John McCain and Vicki Iseman, Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin; Rumors Abound, but to What End?

John McCain's political involvement with lobbyist Vicki Iseman in the past has been revived in the New York Times by a four-author team as part of an article suggesting that his ethics efforts are in some degree hypocritical, relayed on the BBC's website and other places. As the race for president is nudged from issues that directly affect Americans to sex scandals, I thought of a name which has so far avoided the mainstream media spotlight in Hillary Clinton's camp, so it's probably unfamiliar to most Americans. Interestingly, Big Head DC reports that that name - Huma Abedin - has on its own merits been leading Vicki Iseman's name in Google searches, reaching "volcanic" level and revealing another Internet "end-run" of the regular media.

Are the arbiters of national cynicism trying to detour the race into tabloid territory? Perhaps sex scandals are easier to cover than complex national and international issues, but it's hard to imagine what benefit will come from pulling McCain's supposed skeleton out once again and rehashing it, and at the same time apparently awakening a so-far avoided "scandal" of rumors about Hillary Clinton and her "mysterious" aide, Ms. Abedin. In fact, the L.A. Times is said by some to have chosen not to write about the rumors concerning Clinton, and the Wikipedia entry on Huma Abedin has been the target of an ongoing battle about how much information to publish about her, with the current entry reduced to not much more than the proverbial "name, rank and serial number."

Perhaps a couple of decades as a voter and a leaning towards individual responsibility which is labeled "conservative" in our society might give me a jaded point of view. While I could find a dozen reasons to criticize Bill Clinton for his egregious sexual behavior in the white house, whether it was directly unethical or not, I subscribe to the "glass houses" theory of politics, or the Biblical "first stone" point of view. Both of these show that sitting smugly in judgment pales in comparison to encouraging talented people to do great work. If the major media decide to go the scandal and muckraking route, the election as we know it will be put on hold as we switch our televisions from PBS to Jerry Springer.

Political figures - and citizens alike - should aspire to the highest quality of character and behavior, but that standard becomes meaningless when it becomes absolute. Even heroic figure President John F. Kennedy is said to have given in to sexual temptation. Both John McCain's and Hillary Clinton's supposed liaisons could theoretically subject their decisions as United States Senators and possible future Presidents to influence from non-public interests, it's true. In McCain's case, Iseman's clients, in Abedin's case, her vague Middle East connections heat up the rumors, but either way, no one wins but the media.

If Americans are looking for change, they should vote for the media that gives them the most useful information in making their decision. I am looking to find out who has the best perspective on the economy, healthcare, and the well being of the United States as a country, understands how to implement their ideas in a restrained fashion, and is committed to morality and ethics. No matter how tempting it is to lose perspective when rumors and "scandal" material are published, I still believe that with what looks like three choices remaining as our possible next President, we'd better have our priorities straight as we follow the news and evaluate candidates for our next leader.

"For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk", Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"McCain Denies Lobbyist Allegation", http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7257051.stm

"Huma Abedin", http://bigheaddc.com/category/huma-abedin/

"Huma Abedin", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin