NEW YORK CITY, NY -- The New York Times has been known as a Liberally biased publication, but last week they went too far. Last Thursday the paper, which has been suffering from declining circulation rates, placed an article on the front page assassinating the character of John McCain.

The Times implied, through a series of shady and vague innuendos, that the Arizona Senator may have had a relationship with a female lobbyist that possibly turned romantic. The problem with the paper’s credibility is the fact that the two “sources” they use remain anonymous, plus it is stated that they do not like John McCain.

The Presidential candidate, who will most likely receive the Republican nomination, quickly responded to the apparent smear campaign with a news conference. “Obviously I'm very disappointed in the article, and it's not true. This is a very disappointing event, to pick up the paper this morning, actually, to hear last night that this story was going to be appearing after months of inquiries from The New York Times.” McCain said, with his wife by his side.

Former Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich told Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor “Oh, I think deliberate character assassination…I think The New York Times is a hard-left publication desperate to defeat the Republicans. And I think that they're quite prepared to use their news pages [to do this]…”

What is so strange about the whole ordeal is that in January, The Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination. Although this does not hide the fact that they have been head of the cheer squad for the Democrats where the print press is concerned, and obviously do not want John McCain to be President.

An interesting fact which eludes to the Liberal Bias of the paper is that when Bill Clinton had his “situation” with Monica Lewinsky and also when he was accused of rape, neither of those stories took a front-page position on The New York Times. And in those cases, there was actually evidence! This newest smear is strictly a hit job.

It is out duty to give Mr. McCain the benefit of the doubt here, in a situation that is denied by both him and the lobbyist in question. Especially when the only two who can attest to it admit they do not like the man.

On the other side of the aisle, this latest smear became the topic of questions at the most recent Democratic debate. Mostly the candidates stayed quiet, saying what they should. A good example was Hillary Clinton on The Today Show.

“One moment during the debate last night, you alluded to a very personal crisis in your own life involving infidelity. So I want to ask you your opinion of what Senator McCain is going through now.” Host Meredith Vieira asked the Former First Lady.

Mrs. Clinton responded very professionally, understanding that since she had no personal connection or knowledge of this case, there was no need for her to speculate. “Well, I'm not going to comment on that. You know, Senator McCain is a friend of mine. I respect his service to our country.”

The funny thing about the whole ordeal is that the reason the paper did this was to knock down John McCain, but (I am sure much to their dismay) the day following the hit job was the biggest donation earning day for the McCain campaign. This allows me to make the conjecture that Americans are smart enough to know the truth from a sloppy so-called journalistic organization attempting a character assassination.