good health.” What is striking about this editorial is that while McCain has been far more forthcoming with his medical records than Obama, the editors dwell less on the Democrat’s withholding information than on the need to have “nominees . . . disclose all of their relevant health records.”
The Times goes into high dudgeon when a Republican doesn’t release his records when they want them, but faults both candidates when the Democrat puts out meager information.