Apparently, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are not attacking McCain with sufficient vigor (or shamelessness) for the New York Times. Thus, rather than waiting for a news story which they could breathlessly twist into an anti-McCain scandal, the Times has cunningly devised its own proactive strategy. The paper of record is running a piece today entitled, "On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain's Bout With Melanoma" - a story on the fact that no one is attacking McCain on the non-issue of his non-recurrent cancer treatment eight years ago.

Running a story on the absence of a story may seem rather ridiculous at first blush. But, when one realizes the context of the story - a lack of negative news on the Republican candidate for president in the past week - everything begins to make sense again. Thus, the Times conjures up the scariest specter it can invoke, and writes a story with no purpose but to remind voters of McCain's previous bout with cancer in an attempt to provoke fear and apprehension.

Of course, even the writers of the New York Times must eventually reveal a few facts related to their story. So, buried between all of the not-so-subtle innuendos about the potential of a recurrence of cancer during a McCain presidency, the Times admits that the chances of recurrence are very slim - and the prospect that a recurrence might prove fatal is nearly negligible.

Hence, the lack of conversation on the topic in the campaign. It would seem petty and shameful for a candidate to attack McCain on this issue, and the public would see the fear-mongering tactics for what they were immediately. But, the New York Times doesn't seem to be bother with petty matters such as reputation and decency - they have a job to do, after all.